Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 07:59:02 -0500 (CDT) From: <mestery@visi.com> To: Ville-Pertti Keinonen <will@iki.fi> Cc: freebsd-multimedia@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Gogo vs. Bladeenc, Part II Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.9907290757130.1075-100000@isis.visi.com> In-Reply-To: <86lnbzodjg.fsf@not.demophon.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 29 Jul 1999, Ville-Pertti Keinonen wrote: > > <mestery@visi.com> writes: > > > (FYI, this was encoding a song that was 3:34 seconds long a dual PPro > > machine with 128MB RAM.) I'm getting about 1.17:1 compression times with > > Gogo, which is amazing to me since I previously used bladeenc, which > > gave me 2-3:1 times. And there is no difference in the output quality. > > Is it just as bad, then? > They produce fine quality audio. I am definetly not an audiophile, but the mp3s they generate are CD quality to me, and I do 128kbit/s. > In many of these cases, LAME produces better output. I've yet to find > any cases where LAME would be worse, although I can sometimes hear > audible degradation compared to CD-quality. > Hmmm, I had neglected to try LAME. I'll give it a shot after work tonite and post the results as to how it works, and the quality it produces. I'm assuming it will be about as fast as Bladeenc, if not slower? > Note that I almost always listen to music using headphones. You can't > necessarily hear the differences in mp3 quality at 128kbit/s using > typical stereos (or even worse, "computer speakers") over the noise of > your computer. > Point taken. -- Kyle Mestery | StorageTek's Storage Networking Group mestery@visi.com | http://www.freebsd.org/ mestery@netwinder.org | http://www.netwinder.org/ Protect your right to privacy: www.freecrypto.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-multimedia" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.10.9907290757130.1075-100000>