Subject: Re: [ecasound] interesting and relevant(?) link
From: Jeremy Hall (jhall@UU.NET )
Date: Wed Mar 15 2000 - 05:25:48 EET
oh yes, the faster the bitrate, the easier it is to encode. the more disk
space it eats too.
I'd recommend the latest lame versions, as several speed enhancements have
gone into lame without quality sacrefices.
In the new year, Kimmo Koli wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > here is a technical comparison of several mp3 encoders
> > http://arstechnica.com/wankerdesk/1q00/mp3/mp3-3.html
> Interesting indeed. So with what bitrate ecasound in using in
> mp3-output. I just broke my motherboard and the new one has a 512kB cache
> while the old had 1024kB. This lead to over 90% processor time for lame
> in my 350MHz AMD K6/2 while with the old board with the bigger cache lame
> took less than 80%. I guess that compressing to 256k bitrate would be
> easier for the processor that 128k bitrate. And as we know now the sound
> quality would be much better then.
> Best regards,
> Kimmo Koli Helsinki University of Technology
> email@example.com Electronic Circuit Design Laboratory
> http://www.ecdl.hut.fi/~kimmo P.O.Box 3000
> Tel: +358 9 451 2273 FIN-02015 HUT
> Fax: +358 9 451 2269 Finland
> To unsubscribe send message 'unsubscribe' in the body of the
> message to <firstname.lastname@example.org>.
-- To unsubscribe send message 'unsubscribe' in the body of the message to <email@example.com>.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Wed Mar 15 2000 - 05:29:27 EET