From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/18285 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: all you MP3 people out there... a fix for lars! Date: 29 Oct 1998 08:21:19 +0100 Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: References: <86vhl48scz.fsf@kramer-fast.bp.aventail.com> <86n26g5gb5.fsf@kramer-fast.bp.aventail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035156835 5317 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 23:33:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 23:33:55 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: from fisher.math.uh.edu (fisher.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.35]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA05301 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 03:19:47 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (lists@Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by fisher.math.uh.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id CAB02615; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 02:19:37 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Thu, 29 Oct 1998 02:19:27 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com (root@sclp3.sclp.com [209.195.19.139]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA17995 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 02:19:16 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from sparky.gnus.org (ppp067.uio.no [129.240.240.72]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA05292 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 03:19:12 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: (from larsi@localhost) by sparky.gnus.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA04777; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 09:19:05 +0100 Mail-Copies-To: never X-Now-Reading: Ursula K. Le Guin & Virginia Kidd (ed.)'s _Interfaces_ Original-To: ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: Harald Meland's message of "29 Oct 1998 03:11:13 +0100" User-Agent: Gnus/5.070041 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.41) Emacs/20.3 X-Face: &w!^oO~dS|}-P0~ge{$c!h\ writes: > I'd guess Lars is using L.A.M.E., found on > . I'm actually using Mike Cheng's version of 8hz, but that's the same thing, only different. > (Just guesswork, of course, but he _is_ getting thanks in the NEWS > section :-) I had to do *something* to relax before the Gnus talk a couple of weeks ago, so I hacked away at LAME. :-) > L.A.M.E. also claims to be much faster than BladeEnc, whereas BladeEnc > seems to be claiming the opposite :) Here are the tests I did; 8hz and LAME are virtually identical speed-wise. orig.wav (/ 56812604.0 (* 44100.0 4)) => 322.07 blade-128.mp3 (/ (+ (* 29 60) 18) 322.07) => 5.46 8hz-128.mp3 (/ (+ (* 18 60) 54) 322.07) => 3.52 encode-128.mp3 (/ (+ (* 25 60) 95) 322.07) => 4.95 blade-256.mp3 (/ (+ (* 24 60) 16) 322.07) => 4.52 8hz-256.mp3 (/ (+ (* 18 60) 6) 322.07) => 3.37 encode-256.mp3 (/ (+ (* 20 60) 31) 322.07) => 3.822 m3enc-128.mp3 (/ (+ (* 9 60) 39) 30) => 19 This is on a K6. These number say that 8hz compresses at a 3.52:1 time rate, while blade does it on a 5.46:1 rate, which means that blade is, er, 70% slower than 8hz. This is with Cheng's version of 8hz, mind you -- the original 8hz version from the 8hz people is slower. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen