On 2002-01-04, Geoff Shang wrote:
> Hi:
>
> I just wanted to know where exactly the problem with re-encoding in RC2
> was. Was it in vorbis' ability to cope well with its own output as
input,
> or did the first encode produce output that didn't lend itself to
> re-encoding?
>
> The difference is important. If it's the latter, anyone wanting to
> re-encode material will have to first encode it with RC3. I guess what
I'm
> asking is, will material intended for re-encoding at lower rates etc, need
> to be encoded again under RC3 or will material encoded under RC2 perform OK
> now?
>
Why would you re-encode vorbis in order create a lower-rate version? For
vorbis features the bitrate-peeling capability. You shouldn't re-encode
unless you need lower-quality versions today. There are yet no tools for
doing the peeling but files produced by surely RC2 and I think RC1 too,
are suitable for (future) peeling. It was even promised that it would
eventually be possible to take and old unsitable file (e.g. beta3) and
re-arrange it losslessly, without re-encoding, to make them peelable.
--
Beni Cherniavsky <cben@tx.technion.ac.il>
(also scben@t2 in Technion)
Happy new 2 (mod 100).
<p>--- >8 ----
List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/
Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to
'vorbis-request@xiph.org'
containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is
needed.
Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.