similar to: Some very early RC1 results

Hello all, I'm glad to announce to you that Vorbis now has full ReplayGain support. If you're not familiar with ReplayGain, take a look at www.replaygain.org. The main features are: a) all songs play back with equal loudness b) removes the need for normalization c) allows for clipping prevention Using it is very simple. Get a compatible decoder (ogg123, XMMS and WinAmp all support it

Hi! I am very pleased with the progress that Ogg is making, expecially after I read the latest comparision tests on http://ff123.net/128test/instruct.html that put OGG on top aside with MPC. BUT the APPLAUD.WAV test case ( http://lame.sourceforge.net/download/samples/applaud.wav ) still produces **VERY** easily audible high-frequency artifacts when encoded with OGG RC3 up to q4.9 (!!!). Things

Hi all, I have implemented ReplayGain support for Vorbis. If you are not familiar with it, it is basically a method of making sure all your files have equal loudness, remove the need for normalization and prevent clipping during playback. The process is totally lossless, and supporting it requires minimal work. More info about the exact workings can be found on www.replaygain.org (recommended

After doing an informal (128k) listening test, I have concluded that I prefer Beta4 over RC2. The 16kHz low-pass on the RC2 encoder makes it sound like FM radio. Both encoders SEEM to have a couple of dB bump at 10kHz. JT --- >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

And thats only a player. What about an (Open Source) encoder? Nah, I'll stick with OGG for the time being. Regards, Mark -- Mark de Bokx Internet Service Engineer ICT Communication and Media Services PlanetMediaGroup the Netherlands "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty not safety." --Benjamin Franklin

Hi all, ome people asked if it was possible to make an even higher quality mode by incorporating some of the changes from the first tuned version into the 350kbps mode. I did so and made a new version with this new mode. It gives bitrates from roughly 300-350kbps. That's a lot, but it also gets very hard to find something it artifacts on :) Should be sufficient for archival quality. In

I came across an interesting test sample the other day while trying to compress some of my music and trying out different encoders. You can grab the sample in question from here: http://www.animus-facticius.org drone_clip.zip is a 9 second clip of the track where the artifact is most apparent, drone_short.pac is a 1 minute clip of track. The sample is from the song "Drone" from

In case you missed it, RC2 is on slashdot.org too: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/08/13/1811241 BTW Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote on /. that RC3 should appear very soon (in a week or so)? Also, it looks like Wall Street Journal article is not available on-line (at least to non-registered persons). If someone is registered or have a paper edition, please post this article somewhere so that we

---------- > Van: ORK <korsmo@solungen.hm.no> > Aan: vorbis@xiph.org > Onderwerp: [vorbis] OggEnc help file > Datum: maandag 3 september 2001 18:21 > > Somebody asked how to use OggEnc a while ago. > > OggEnc v0.8 (libvorbis rc2) > (c) 2001 Michael Smith <msmith@labyrinth.net.au) > > Usage: oggenc [options] input.wav [...] LOL! --- >8 ---- List

As far as I can see, transcoding could be usefull for people who do not primarly care about quality but about filesizes. One could assume that such a user would have a collection of mp3's at 128kbps or higher bitrates, and uses an encoder like BladeEnc or Xing. He wants to take uses of ogg's supposed quality and transcode his 128-or-higher files into 96 or 112kbps oggs to save diskspace.

I would very much like a lowpass option because for FM radio broadcasting I don't want to encode frequencies above 15khz. I'm waiting for this option before switching to ogg from mp3(lame). Ross. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-vorbis@xiph.org [mailto:owner-vorbis@xiph.org]On Behalf Of > Gian-Carlo Pascutto > Sent: Tuesday, 4 September 2001 01:46 > To:

Hello -- I desperately want to start using Ogg compression on music I release on the internet, but I am encountering a fair amount of artifacts. I noticed some in beta4 and was hoping they would disappear with RC1. However, I've been playing with RC2 and I've still been banging my head into a number of problems. A majority of the music I make has long drones with a fair amount of spectral

On 2/7/2017 20:02, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > ... > > My understanding is that BNDCU is the cheapest possible instruction, > just like XOR or ADD, > so the overhead should be relatively small. > Still my guesstimate would be >= 5% since stores are very numerous. > And such overhead will be on top of whatever overhead SafeStack has. > Do you have any measurements to

Hi David, > Hi Snehasish, thanks for writing up the proposal. > > As it stands today, path profiling still has serious scalability issue that > prevents it from being usable by any optimization passes that may benefit > from it. I agree; it would be an interesting to see how we can reduce the overheads to bring it within acceptable limits. > It will be interesting to see how

I'm going to encode ~2000 CDs soon. All genres, but 90% of it has distorted guitars... Everything from punkrock to metal to industrial to goth to synthpop to classical to techno to whatever... I've heard that RC2 has some hearable artifacts, even in 192/256 kbps... There have been quite a few "bugreports" since RC2 with people sending samples that even I can differ from the

Hi Snehasish, thanks for writing up the proposal. As it stands today, path profiling still has serious scalability issue that prevents it from being usable by any optimization passes that may benefit from it. On the other hand, sampling based approach can still be promising. For instance, LBR can potentially together with static CFG constructed from the binary can be used to form path(let)

Hi David, > Are the data below all collected when only one function is picked for > instrumentation? Yes, here is a list of the benchmarks and selected functions. +-----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | blks | _Z19BlkSchlsEqEuroNoDivfffffif |

dear LLVMers, I am trying to use some of the LLVM alias analyses, and I would like to check two things with you: is scev-aa being maintained in LLVM 3.7? Second question: I run cfl-aa, and I got a very small number of pointer disambiguation (no alias) with it. My results for SPEC CINT 2006 follow below. Is this low number of no alias responses something to be excepted? Below the results that I

Hi! Propably a stupid question, but where can I get those brandnew encoders from? It'd be great if someone could post those URLs to the list for people like me who don't read any forums (no time, no fun :P). Thanks in advance! Obtw, CVS would be fine, too ... but as long as the new code isn't merged to the main branch I feel pretty lost searching for it. Any help here would also be

Hi! I would like to share with you an interesting test result. I re-encoded a song 10 times (the 2. made from the 1., the 3. made from the 2.,... the 10. made from the 9.), with a beta4 (CVS 20010620) and with an RC2 (CVS 20010817) library version, 256 kbit/s mode, channel coupling disabled at RC2. The beta4 is very good at the 10. encoding too, but the RC2 has some interesting quality bugs. So,