Hi all, I've just posted another version of vorb_enc.dll (w/source code) at http://xtractor.sourceforge.net/vorbdll-20000626.zip It will still work as a drop-in replacement for bladeenc.dll (just rename the files that your ripper creates from MP3 to OGG), but will also accept info for the ogg comment header in the vorb struct in the format union of the BE_CONFIG struct. I'll be releasing an updated version of my ripper that uses the DLL tomorrow. -Andy ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/
Hello everyone,> It will still work as a drop-in replacement for bladeenc.dllwhile I like the idea of one interface for all those great audio encoders, am I the only one who thinks that the BladeEnc interface is pushed beyond its limits? Just look at lame_enc, and compare that with all the options lame offers - there are a lot of them missing. Wouldn't it be a good time to come up with something like a "Common Encoder Interface", where BladeEnc, Lame, Vorbis and perhaps FAAC would fit in better? Just a thought... Regards, Holger Dors mailto:dors@kittelberger.de --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/
Sounds like a good plan to me... however, I'd like to make a counter suggestion. How about a Superset of the BladeEnc interface? Maybe the new spec should allow the old interface to work for "broken" / "old" clients... but should be adaptable for new clients that want to support the bigger/better spec. Just a suggestion, John On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:43:40 +0200 Holger Dors wrote:> Hello everyone, > > > It will still work as a drop-in replacement for bladeenc.dll > while I like the idea of one interface for all those great audio > encoders, am I the only one who thinks that the BladeEnc interface is > pushed beyond its limits? Just look at lame_enc, and compare that with > all the options lame offers - there are a lot of them missing. > > Wouldn't it be a good time to come up with something like a "Common > Encoder Interface", where BladeEnc, Lame, Vorbis and perhaps FAAC > would fit in better? > > Just a thought... > > Regards, > Holger Dors mailto:dors@kittelberger.de > > > > --- >8 ---- > List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ > Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ >--------------------------------------------------------- This message sent using EMUmail -- http://www.emumail.com --------------------------------------------------------- Looking for the best deals available on the Net? Try the Valet: http://valet.flycast.com/valet/info/fc0494/?62741 --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/
>while I like the idea of one interface for all those great audio >encoders, am I the only one who thinks that the BladeEnc interface is >pushed beyond its limits? Just look at lame_enc, and compare that with >all the options lame offers - there are a lot of them missing.Actually, looking at the source to the original BladeEnc dll wrapper, it appears to have been just a quick hack to make something work -- it can only return one encoder stream handle at a time, etc. Lame_enc.dll, while a bit better, suffers the same problem.>Wouldn't it be a good time to come up with something like a "Common >Encoder Interface", where BladeEnc, Lame, Vorbis and perhaps FAAC >would fit in better?I've thought about this from time to time as well. Instead of passing a structure to a DLL interface, it would be better to call a generic function to get an encoder stream handle, and then call a "SetOption" function to actually set the available options. Something like: hEnc = GetEncoderHandle( ENC_LAME ); SetIntOption( hEnc, ENC_OPT_CBITRATE, 192 ); SetIntOption( hEnc, ENC_OPT_VBITRATE, 256 ); SetIntOption( hEnc, ENC_OPT_ENABLEVBR, 1 ); SetAsciiOption( hEnc, ENC_OPT_ARTIST, "Goo and the Goo Band" ); ... and so on. Another possibility is to define a COM interface, but that's unfortunately pretty Windows-centric. This method has the advantage that it's not tied to any one operating system (like COM). -Andy ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/
How about a call in the DLL which would return all the
supported options ?
Like :
GetEncoderOption(SOME_ENCODER) returns :
{
"bitrate","32|64|96|112|128|160",
"channel_mode","mono|stereo|jstereo",
"quality","high|low",
"read_mind","yes|no|guess",
}
then the GUI display this , the user selects and then the
selection is returned to the DLL.
The exact format of the options should be... XML ? :-)
Maybe some structure, involving a lot of strings (
help and descriptions would be welcome too ).
Ultra flexible :-)
David Balazic
--- >8 ----
List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/
Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/