r the years and doesn't bear much resemblance
to dist 10 anymore...
-Bill Kincaid
iTunes
on 10/21/03 7:17 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Try to use EncSpot on a file taken from iTunes.
> The author is not developing any more the software, has there's no new
e you choose is the minimum- I personally like 160.
I also suggest you give AAC a try!
-Bill
on 10/21/03 11:50 AM, Richard Brockie at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Bill Kincaid said:
>> Don't bother. The iTunes MP3 encoder was written pretty much from scratch,
>>
Sure! I'd be curious myself. As a side note, during development of the
iTunes encoder we wrote an analyzer which we used a lot to gain insights
into not only what our own encoder was doing but also Fraunhofer's, LAME,
etc.. Our benchmark was always Fh but I gather LAME may have overtaken
them.
ay that
> someone has asked precisely the same question I intended to ask... and
> thank you Bill Kincaid for the answer =^.^=
>
> My question (which I suppose could be directed toward Mr. Kincaid,
> considering his position) was if iTunes' mp3 encoding capability has
> impro
Interesting. I looked at these encodings with our analysis tool and the
thing that stands out in comparing the Q0 to Q9 encodings is that the Q9
does no amplifications at all (scalefactors all zero). The ProTools
encoding also does less amplification (no scalefac_scale use) and manages
the bit re
For what it's worth, in iTunes we do it exactly as LAME does. This
is probably for historical reasons- I can't think of a strong reason
either way. The whole XING VBR descriptor was an ad-hoc solution,
minimally documented. Useful to be sure but not meticulously
engineered.
-Bill
On J
