From: Dmitry <ku...@jt...> - 2001-09-08 19:27:52
|
lcrlsn> Message: 4 lcrlsn> Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 18:21:02 +0200 lcrlsn> From: Roel VdB <vd...@yu...> lcrlsn> Reply-To: Roel VdB <vd...@yu...> lcrlsn> To: lam...@li... lcrlsn> Subject: Re[2]: [Lame-cvs] Automated lame test lcrlsn> VBR and ABR already had a Xing-clone-tag in front of them. The LAME lcrlsn> Tag is exactly the same, only with a few extra bytes. lcrlsn> lcrlsn> CBR on the other hand, never HAD an extra tag, so this translates all lcrlsn> data in position a frame => big dif. While on the VBR and ABR lcrlsn> comparison only those few bits changed. lcrlsn> lcrlsn> You are correct about this "adding CRC should not come up with lcrlsn> --quiet". lcrlsn> lcrlsn> However, just add "-t" for the diff tests and no tag of any kind lcrlsn> interferes with the music data. WOW!!! i don't like this at all!!! i don't like writting xing header in cbr mode by default!!! please remove it! i think this is really ugly! it's ok by default in abr and vbr as we already have xing header there but in cbr it reduces compatibility!!! Best regards, Dmitry mail to: ku...@jt... http://mitiok.cjb.net/ |
From: Jonathan D. <de...@ca...> - 2001-09-08 22:19:52
|
> WOW!!! i don't like this at all!!! i don't like writting xing header > in cbr mode by default!!! please remove it! i think this is really > ugly! it's ok by default in abr and vbr as we already have xing header > there but in cbr it reduces compatibility!!! > > I thought the same thing at first, but I was persuaded otherwise... The only time one might get a compatibility issue is if a decoder sees the tag, recognises the XING string, and stops for just that reason. The frame is a valid mpeg frame, so is compatible with the standard.... For CBR files, the frame containing the Lame Tag is the same bitrate as the subsequent frames, so the bitrate should be reported correctly for all decoders.... The benefits of having this tag are significant: you get the 'music CRC' which is very useful for determining whether the file is corrupt or not... as well as lots of other useful information. What does everyone else think? My personal vote is to keep it, but if everyone's against it then I'll happily remove it (from CBR files) with no complaints:) Also if people have concrete examples of the tag causing compatibility issues then that decides the matter... cheers, -jon |
From: Dmitry <ku...@jt...> - 2001-09-08 22:31:55
|
Sunday, September 09, 2001, 1:05:49 AM, Roel wrote: RV> It does NOT (!!) reduce compatibility in any way as it's a standard mp3 RV> frame at the _same_ size of the rest of the CBR stream. RV> Please inform yourself before making such hasty conclusions. i'm not idiot, thanks i knew this! RV> I'm sorry, but NOT defaulting it also in CBR would annihilate the RV> whole idea and use of this header. no, those people who want to use it may add it RV> Now the LAME Tag is here, it'd be useless if it's not defaulted. why if it's possible to add it? RV> However, if you, after being informed, still feel the header being RV> "ugly" weighs up against all this, please add "-t" for your own use. RV> Beside being "ugly" to some people there are only benefits to this RV> frame. once again, advanced users if they want, may add it, but it is really strange idea to insert xing header to cbr mp3's by default. it's not safe. sorry, i don't know english so well but this idea really shocks me! please, somebody else, your opinions?!?!? Best regards, Dmitry mail to: ku...@jt... http://mitiok.cjb.net/ |
From: Roel V. <vd...@yu...> - 2001-09-08 23:01:45
|
RV>> Now the LAME Tag is here, it'd be useless if it's not defaulted. D> why if it's possible to add it? in the real world many users don't bother to read docs and sure will not add some header for for them obscure reasons. If this tag is default, as should be, people that know it's there (a minority) will take trust in the fact knowing that a lot of knowledgable people at lamedev thought it over and found this tag in best interest to be in there defaulted. the only way all these advantages of the header will be effective is if that one frame is in all LAME files by default. the reason for this is it clearly adds in quality and functionality and comes at no cost, aside being ugly to you and compatibily concerns, which are not really a problem, as they have been tested. give me some founded motivation and argumenting WHY you feel you should undo at least three months of work from me and others? I'm trying to offer a lot of handy functionalities to a very, very large audience, and I don't see any arguments against. let me sketch the situation as it is now, anno 2001: + a LOT of people are using mp3's to store music in a digital form + a LOT of people exchange that music with others + most people aware of mp3 quality issues are using LAME. (try any mp3 share tool like gnutella, imesh and download a few 256-320kbit/s files) short: many people combining an interest in mp3 AND quality are using LAME. It does not look as nice as some other encoders, so they must be using it for quality concerns. Now, ALL of these, would like + a good CRC + a length exact decode + the possibility to playback all their files at equal loudness surely if they know it comes at no real cost at all! I know this from being in the trenches for more than a year now. So instead of sending me out for the impossible task of having to personally convince every single mp3 user in the galaxy that this tag is good for them and disregarding the work some and I did the last months. I understand the concerns, but please just take a critical look at this, test it, and you will find it no problem at al. I can imagine there are some situations where a tag is not opportune, and in this case it's no biggy to add "-t". kind regards, Roel |
From: Jonathan D. <de...@ca...> - 2001-09-08 22:59:39
|
> once again, advanced users if they want, may add it, but it is really > strange idea to insert xing header to cbr mp3's by default. it's not > safe. sorry, i don't know english so well but this idea really shocks > me! please, somebody else, your opinions?!?!? > it's strange because it hasn't been done before... I agree. But that doesn't mean it's bad.... Here's an idea: why don't we just keep it in by default for a while and see if anyone finds any compatibility issues. I mean the purpose of alpha builds is to experiment, in some sense. I could explicitly _ask_ people to check whether there are any problems with their portable devices etc. If not then I don't see any problem. I agree that if the Lame Tag isn't on by default for CBR files, then we may as well remove it for CBR files, because noone will think to add a switch for this.... cheers, -jon |
From: Dmitry <ku...@jt...> - 2001-09-08 23:49:46
|
Hello Roel, Roel, thanks, i already understand your opinion, i'm waiting for others...... RV> in the real world many users don't bother to read docs and sure will RV> not add some header for for them obscure reasons. that's why it's a strange idea to put xing header where it never was before. have you ever received mails with question is lame based on xing engine as it put world 'xing' in the biginning? i have! RV> I understand the concerns, but please just take a critical look at RV> this, test it, and you will find it no problem at al. i don't think so Best regards, Dmitry mail to: ku...@jt... http://mitiok.cjb.net/ |
From: Roel V. <vd...@yu...> - 2001-09-09 00:27:02
|
Hello Dmitry, Sunday, September 09, 2001, 2:32:31 AM, you wrote: D> Hello Roel, D> Roel, thanks, i already understand your opinion, i'm waiting for D> others...... I expected the initial scepticism. Is only normal I think. I'm quite convinced most of this will go away after a thorough inspection of the LAME Tag. RV>> in the real world many users don't bother to read docs and sure will RV>> not add some header for for them obscure reasons. D> that's why it's a strange idea to put xing header where it never was D> before. have you ever received mails with question is lame based on D> xing engine as it put world 'xing' in the biginning? i have! well, as you know I'm also regularly confronted with questions of users. What you describe are just questions. They can be easily resolved by giving people information (or sending them to my forum, as you do now). The problems this LAME Tag tackles (loudness, exact length, exact crc, quality verification of VBR) _cannot_ be simply resolved by informing people. At the time a soul inquires for any of these features, it should _already_ be in the available mp3's. This is a policy of foreseeing potential needs of users. It wouldn't have much effect or use at all to let sites like mine inform users in adding "--addtag" because it'll never catch on and be of significant effect. All these features require the tag to be IN the file the user is looking at at the time he asks the question. I don't find the few extra questions worth not having these advantages for a huge audience. Also, I'm planning to clean that spec page up and it'll go in the LAME docs. I'll add some better examples and a clear explanation. So if they bother you again, just send them over to my forum, which should fix your problem. :) -- Best regards, Roel mailto:vd...@yu... |
From: Alexander L. <Alexander@Leidinger.net> - 2001-09-09 13:33:47
|
On 9 Sep, Roel VdB wrote: > The problems this LAME Tag tackles (loudness, exact length, exact crc, > quality verification of VBR) > > _cannot_ be simply resolved by informing people. I agree with Roel. As long as this doesn't reduces compatibility I didn't see any reason to not include the tag by default. Have a look into the discussion about what users lame may have (even if they didn't know the are using lame to make some mp3s) and you may see why adding the tag by default would be an improvement. > I don't find the few extra questions worth not having these > advantages for a huge audience. Does it break the playback of Movies which are produced with some help of some Windows DLLs which use lame? I'm not asking "may it break", I'm interested in the actual facts. You should maybe make a poll in your forum / on the mp3encoder list if there are some people which use lame for such work. I didn't expect pure mp3 players to break (except they are lame (:-)) mp3 players, but in this case you may have other problems with them already). Bye, Alexander. -- Where do you think you're going today? http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7 |
From: Roel V. <vd...@yu...> - 2001-09-09 13:57:07
|
Hello Alexander, Sunday, September 09, 2001, 2:09:21 PM, you wrote: AL> Does it break the playback of Movies which are produced with some help AL> of some Windows DLLs which use lame? I'm not asking "may it break", I'm AL> interested in the actual facts. You should maybe make a poll in your AL> forum / on the mp3encoder list if there are some people which use lame AL> for such work. AL> I didn't expect pure mp3 players to break (except they are lame (:-)) AL> mp3 players, but in this case you may have other problems with them AL> already). it shouldn't. When Video and audio stream in DiVX movies are muxed together this happens of a frame basis. But even if this didn't happen I don't see why this should happen. The LAME Tag is just a regular 100% mp3 compatible frame and in the worst case scenario it adds 26ms to the start of the track. Since mp3 (uptil now, using the tag) never was 100% exact (encoder delays differ), it will make no difference. Either the info is used, or all stays the same. You can verify this. win32 scenario: 1) load up a divx in virtualdub (actually, nandub or that check-bad-frame version, if you want to mux VBR) (doom9.org) 2) direct stream copy for audio. 3) Save wav 4) rename to *.mp3 or *.ac3 5) decode with appropriate decoder (lame --decode or Azid) 6) encode with lame, incl the header 7) load the DIVX again in the vdub 8) direct stream audio and video 9) audio menu, "mp3" 10) select the mp3 and see how it's muxed (is that from multiplexed?) with the video 11) watch the movie did this recently when I converted an AC3 rip of enemy at the gates to --r3mix VBR and added that track. That mp3 also contained the Xing header and it plays perfectly. You DO need nandub or the modified bad frame finder version of virtualdub to mux VBR/ABR. check http://doom9.org for tutorials greets, Roel |
From: Dmitry <ku...@jt...> - 2001-09-08 23:49:46
|
Hello Jonathan, Sunday, September 09, 2001, 2:00:29 AM, you wrote: JD> it's strange because it hasn't been done before... I agree. But that doesn't JD> mean it's bad.... JD> Here's an idea: why don't we just keep it in by default for a while and see JD> if anyone finds any compatibility issues. I mean the purpose of alpha builds JD> is to experiment, in some sense. JD> I could explicitly _ask_ people to check whether there are any problems with JD> their portable devices etc. JD> If not then I don't see any problem. JD> I agree that if the Lame Tag isn't on by default for CBR files, then we may JD> as well remove it for CBR files, JD> because noone will think to add a switch for this.... i'm afraid you don't understand what is end user i received more than hundred mails with question why lames insert 'xing' in the beginning why lame inserts UUUUUUUUUUUU in some frames, and question could i compile non mmx version etc.... thanks. i think that most lame users already use roel's --r3mix, as they used fhg's cd-quality 128kb/s before. and there is no problem with this extended tag in abr/vbr. but not in cbr.... ok thanks and sorry me!!! please, could somedy else give their opinions? i don't want to have this tag in cbr by default, but i don't want to hack lame and take it off for my page much more Best regards, Dmitry mail to: ku...@jt... http://mitiok.cjb.net/ |
From: Alexander L. <Alexander@Leidinger.net> - 2001-09-09 13:33:45
|
On 9 Sep, Dmitry wrote: > i'm afraid you don't understand what is end user i received more than > hundred mails with question why lames insert 'xing' in the beginning > why lame inserts UUUUUUUUUUUU in some frames, and question could i > compile non mmx version etc.... Do you have a FAQ on your site? If yes, point them to it, maybe answer the most submitted question on the download page. If not, thell us the FAQ and we but answers to them on the lame webpages. You have just to inform the people at the download page to loke there. > thanks. i think that most lame users already use roel's --r3mix, as > they used fhg's cd-quality 128kb/s before. and there is no problem > with this extended tag in abr/vbr. > > but not in cbr.... Can you come up with a technical reason (I just noticed "emotional" reasons from you, maybe I overlooked something). > ok thanks and sorry me!!! please, could somedy else give their > opinions? If nobody else cares to comment, you may have lost (except if compatibility pop up). Bye, Alexander. -- "One world, one web, one program" -- Microsoft promotional ad "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer" -- Adolf Hitler http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7 |
From: Dmitry <ku...@jt...> - 2001-09-09 15:06:37
|
Hello Alexander, Sunday, September 09, 2001, 3:17:41 PM, you wrote: >> i'm afraid you don't understand what is end user i received more than >> hundred mails with question why lames insert 'xing' in the beginning >> why lame inserts UUUUUUUUUUUU in some frames, and question could i >> compile non mmx version etc.... AL> Do you have a FAQ on your site? firstly i don't have site, i have a small page, secondly i don't have FAQ on it AL> If not, thell us the FAQ and we but answers to them on the lame AL> webpages. You have just to inform the people at the download page to AL> loke there. sorry, i can't find in dictionary words 'thell' & 'loke' and i don't understand where are typos if they are... AL> Can you come up with a technical reason (I just noticed "emotional" AL> reasons from you, maybe I overlooked something). i think 1) it's not safe 2) this may disturb some people AL> If nobody else cares to comment, you may have lost (except if AL> compatibility pop up). may be, than sorry again. why not to make this first frame with word 'lame' instead 'xing' in CBR mode in this case no program will detect this frame as xing header, but only as a frame with silence. may be this would be better in some cases sorry that i am afraid of xing header in cbr files, as i understand it's only my problem...... Best regards, Dmitry mail to: ku...@jt... http://mitiok.cjb.net/ |
From: Alexander L. <Alexander@Leidinger.net> - 2001-09-09 18:37:49
|
On 9 Sep, Dmitry wrote: > AL> If not, thell us the FAQ and we but answers to them on the lame > AL> webpages. You have just to inform the people at the download page to > AL> loke there. > sorry, i can't find in dictionary words 'thell' & 'loke' and i don't > understand where are typos if they are... Ooops, sorry. 'thell' -> 'tell', 'loke' -> 'look', and 'but' -> 'put' > AL> Can you come up with a technical reason (I just noticed "emotional" > AL> reasons from you, maybe I overlooked something). > i think 1) it's not safe 2) this may disturb some people 1) why? 2) the people which may notice it, and which may be disturbed, should be able to add the switch to disable the tag > AL> If nobody else cares to comment, you may have lost (except if > AL> compatibility pop up). > > may be, than sorry again. Feel free to complain whenever you want. Discussion about everything is important. Bye, Alexander. -- I believe the technical term is "Oops!" http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7 |
From: Roel V. <vd...@yu...> - 2001-09-09 18:41:50
|
Sunday, September 09, 2001, 6:03:28 PM, Dmitry wrote: D> why not to make this first frame with word 'lame' instead 'xing' in D> CBR mode in this case no program will detect this frame as xing D> header, but only as a frame with silence. may be this would be better D> in some cases D> sorry that i am afraid of xing header in cbr files, as i understand D> it's only my problem...... to be honest, this was considered. given: a) VBR and ABR _must_ use "Xing" string as the LAME Tag is backward compatible with the conventional VBR Header, as made by Xing. b) that Xing string in the first frame of CBR files does make some decoders (winamp) think this is a VBR file. there are two interests here: 1) avoiding b) 2) uniformity my thoughts: Uniformity is wished for, as this allows the decoder to use one Tag identification method rather than having to look for two different tags in both VBR/ABR and CBR. This is a serious downside imo. Also the "LAME version string" is also in there, so it will be little confusion wether or not this is a Xing file. b) was initially a concern, but after lookin at it from close and far, I could find no problem whatsoever. If you click "information" it says VBR while it's CBR, and it might use the Xing lookup table, but since all frames are equally sized, there will be no problem with both time reporting or jumping around in the file to exact time positions. In the end it is and stays a valid mp3 stream and decoding never gave me any problems. That this header should be in CBRs too is of little doubt to me, but also the fact that it still should say Xing I prefer for beforementioned reasons. -- Best regards, Roel mailto:vd...@yu... |
From: Dmitry <ku...@jt...> - 2001-12-16 23:26:03
|
Hello Alexander, Sunday, September 09, 2001, 3:17:41 PM, you wrote: AL> On 9 Sep, Dmitry wrote: >> i'm afraid you don't understand what is end user i received more than >> hundred mails with question why lames insert 'xing' in the beginning >> why lame inserts UUUUUUUUUUUU in some frames, and question could i >> compile non mmx version etc.... AL> Do you have a FAQ on your site? If yes, point them to it, maybe answer AL> the most submitted question on the download page. AL> If not, thell us the FAQ and we but answers to them on the lame AL> webpages. You have just to inform the people at the download page to AL> loke there. heh 8) do you want to answer on this question, Alexander: ============================ I downloaded both Lame 3.89 & 3.70 zips but neither include any install instructions. When I double-click the .exe files nothing happens other than a DOS box appears and immediately disappears. How could some one install and run either of these programmes? ============================ ??? ;) Best regards, Dmitry mail to: ku...@jt... http://mitiok.cjb.net/ |
From: Roel V. <vd...@yu...> - 2001-09-08 22:03:33
|
Hello Dmitry, Saturday, September 08, 2001, 10:26:04 PM, you wrote: lcrlsn>> However, just add "-t" for the diff tests and no tag of any kind lcrlsn>> interferes with the music data. D> WOW!!! i don't like this at all!!! i don't like writting xing header D> in cbr mode by default!!! please remove it! i think this is really D> ugly! it's ok by default in abr and vbr as we already have xing header D> there but in cbr it reduces compatibility!!! It does NOT (!!) reduce compatibility in any way as it's a standard mp3 frame at the _same_ size of the rest of the CBR stream. Please inform yourself before making such hasty conclusions. I'm sorry, but NOT defaulting it also in CBR would annihilate the whole idea and use of this header. If for whatever reason one does not want this one frame in ABR/CBR/VBR, you can always use -t. I and other people spend about ->three months<- openly debating all these issues on both the forum and posts on the LAME dev list. There is no problem at all with compatibility. Now the LAME Tag is here, it'd be useless if it's not defaulted. People use LAME to encode music, which ends up on the net. Now the ONLY way it's going to work to get + complete protection with a CRC of ->ALL<- music data (musicCRC) + 100% guaranteed byte-exact removal of ANY kind of tags + a way to decode them exact in length, unit 1 sample (*) + an exact log of what quality and mode LAME used to make this file + ReplayGain allowing you to play all your files with exact loudness (**) + ... on these files, is that it has the header defaulted. However, if you, after being informed, still feel the header being "ugly" weighs up against all this, please add "-t" for your own use. Beside being "ugly" to some people there are only benefits to this frame. -- Best regards, Roel mailto:vd...@yu... |