Re: TI-H: mp3
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: TI-H: mp3
If I said encoder, most people won't know what I'm talking about. Some
encodeding techniques take up more space than the orrigional files.
Compressed files usually take up less... I said it that way for the
majority.
>Okay, I've got to mention this... trying to make myself useful on this
>list...
> There's no such thing as a digital bitstream -> mp3 compressor... it's an
>encoder. You want to compress a bit/byte stream? use a ZIP utility, or
>stuffit, or tar/gzip, or whatever applies to your platform. But encoding is
>NOT compressing. It just so happens that mp3 encoding results in a smaller
>file size, which was the intended result.
>
>CK
>
>Grant Stockly wrote:
>
>> >Joseph M. Geiss wrote:
>> >
>> >> yah, its easy to compress it but, damn, its a pain to decompress(play)
>> >>it on a
>> >> slow computer.
>> >
>> >Actually it takes a lot more CPU time to compress than to decompress.
>> >Only
>> >decompression has to be realtime, so it can seem more demanding. You can
>> >compress an mp3 on an old 386 if you want, it'll just take a few weeks
>> >:)
>>
>> If a good compressor were made... :\
>>
>> >> I have an old 486 laptop that i use every so often and it takes like
>> >>10min to load
>> >> a damn file.
>> >
>> >Really? There shouldn't be much of a 'load' time associated with an
>> >mp3.. it usually
>> >loads a small amount of the file into DRAM at a time, as it plays.
>> >
>> >> I read in some artice that MP4 would be 2x of MP3, 500K/min. with the
>> >>same quality
>> >> as mp3. seems to good to be true... time will tell
>> >
>> >Yeah, but MP4 will require even more CPU power to encode/decode.
>> >
>> >Do you live in the Baltimore area? Your e-mail address is from a local
>> >library...
>> >I'm up in Westminster. Small world, huh? :)
>> >
>> >--
>> >Bryan Rittmeyer
>> >mailto:bryanr@flash.net
>> >http://www.flash.net/~bryanr/
References: