Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: GOGO with --alt-presets (Read 3184 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

GOGO with --alt-presets

As the main part of gogo 3.1 is based on LAME 3.91, but much faster due to assembler routines, MMX, SSE and 3Dnow optimizations, I wonder if it would be possible to take advantage from that?
Quote
The quality is supposed to be the same as Lame 3.88 and 3.9x (It uses code from 3.91)
Some key routines were rewritten in assembler with MMX, SSE and 3Dnow! optimizations for faster encoding. But, AFAIK, the developers didn't downgrade quality for speed.

Quote
Most of gogo's optimizations can't be folded back in Lame without major code rewritings in Lame (Sorry, that's the way programming works.  )
Besides, AFAIK, there's no --alt-preset in Gogo, what makes it useless for most of the people that use this forum.

Ok, I understand it would be too much effort to fold the optimizations back into LAME, but what if the presets were implemented into GOGO ??
I don´t understand enough of programming, but it sounds to me as this would be an alternative with reasonable invest of time... and big gain in speed!

I´m happy with LAME 3.90.3 so far, but I´d also be happy to see anything moving on.... and 40% in speed without loss of quality, would not be the worst thing while patiently waiting for the next big LAME release! 

GOGO with --alt-presets

Reply #1 –
The gogo routines are most likely different enough to where it would be impossible to just "drop" the presets in to place, not to mention the fact that I believe that some of the changes made in gogo affect the overall quality of the encoder.  To realistically implement the alt-presets to a degree where one could trust them as they do now would require a massive retuning effort from scratch, and there's really nobody around to do that.

Basically, it won't happen.

GOGO with --alt-presets

Reply #2 –
The quality of Gogo is quite a bit lower, actually. 128kbps ABR is practically transparent to me for LAME, but Gogo doesn't even come close... too many artifacts. Basically, you'll never get the quality you're looking for with the Gogo encoder... using alt-presets would be a contradiction.

GOGO with --alt-presets

Reply #3 –
Gogo is based on Gpsycho, while alt-presets are based on Nspsytune.
So there is no way to have presets in Gogo right now.

GOGO with --alt-presets

Reply #4 –
...still wasting time on MP3 format ?

GOGO with --alt-presets

Reply #5 –
Quote
...still wasting time on MP3 format ?

LOL.  I like your easy dismissal.

[Cliche]I guess someone would have done it by now, if it was that easy[/Cliche]

GOGO with --alt-presets

Reply #6 –
Thanks, all for the explanations.
I already thought something like this, because I was surely not the first having this idea.

@PatchWorks...
Quote
...still wasting time on MP3 format ?

...this implies, that you think MP3 is not worth to do any further development or progress in any direction (like quality at lower bitrates, encoding speed or whatever) and I´m asking myself if I have to be ashamed to be a mp3-user      .

From the degree of technical potential, other formats like MPC might be superior, but not everybody want´s to listen music exclusively at the PC with a headset on (I personally use lossless for that SPECIAL purpose).

A lot of the people I know have just bought a brand new car CD-player, a DVD/mp3 player for their living room, one of those new mp3 sticks or other portables with mp3 support - and believe it or not .... they are proud of it.  B)
I don´t think they wil dismiss their equipment next year when suddenly a new format appears (or if it´s already to find in the internet) - even if it´s better one.
Don´t forget: HA readers are at the source of news for new and improved codecs  B) (Btw. check this). But ask the MAJORITY of people what lossy format they prefer.... ? 
Do you think they have ever heared of any of the sophisticated state of the art formats?

They just want to listen to music that sounds good to them - and in fact, for most of the mp3-fans it does it´s job pefectly, even below aps.
I heared of people who still produce their own 128 bit MP3 files with some obscure command lines and they swear nobody can distinguish between the original and their mp3 files. If they are right or not. These people are right now in your local superstore to buy fresh mp3 equipment out of the box.
There are dozens of brand new CD- and DVD players coming on the market right now. And what do most of these players support...? (Clue: it´s not MPC or vorbis or AAC+).
I believe, that even today 9 of 10 people would prefer to buy the mp3 car equipment and not the MPC player (if there would be one).
What people demand brings the money and this might not always be the best thing possible.
So this is the equipment (with expensive exceptions of course) we have to live with for a certain time on from now (I suppose).

Maybe I´ll change when the music device producing industry is clever enough to build players that can easily be upgraded to any format by a decoder file flashed into the rom. But I suppose this is not desired. Why should people exchange their equipment then, if something new (like a new format) appears that makes the old equipment look like scrap.

Don´t get me wrong - I also like those new and fancy state of the art formats, but it takes time for a change and I can´t see this for tomorrow. During this time I´ll enjoy my 6 month old mp3-car radio (maybe because they had nothing else available    ), until the new device it is not ready for the trash (my old one lasted 10 years). I stick with my aps mp3 files and I´m happy for every improvement of my format of choice - even if this choice was based on lack of other format support.

It´s still the most spread music compression format around and IMHO.... mp3´s not dead for at least the next 5 years (because of the reasons mentioned above)!!!

errm .... the only thing I just wanted to say:
Congratulations Patchworks, you´ve found a format that meets your needs better than mp3.
For my part, I admire the very few people still "wasting" time on that old, outdated and not perfect MP3 format - even if the coding of new formats might be much more interresting. 

Greetings
 

GOGO with --alt-presets

Reply #7 –
Quote
...this implies, that you think MP3 is not worth to do any further development or progress in any direction (like quality at lower bitrates, encoding speed or whatever) and I´m asking myself if I have to be ashamed to be a mp3-user       .

he's a vorbis zealot, don't worry about what they say. Don't feed the trolls, please.