Re: Double precision

Hi.

On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Ove Karlsen <[email protected]> wrote:
> I actually DID a search and replace of some floats, and managed to
> compile atleast the encoder. And first impression is that it does sound
> a bit more natural. That is typical for EQ´s aswell, etc. I always use
> double, and find floats to give a bit quantized sound, unless one is
> doing very little processing, no IIRs etc.

You said that "it does sound a bit more natural" and "find floats to
give a bit quantized sound".  Can you *really* hear the differences?
At what bitrate?

I am not really a golden ears (really, really, far from it) and I can
safely encode most of my music from my CDs with lame's -V7 and,
sometimes, with -V5.  I can say that I can't ABX most things at a
bitrate achieved by -V4 and, even though I never tested it, I would
expect to fail 100% of the time at trying ABX'ing stuff at -V2 or
higher qualities, with floats or not.

Have you really ABX'ed your results with your use of a double instead
of float? It would be highly interesting to know if you can ABX those.


Regards,

-- 
Rogério Brito : rbrito@{ime.usp.br,gmail.com} : GPG key 4096R/BCFCAAAA
http://cynic.cc/blog/ : github.com/rbrito : profiles.google.com/rbrito
DebianQA: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rbrito%40ime.usp.br

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:

Build for Windows Store.

http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Lame-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lame-dev