[MPlayer-users] Re: Free audio codec for .AVI files ?

[Alexander Noé]

D Richard Felker III wrote:

>>When lacing 2 frames into one block for a CFR file, it would be the 
>>same, and should be less
>>for larger laces.
>>    
>>
>
>I don't even want to know about this "lacing" nonsense. It's huge
>added complexity 
>
You make a fool of yourself within one sentence. You say that you 
neither know what it is,
nor do you want to know, but you really dare to judge the complexity (or 
lack thereof) which
it adds.......if you had looked at my audio reading classes, you would 
have noticed that
resolving the laces (= hide their existence for something using that 
class) causes a neglectible
amount of extra code, compared to the size of the AVI or matroska 
parsers, or even writers.

>that a hardware device without excessively large
>buffers would never be able to handle. And only "CFR"? Why do you
>distinguish "CFR/VFR" anyway in the file format? They're just
>different time base units...
>  
>
For CFR, you can leave out some time stamps and then accurately guess 
them back. For
VFR, you can't. So you can only seek on Block accuracy for VFR, but 
frame accuracy
for CFR. Thus, if you want to maintain frame accuracy for seeking in 
VFR, you need one
block = one frame = no lacing. If you don't need frame accuracy on 
seeking, you can
surely lace VFR.

That's why avi-mux gui does not lace vorbis audio by default...ups, 
again this bad word
you don't want to know nothing about :p

>Now you're being completely stupid. Obviously you don't shrink down
>identifiers to make it smaller.
>
I want to be able to read my own code.

> If you want, compare the binary sizes
>instead.
>
...if made by the same compiler...

>BTW your mailer seems to have a problem with adding lots of extra
>lines when quoting...
>  
>
Everything shows up nicely here. I don't even use UTF-8 for those who 
still use
primitive OSes.


Alex