Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o, Looks exactly like winamp 2.... :) |
  |
Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o, Looks exactly like winamp 2.... :) |
 Aug 27 2003, 16:46
Post
#1
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 49 Joined: 3-July 03 Member No.: 7543  |
-------------------- Jan
http://www.eatmacadamia.com/ - http://www.kilvo.com/ |
 |
 
|
|
Aug 27 2003, 16:50
Post
#2
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 25 Joined: 18-December 02 Member No.: 4132 |
Thank you, good news!
-------------------- - Aetherna Official Webpage: www.aetherna.com
- (sorry for my english :O) ) |
|
|
|
|
Aug 27 2003, 17:54
Post
#3
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 239 Joined: 21-July 02 Member No.: 2692 |
ogg & acc ripping support (not that i would use it but still)
-------------------- Chaintech AV-710
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 27 2003, 18:09
Post
#4
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 66 Joined: 30-September 01 Member No.: 94 |
Interesting, where did the AAC encoder came from? Because it's CBR only, it seems to me like some incarnation of FhG/Dolby? How possible that winamp is going to include AAC encoder at all? Is it going to cost money? (Not that this matters too much for me, the only file type that associated with winamp in my computer after foobar2000 was born is MIDI
  )EDIT: Typos... This post has been edited by LordCorvin: Aug 27 2003, 18:10 |
|
|
|
|
Aug 27 2003, 18:12
Post
#5
|
|
 Rarewares admin Group: Members Posts: 7515 Joined: 30-September 01 From: Brazil Member No.: 81 |
Hrm... I can't tell really, but if you followed the news recently, you can guess where Nullsoft (actually AOL
) licensed their encoder from.If this encoder has the extensions I expect it has, it is a killer encoder only comparable to HE AAC. And I don't think it'll cost money. Again, check out the recent news. BTW: "Nullsoft knows what's good ™"
This post has been edited by rjamorim: Aug 27 2003, 18:12 -------------------- Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org |
|
|
|
|
Aug 27 2003, 18:13
Post
#6
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 239 Joined: 21-July 02 Member No.: 2692 |
ahh, i still have to reshack the winamp3 icons into it...
-------------------- Chaintech AV-710
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 27 2003, 18:28
Post
#7
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 239 Joined: 21-July 02 Member No.: 2692 |
well tried out the acc encoding, its ABR, at least it seems, does not move much though, uses both idv1 and idv2 tags as well
-------------------- Chaintech AV-710
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 27 2003, 18:35
Post
#8
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 650 Joined: 28-July 02 From: B'ham UK Member No.: 2828 |
Why has Winamp become an audio encoder? I thought the idea was to not make the bloat related mistakes of Winamp 3?
-------------------- < w o g o n e . c o m / l o l >
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 27 2003, 18:36
Post
#9
|
|
|
Rarewares admin Group: Members Posts: 7515 Joined: 30-September 01 From: Brazil Member No.: 81 |
QUOTE (bubka @ Aug 27 2003, 02:28 PM) well tried out the acc encoding, its ABR, at least it seems, does not move much though, uses both idv1 and idv2 tags as well Gah. These $&%#! are already borking the format. -------------------- Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org |
|
|
|
|
Aug 27 2003, 18:42
Post
#10
|
|
|
Nero MPEG4 developer Group: Developer Posts: 1466 Joined: 22-September 01 Member No.: 8 |
Looks like improved Dolby Consumer encoder, very similar to QT6.1 (not 6.3)
And it says so in the DLL file  At 64 kbps it sounds exactly like QT6.1, so I would refrain from naming it "killer encoder", considering the HE-AAC, mp3Pro and Ogg at that bit rate. This post has been edited by Ivan Dimkovic: Aug 27 2003, 18:45 |
|
|
|
|
Aug 27 2003, 18:46
Post
#11
|
|
|
Rarewares admin Group: Members Posts: 7515 Joined: 30-September 01 From: Brazil Member No.: 81 |
QUOTE (Ivan Dimkovic @ Aug 27 2003, 02:42 PM) At 64 kbps it sounds exactly like QT6.1, so I would refrain from naming it "killer encoder" Read my post again. >_< "If this encoder has the extensions I expect it has, it is a killer encoder..." Obviously, the extensions aren't present. -------------------- Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org |
|
|
|
|
Aug 27 2003, 18:47
Post
#12
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 239 Joined: 21-July 02 Member No.: 2692 |
its about a 2 kbps abr mode, i only get 157 to 159 (where it stays locked at) on the 160 settings
does not even go down during silence as both ogg and mpc do -------------------- Chaintech AV-710
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 27 2003, 18:53
Post
#13
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 155 Joined: 11-December 02 From: Alberta Member No.: 4049 |
This alpha version is pretty decent, they have Vorbis 1.35 and MPEG Audio Decoder 2.96+ACC that Winamp 2.95b have
I'm going to try MMD skin with this thing. :edit w00t, MMD3 on WInamp 2, but there are so much thing to do to reduce CPU useage (20-30% 
This post has been edited by Mgz: Aug 27 2003, 18:59 -------------------- still LAME 3.96.1 --preset extreme -q 0 -V 0 -m s at least until 2005.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 27 2003, 18:54
Post
#14
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 1015 Joined: 4-March 03 From: Singapore Member No.: 5312 |
QUOTE (Mac @ Aug 28 2003, 01:35 AM) Why has Winamp become an audio encoder? I thought the idea was to not make the bloat related mistakes of Winamp 3? Well, don't install the encoder plugin(s) then. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 27 2003, 18:55
Post
#15
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 105 Joined: 13-December 02 Member No.: 4073 |
And what happened to Winamp 4??? Why version 5?
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 27 2003, 18:58
Post
#16
|
|
|
Rarewares admin Group: Members Posts: 7515 Joined: 30-September 01 From: Brazil Member No.: 81 |
QUOTE (IrYoKu @ Aug 27 2003, 02:55 PM) Why version 5? Winamp 5 = Winamp 2 + Winamp 3 -------------------- Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org |
|
|
|
|
Aug 27 2003, 18:59
Post
#17
|
|
|
Nero MPEG4 developer Group: Developer Posts: 1466 Joined: 22-September 01 Member No.: 8 |
QUOTE (rjamorim @ Aug 27 2003, 05:36 PM) QUOTE (bubka @ Aug 27 2003, 02:28 PM) well tried out the acc encoding, its ABR, at least it seems, does not move much though, uses both idv1 and idv2 tags as well Gah. These $&%#! are already borking the format. Too bad they decided to use AAC bitstream format instead of MP4. MP4 is much more flexible and allows many advanced things like easy streaming, etc... Also, putting ID3 tags is a very stupid thing IMHO. Now we could end up in dozens of quasi-standards attached to an AAC file, and a confusion what AAC actually is. This post has been edited by Ivan Dimkovic: Aug 27 2003, 19:04 |
|
|
|
|
Aug 27 2003, 21:51
Post
#18
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 66 Joined: 30-September 01 Member No.: 94 |
Yes, that's sad... I was very happy when id3v2 support was removed from faad... And now it seems to be something widely accepted, because "Nullsoft knows what's good
" mantra... Seriously, it'll be hard to explain to avg Joe why it's bad to tag his freshly made AACs in winamp... (If we assume that he'll rip to AAC at all, of course). May be it's still possible to try and convice Justin to change this - at least not to use id3v* tags? May be PP is the right person for this task, if they'll ever speak one with other once again
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 27 2003, 22:34
Post
#19
|
|
|
Group: Banned Posts: 83 Joined: 1-August 03 Member No.: 8114 |
hsds we
This post has been edited by sublimelouie: Aug 27 2003, 22:38 |
|
|
|
|
Aug 27 2003, 23:10
Post
#20
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 78 Joined: 4-May 03 Member No.: 6374 |
QUOTE (sublimelouie @ Aug 27 2003, 01:34 PM) hsds we Huh? Maybe n68 could translate this for us
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 27 2003, 23:15
Post
#21
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 964 Joined: 29-December 01 Member No.: 830 |
I just glanced at the Winamp forums (a place I seldom visit) and could not find any obvious thread about Winamp 5 development. Of course, since I seldom visit there I might just not have figured out where it would be... but has anyone knowledgeable bothered to send Justin & Co. a detailed explanation of the MP4 vs. AAC argument, why there is a need to standardize AAC/MP4 tagging, and the benefits of certain encoders over others?
- M. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 27 2003, 23:16
Post
#22
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 487 Joined: 6-April 03 From: Århus, Denmark Member No.: 5861 |
QUOTE (Ivan Dimkovic @ Aug 27 2003, 07:59 PM) Too bad they decided to use AAC bitstream format instead of MP4. MP4 is much more flexible and allows many advanced things like easy streaming, etc... Also, putting ID3 tags is a very stupid thing IMHO. Now we could end up in dozens of quasi-standards attached to an AAC file, and a confusion what AAC actually is. Yeah, I find it quite amazing they would do such a thing. The entire idea with using standardised formats is interoperability, and the only thing they're gaining is 100% incompatibility with QuickTime/iTunes. Aren't there all sorts of seeking problems with raw AAC files anyway? Just a wild guess, but aren't ID tags in an AAC bit stream in violation of the standard? |
|
|
|
|
Aug 27 2003, 23:19
Post
#23
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 98 Joined: 22-February 03 From: Quebec, Montreal Member No.: 5117 |
It's me or the log shows 2.95 then 5?
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 27 2003, 23:22
Post
#24
|
|
|
Rarewares admin Group: Members Posts: 7515 Joined: 30-September 01 From: Brazil Member No.: 81 |
QUOTE (danchr @ Aug 27 2003, 07:16 PM) Yeah, I find it quite amazing they would do such a thing. The entire idea with using standardised formats is interoperability, and the only thing they're gaining is 100% incompatibility with QuickTime/iTunes. Aren't there all sorts of seeking problems with raw AAC files anyway? Yes. They are using ADTS AAC, but still, the only way to reliably seek such files is reading the entire file first. As I understand it, they don't use MP4 because it's a competitor to their own borky container format, NSV :B QUOTE Just a wild guess, but aren't ID tags in an AAC bit stream in violation of the standard? Of course they are. This post has been edited by rjamorim: Aug 27 2003, 23:22 -------------------- Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org |
|
|
|
|
Aug 27 2003, 23:40
Post
#25
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 66 Joined: 30-September 01 Member No.: 94 |
QUOTE (M @ Aug 27 2003, 10:15 PM) I just glanced at the Winamp forums (a place I seldom visit) and could not find any obvious thread about Winamp 5 development. Of course, since I seldom visit there I might just not have figured out where it would be... but has anyone knowledgeable bothered to send Justin & Co. a detailed explanation of the MP4 vs. AAC argument, why there is a need to standardize AAC/MP4 tagging, and the benefits of certain encoders over others? - M. Yeah, you have a good point here, may be it's really worth to just try to talk with him, but I still think that it'll be better if the person who'll try to educate him about aac/mp4 will be someone known to Justin and someone whose knowledge he already trusts. Anyway, it seems to me that Roberto rights and the real reason is not a lack of knowledge, but ridiculus competition between mp4 and nsv... BTW: You can use winamp3 skins with this release. Slow as hell, but still fun
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 18th May 2013 - 21:22 |
