IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
New Winamp 2.x Plugin From Oct 29, 2002 Won't Play, does not recognize AAC files
hans-jürgen
post Nov 6 2002, 07:33
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 573
Joined: 2-August 02
From: Hamburg, Germany
Member No.: 2898



Both plugins (in_faad.dll and in_mp4.dll) in the ZIP file from Oct 30, 2002 that I downloaded yesterday from RareWares do not recognize any *.aac files done with PsyTEL v2.15. This is what the Winamp file info (Alt+3) tells me about a 64 kbps AAC file resampled with 32 kHz (a normal file without resampling won't be recognized either):

Size: 1483149 bytes
Header found at: 4266 bytes
Length: 370 seconds
MPEG 1.0 layer 1
32kbit, 15449 frames
48000Hz Stereo
CRCs: No
Copyrighted: No
Original: No
Emphasis: None

By the way, what was the reason for this new release?


--------------------
myspace.com/bluezzbastardzz
myspace.com/indigorocks
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Nov 6 2002, 11:06
Post #2


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 3761
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Bracknell, UK
Member No.: 111



QUOTE (hans-jürgen @ Nov 6 2002 - 06:33 AM)
By the way, what was the reason for this new release?

There were recent library changes. Can't tell you why Roberto's compiles don't work, but you can try these ones: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jfe1205/winam...aad_plugins.zip. They work fine here. smile.gif


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
hans-jürgen
post Nov 7 2002, 00:38
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 573
Joined: 2-August 02
From: Hamburg, Germany
Member No.: 2898



QUOTE (john33 @ Nov 6 2002 - 11:06 AM)
There were recent library changes. Can't tell you why Roberto's compiles don't work, but you can try these ones: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jfe1205/winam...aad_plugins.zip. They work fine here. smile.gif

Thanks, I will download and test them tomorrow.

[next day]
Good news is that your in_mp4.dll from Nov, 2nd 2002 works fine. But the in_aac.dll from July, 27th crashes Winamp 2.81 with this error message (sorry for the german Windows version):

WINAMP führte eine ungültige Anweisung in
Modul IN_AAC.DLL bei 0137:6eec7af1 aus.
Register:
EAX=ffffffff CS=0137 EIP=6eec7af1 EFLGS=00010246
EBX=00000004 SS=013f ESP=006d7e64 EBP=00000400
ECX=00000200 DS=013f ESI=006f4240 FS=0ee7
EDX=00000000 ES=013f EDI=006f4314 GS=0000
Bytes bei CS:EIP:
0f 49 44 24 2c 81 c4 4c 02 00 00 5b 5e 5f 5d c3
Stapelwerte:
006f4314 00000400 0000007d fffffff0 006d8084 bfb734a5 006d7ee8 ffffffec 005b0f94 006d7f6a 00000000 00000000 00000fff 00040101 00000002 00f20000

By the way, why do you call it in_aac.dll and not in_faad.dll like Roberto? Maybe this might be one reason for the crash? And why are your DLLs so much smaller than his, just because you use another compiler? wink.gif

This post has been edited by hans-jürgen: Nov 7 2002, 09:13


--------------------
myspace.com/bluezzbastardzz
myspace.com/indigorocks
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Nov 7 2002, 13:00
Post #4


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 3761
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Bracknell, UK
Member No.: 111



First, my apologies, the in_aac.dll was included in error, it should have been in_faad.dll of the same date. I have corrected that and uploaded the revised zip file. in_faad.dll was called in_aac.dll in a previous incarnation!! wink.gif

Second, the reason the files are smaller is because I compress them using upx. On anything other than a very old processor, it makes no difference to execution speed, but reduces the storage requirement! smile.gif


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sachankara
post Nov 7 2002, 14:42
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 336
Joined: 27-December 01
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Member No.: 780



QUOTE (john33 @ Nov 7 2002 - 01:00 PM)
but reduces the storage requirement! smile.gif

Yeah, 'til you start the application and it decompresses itself to the Windows' temp directory and takes even more space than it would have done without... (Just a friendly reminder... tongue.gif)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
AgentMil
post Nov 7 2002, 14:57
Post #6





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 584
Joined: 19-December 01
From: Australia
Member No.: 688



I think it decompresses itself into memory, which we all should have plenty of biggrin.gif.


--------------------
-=MusePack... Living Audio Compression=-

Honda - The Power of Dreams
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sachankara
post Nov 7 2002, 15:24
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 336
Joined: 27-December 01
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Member No.: 780



QUOTE (AgentMil @ Nov 7 2002 - 02:57 PM)
I think it decompresses itself into memory, which we all should have plenty of biggrin.gif.

Hmm... Strange... I remember reading on their homepage that the program decompressed itself to a temporary directory first, but I can't find any information about it anymore... :/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
seanyseansean
post Nov 7 2002, 19:08
Post #8





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 487
Joined: 12-August 02
From: Cheltenham, UK
Member No.: 3029



QUOTE (Sachankara @ Nov 7 2002 - 02:24 PM)
QUOTE (AgentMil @ Nov 7 2002 - 02:57 PM)
I think it decompresses itself into memory, which we all should have plenty of biggrin.gif.

Hmm... Strange... I remember reading on their homepage that the program decompressed itself to a temporary directory first, but I can't find any information about it anymore... :/

Depending on the compression method used it could decompressed 'in place' i.e. with the compressed data in the area of memory that it will be decompressed to. So compressing your exes is not a bad idea but maybe of limited use these days.

Mind you, I remember when games ran in 4k of memory (mumble, mumble...etc)

seany laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
hans-jürgen
post Nov 7 2002, 19:55
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 573
Joined: 2-August 02
From: Hamburg, Germany
Member No.: 2898



QUOTE (john33 @ Nov 7 2002 - 01:00 PM)
First, my apologies, the in_aac.dll was included in error, it should have been in_faad.dll of the same date. I have corrected that and uploaded the revised zip file. in_faad.dll was called in_aac.dll in a previous incarnation!! wink.gif

OK, but the only difference between in_mp4.dll and in_faad.dll is the seeking ability of the latter, right? And it can't play or reconvert *.mp4 files, probably...

QUOTE
Second, the reason the files are smaller is because I compress them using upx. On anything other than a very old processor, it makes no difference to execution speed, but reduces the storage requirement! smile.gif


Well, is an AMD 5x86/133 MHz a very old processor? wink.gif wink.gif I didn't notice a difference in decoding speed when testing my resampled AAC files today (they are the only ones that can be played without stuttering, 44.1 kHz files are already too demanding for the CPU).

The only related problem I have (also with Roberto's compiles) is that all files encoded with a different sample rate than 44.1 or 22 kHz vary in playback speed (i.e. with 32 or 24 kHz). But this is also true for MP3 files and for Windows Media Player 6.4, so maybe there's something wrong with the Windows driver for my old soundcard (ESS 688) or with the interface in my Windows version (Win95B).


--------------------
myspace.com/bluezzbastardzz
myspace.com/indigorocks
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
hans-jürgen
post Nov 8 2002, 14:58
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 573
Joined: 2-August 02
From: Hamburg, Germany
Member No.: 2898



QUOTE (hans-jürgen @ Nov 7 2002 - 07:55 PM)
Well, is an AMD 5x86/133 MHz a very old processor?  wink.gif  wink.gif  I didn't notice a difference in decoding speed when testing my resampled AAC files today (they are the only ones that can be played without stuttering, 44.1 kHz files are already too demanding for the CPU).

I just wanted to add that this problem has gone away with John's new in_mp4.dll plugin from Nov 2nd, 2002. I tested several presets with PsyTEL AACEnc (radio, internet, streaming, normal) without resampling, and all play without flaws in Winamp 2.81 now, if I don't do other things with my PC - like moving the mouse, for example... wink.gif

See also this thread at AudioCoding.com:
http://www.audiocoding.com/phorum/read.php...1&i=2045&t=2045


--------------------
myspace.com/bluezzbastardzz
myspace.com/indigorocks
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th November 2014 - 23:44