On Thu Aug 15 0:26 -0400, Richard Houser wrote: > I'm joining in a bit late, but as far as I remember there were three > (maybe more?) totally different algorithms in common use to get an mp3 > as a result. I think these were ISO, Xing, and Fraunhofer based. If I > recall, Fraunhofer was the fastest algorithm that gave the most lossy > compression encoding, and ISO was the highest quality out there. I > think BladeEnc and a few other open source codecs used the ISO > algorithms. Do you mean to say that Fraunhofer owns the patents on > several algorithms, and only markets the lossy version? I'm not joking, > but am really curious about this one. I remember hearing about lawsuit > threats about 5 years ago relating to this, but as far as I know it was > determined that Fraunhofer didn't hold the pattents on the algorithms in > question.
IIRC, the Xing encoder was junk (it had some flaws which made it useless above 128kbps). The ISO was decent, but the Fraunhofer algorithms quickly developed a reputation for good quality. This is all hearsay, as I've only used lame, which is independent of the others. -- Levi Ramsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Was it something I said? And the stars look down. Linux 2.4.18-21mdk 12:45am up 1 day, 49 min, 6 users, load average: 0.03, 0.17, 0.31
