Jake Hamby wrote:
> BTW, you can even use LAME as a drop-in replacement for BladeEnc.dll in
> Windows, so there's absolutely no excuse to use BladeEnc any more! Please
> spread the word, as I hate to see people using shoddy MP3 encoders simply
> because they don't know any better..
After reading about how horribly bad bladeenc is even in c't magazine,
I decided to encode a couple of wav files with both bladeenc and lame
and listened to them one after the other (on headphones) and also
switching files during the song. Personally, I can't hear the difference
between the two, maybe it's only noticeable when you listen to classical
music. c't magazine wrote that bladeenc sounds completely crappy at 64 kbps
while lame is fairly good, but who encodes at bitrates that low anyway ?
I use lame because it's said to be better, and I was wondering about one
thing: is joint stereo degrading or enhancing sound quality ? Again I
encoded the wav songs with stereo and jstereo and again I couldn't hear a
difference and all the files were exactly the same size.
Regards,
Alexander
--
| Alexander Dietrich | Norderstedt, Germany |
| e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
