This would be a boon, even if it were just 'as good' as xing..
Scott Manley (aka Szyzyg) /------ _@/ Mail -----\
___ _ _ __ __ _ | Armagh Observatory |
/ __| __ ___| |_| |_ | \/ |__ _ _ _ | |___ _ _ | Armagh |
\__ \/ _/ _ \ _| _| | |\/| / _` | ' \| / -_) || | | Northern Ireland |
|___/\__\___/\__|\__| |_| |_\__,_|_||_|_\___|\_, | | BT61 9DG. |
http://star.arm.ac.uk/~spm/welcome.html |__/ \=====================/
On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, Music account wrote:
> Hi,
>
> You may remember my tests with Lame3.25 and sox 12.16 at 24kbit/s.
> Though I've not investigated the `polyphase' effect of sox fully, it
> seems to be sounding better than the earlier versions and...
>
> using a command line such as
>
> sox INFILE.wav -r 22050 OUTFILE.wav polyphase -cutoff 0.45
>
> to generate a 22.05kHz sample-rate file, filtered at -90dB/oct,
> turnover 4961Hz, to feed into lame3.27, it actually SOUNDS BETTER
> THAN FhG on speech at 24kbit/s. I don't know whether or not the -Y
> -Z and -X n options make a difference, but I put them in anyway. No
> other forms of audio have yet been tested.
>
> I think that's amazing, and can't wait to see if the ISO code error
> (some factors in the wrong order?) that was lately discovered might
> allow me to open up the treble a little more without the "tinkling"
> effect.
>
> If you'd like me to post MP3 files demonstrating how (I think)
> lame3.27 is sounding better than FhG (3.1) please say so.
>
> John Hayward-Warburton
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> --
> MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
>
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
