From: Gabriel Bouvigne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> FhG faster than Xing? It seems strange.
Not only faster, but better quality, in the limited tests I've done.
Castanets is is very noticably distorted by Xing at 128kbps, but even in
"Fast"
mode FhG does well. It's not transparent even at "Highest" quality, but it's
damned close (some barely noticable pre-echo and muffling on the "clacks").
> I'll try to hear it in order to see if it's a low quality encoder or a
good
> one.
> Could someone with an unix box and gtk have a look at it on castanets with
> the frame analyser in order to see if they use some short and long blocks
or
> only long ones like Xing.
I've uploaded my castanets test files to ftp://ftp.sulaco.org/incoming
(just so nobody else needs to waste some of their 30 free tests :) I don't
have MP3x to perform any frame analysis, though.
-- Mat.
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
