On Mon, 11 Oct 1999, David Jamroga wrote:
> http://www.inf.bme.hu/~dancsi/USE!/index.html
This brings the following question to mind:
Were the tests both artifical (signal analysis) and listening tests?
If there were listening tests, were they performed blind?
The uninformed rantings on blades page often convince people that blade
sounds better. (I say uninformed, because he rants about SFB 21 cutoff,
but he's talking about higher bitrates, FhG's only does SFB21 cutoff at
<160Kbit).
As far as the signal tests go, this is NOT the way to test an mp3 encoder!
I could easily design an encoder that has better X (where X is freq
responce, distortion, etc) then mp3 at a bitrate, but that wouldn't make
it sound better at all!
Mp3 is concerned with perceptual quality, making everything but listening
tests usless for anything but tie breakers.
With the current rate of development, I wouldn't doubt that lame has some
bugs, but I would highly doubt that blade has superior quality at ANY
bitrate.
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
