what do you mean by SFB 21 cutoff?
----- Original Message -----
From: Greg Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 1999 2:26 PM
Subject: Re: [MP3 ENCODER] USE! user oriented mp3 encoder page rates LAME
> 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/ )
>
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
