>
> There is a lot of talk about Blade being better than FhG at higher bitrates.
> I would like to hear some opinions about that. Also how does Lame fit into all of
>this?
> As I understand it, Lame should be better than Blade at low bitrates, but is this
>also true for
> higher bitrates?
>
-=- MIME -=-
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0015_01BF1ADC.7F5EA6A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
There is a lot of talk about Blade being better than FhG at higher =
bitrates.
I would like to hear some opinions about that. Also how does Lame fit =
into all of this?
As I understand it, Lame should be better than Blade at low bitrates, =
but is this also true for
higher bitrates?
------=_NextPart_000_0015_01BF1ADC.7F5EA6A0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>There is a lot of talk about Blade =
being better=20
than FhG at higher bitrates.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I would like to hear some opinions =
about that. Also=20
how does Lame fit into all of this?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>As I understand it, Lame should be =
better than=20
Blade at low bitrates, but is this also true for</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>higher bitrates?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0015_01BF1ADC.7F5EA6A0--
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
do you really want to know, or is this just a troll? :-)
As far as I can tell, Blade produces output of the same quality
as the ISO code. LAME is also based on the ISO code, but with
many bugfixes (some quite serious) and some of our own improvements
in the psychoacoustics/bit allocation.
The bugfixes can only improve the quality at *any* bitrate.
But as for our own improvements, most are based on listening tests
done at 128kbs, so it is remotely possible they have made reduced
the higher bitrate quality.
Mark
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
