>
> Rolf Hanich wrote:
> >
> > About quality:
> > I tried Lame mainly because Audioactive (they licensed the Fraunhofer
> > codec), while really good w. most music sources, was unable to encode
> > one tune I cut from MTV (Oh Carolina) in that it ran over it twice as
> > fast and produced something sounding like 56kbps. I also noticed some
> > warbling behind vocals from clear CD sources at 128k. None of these
> > problems occured w. Blade and Lame, same bitrate. I couldn't get to
> > hear any difference to CD w. lame 3.32 at 128kbps and VBR on, at least
> > w. the music sources I have. So I can't verify how the improvements of
> > the later versions really are.
>
> There is such thing as phase shift between two channels. You are always
> getting it while recording from an audiocassete, or from any other audio
> tape, from some CDs, etc. That's there JointStereo does Bad Thing. We
> are loosing too many important information in side channel in this case.
>
> But there is no JointStereo in Blade. And Lame (afaik) makes a check,
> if using JS will harm quality or not. For each frame. If it's not
> right, correct me.
>
I would add: "if LAME *thinks* using JS will harm
quality or not." It doesn't always make the right choice :-)
FhG does the same thing, and the LAME algorithm tries to
mimic FhG, but they are different.
Mark
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
