On Wed, Nov 24, 1999 at 05:25:47PM -0500, Mark Stephens wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> if you read the LAME web page you will see how they improved LAME over ISO
> in many different ways. So, without benefit of double blind listening tests
> and IMHO, LAME is far better than Blade. LAME is ISO plus improvements so
> it has to be. Take a look at the LAME web page http://www.sulaco.org/mp3/
> and click on the link "Quality is substantially better than ISO". I was
> hooked as soon as I read how they made all the improvements.
Hi,
I can't really say for certain which encoder is better. I understand
BladeEnc has made some substantial quality improvements as well. Does
BladeEnc cut off at 16KHZ like other ISO based encoders seem to?
I am relatively new to this list and do have a question somewhat related to
this. Since I wasn't here when the source of BladeEnc became available, I
am curious as to how the two projects differ in terms of project goals.
I read Lame's rationale statement and it appears that at the time of it's
conception, it was the only "open source" encoder out there. Now that
BladeEnc is open source, are the two groups working together to murge fixes
and quality improvements?
Best regards,
Shane
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dimitris Tziouris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "MP3 encoder list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 1999 3:11 PM
> Subject: [MP3 ENCODER] BladeEnc vs. LAME at high bitrates
>
>
> Which encoder do you think has the best quality at bitrates over 160?
>
> With regards,
> Dimitris
>
>
> --
> MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
--
Shane Wegner: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Personal website: http://www.cm.nu/~shane Fax: (604) 930-0529
PGP: keyid: 2048/1C0FFA59 ICQ UIN: 120000
Fingerprint: C6 5F B3 85 0B 11 30 F3
52 89 0C 6C 49 08 94 7B
PGP signature
