Re: [MP3 ENCODER] BladeEnc vs. LAME at high bitrates

[Scott Manley]

> > Dimitris Tziouris wrote:
> > 
> > Which encoder do you think has the best quality at bitrates over 160?
> > 
> Bladeenc is more precise whith High Frequencies. You can hear the
> difference at
> 192 Kbs as well as 256 Kbs. I don't know at 160, I never use it, it
> sounds too bad.
> Bye


Sorry if I disagree, I've found that blade spends too many bits on high frequencies at 
the expense of sounding bad elsewhere.  LAME for me wins at all bitrates now...



Scott Manley (aka Szyzyg)                           /------ _@/ Mail -----\
 ___         _   _     __  __           _           |  Armagh Observatory |
/ __| __ ___| |_| |_  |  \/  |__ _ _ _ | |___ _  _  |  Armagh             |
\__ \/ _/ _ \  _|  _| | |\/| / _` | ' \| / -_) || | |  Northern Ireland   |
|___/\__\___/\__|\__| |_|  |_\__,_|_||_|_\___|\_, | |  BT61 9DG.          |
http://star.arm.ac.uk/~spm/welcome.html       |__/  \=====================/


--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )