>
> 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?
>
The last version of Blade that I tested (.72) produced results
bit-for-bit identical to the ISO encoder dist10 source, althought it
was much faster. So I do not think Blade has made any changes to the
psycho acoustics or quality. They have made a lot of speed
improvements, but by the time Blade finally went open source, LAME was
about 2 times faster. I would be nice to unify the Linux open source
encoder scene, but I dont know what code in Blade would be
usefull to the LAME project.
Blade does not impose a 16kHz cutoff. The 16kHz cuttoff in LAME is
only used at 128kbs. At higher bitrates it is not used, and you can
always disable the cutoff at low bitrates with '-k'.
But keep in mind that frequencies above 16kHz account for 25% of the total
MDCT coefficients, but only a small fraction of the signal quality.
Mark
> 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
> Press C-c C-c here for "application/pgp-signature" data
-=- MIME -=-
--wRRV7LY7NUeQGEoC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Nov 24, 1999 at 05:25:47PM -0500, Mark Stephens wrote:
> Howdy,
>=20
> 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 te=
sts
> 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.=20
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
>=20
>=20
> ----- 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
>=20
>=20
> Which encoder do you think has the best quality at bitrates over 160?
>=20
> With regards,
> Dimitris
>=20
>=20
> --
> MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
--=20
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
--wRRV7LY7NUeQGEoC
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Shane Wegner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
iQEVAwUBODyamdoVIOQcD/pZAQFyBwf/XJNZiVnk1QrbQEcBcKBqlgwTlI5NibQ9
LDu17Jfmn2mV7H+B2VzPt320bTq6b7oKs3KGxdstMmFy5BGF86acH9PEnFx4mpnl
FzV5ReRMMqIopMLAWoYt1D1eCG15wx0qi7TxIzQoo6A/rVY40FdmOSLse78u3EeD
Ng6Bd+TPsOMvz2nBM4u/GqbCSkppO8DAZbK45novq4nzRZJ1qz28U9rm79ZVgL3A
FaqjYJHMCfCAEbfbpOFtNHlAwnGwqPwG13YqfgoqPG/eb6aGnQ8PCdTqzNJNpwwa
2R+eNfRvClKm4nGqgjfT/1QKJw65FKgCRBNpKOMWL9Ra138K5j4UUg==
=eawV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--wRRV7LY7NUeQGEoC--
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
