I have read that the fhg encoder is the best encoder for bitrates around 124kbits/sec (BladeEnc homepage, Use! page, cdr software review http://cdrsoft.cjb.net/), while BladeEnc and Lame are doing a better job at higher bitrates . Now in Lame's homepage the author says that fhg is a better encoder than Lame.
Isn't that strange? Is he perhaps referring only to lower bitrates?
 
With regards,
Dimitris
 
P.S. Please pardon my English!
----- Original Message -----
From: Ampex
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 1999 8:38 AM
Subject: re: best mp3 encoder for 160kbits/sec and above

the fhg encoder is the best out there in my opinion. i can send you the win32 version as an attachment if youd like.

Reply via email to