Ampex,
this really can't be answered except by you. The best quality you can
achieve is WAV files. For MP3's, IMHO, at 320kbps you can just about use
any decent encoder and not hear a difference. LAME would be fine for this,
and much faster than mp3enc. Xing, using audio catalyst 2.1, would be fine
and the quickest.
If you look at LAME's web page you will see quality comparisons of different
hard to encode passeges and some comments about LAME and Fraunhofer. I
think this represents the extent of comparisons between the two encoders.
Personally, I would trust LAME stereo at 256kbps to make a perfect encoding
every time and not worry about it. Heck, I think LAME at 192kbps is
perfect.
mark stephens
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ampex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 9:42 PM
Subject: [MP3 ENCODER] fhg mp3enc vs. lame at high bitrates
i want to archive mp3s at high bitrates. i am currently using mp3enc 3.1 at
its highest quality setting at 320kbits/sec, is this the best quality that i
can achieve?
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
