> From: "Mark Stephens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> 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.
I don't think I'd recommend Xing for this. It doesn't get near transparency
on some test tracks (e.g. fatboy.wav). And in some cases, it actually sounds
*worse* at 320kbps than it does at 128kbps. :/
-- Mat.
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
