Ampex wrote:
>
> how is the quality of the new fhg codec, the one included in
> musicmatch jukebox, cool edit 2000 and nero? encoding time is very
> very slow at highest quality, is this any indication of a higher
> quality encode taking place, or simply bad programming? has anyone
> done any benchmarks of the codec as compared to lame/mp3enc?
People from my forum say it isn't that good on higher bitrates. I.e.
it is good, but there are significantly better ones (lame etc). And
earlier one man said Nero rules at lower ones like 160kbs. On the
other hand, there is one man who hates lame&iso, but likes Nero and
last Xing (not fhg) encoders...
...And that's why I've finally moved to lossless compression. Whoa... 8)
Have a nice day!
Mikhail
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
