> From: Ampex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> 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?
I found the quality of this new codec disappointing. Although, bitrate for
bitrate, it appears to reduce overall noise and improve frequency response,
it produced very annoying high frequency artifacts on a lot of the material
I tested, even at high bitrates. Overall, I think MP3Enc 3.1 sounds better.
YMMV.
As for speed, FhG have never been the world leaders in that area. mp3enc
-qual 9 isn't much faster.
-- Mat.
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
