i used to use BladeENC @160kbps hi-quality
then i found LAME and tryin doin some tests and it *seems* good
can someone tell me *honestly* (we're not talkin bout commercial products
so it's not a money matter) which are the differences in quality ?
lame is faster so i have some doubts...
BladeENC coder says blade is better than FhG @160 while Fhg is still
best at 128, what about lame ? talkin bout 160kbps HQ encoding i mean..
i suppose VBR could be maybe the "future" of mp3encoding BUT i dunno
if it's NOW good as CBR, so i think i'll go on using CBR....
Final : a big thanks to the russian guy who mantains
http://www.chat.ru/~dkutsanov/~index.htm and put on pre-compiled exe and dlls
Thanks
PS I use Exact Audio Copy as a grabber, www.exactaudiocopy.de, it's NOT fast
but SECURE, it checks that what it grabs is really what's on the CD. so if u dont
know it, give it a try.
Cavallo de Cavallis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
=-=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--==
= http://www.s0ftpj.org =
= Digital Security for y2k =
==-=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=-==
"Knowledge chases me, but i'm faster"
"La Sapienza mi insegue, ma io sono piu' veloce"
[Anonymous]
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
