> I wrote that article ;)
Oh oh ^_^

> I took a few "hard to encode" samples and had the contenders encode them
> at 96 kbps.  The most prominent sample was from a live CD of Herbert
> Gr�nemeyer, basically lots of applause.

Sorry but why did u use 96 ?!?
Most of normal dudes around use 128 while the ones interested in hq use 160 or
192

> 
> The conclusions where:
> 
>   constant bitrate:
>     Fraunhofer, lame, Xing, (long pause) bladeenc

so blade is so shitty ? doh i have used it for a while, btw at 160, probably
better than xing @128 i used before




      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/ )

Reply via email to