On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 12:30:17PM +0100, Felix von Leitner wrote:
> Thus spake Don Melton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > constant bitrate:
> > > Fraunhofer, lame, Xing, (long pause) bladeenc
> > Did you do any testing at higher bit rates as well? I'd be curious what
> > the results would be at 160 or 192. (My wife, who has hearing a tall
> > dog would envy, can pick out Xing samples at even 160 and above but
> > sometimes has trouble distinguishing between the Fraunhofer and LAME
> > encoders at those rates. I always use her as a test subject. :-)
>
> No, I didn't use higher bitrates.
> My rationale is that if you have the space for higher bitrates, you can
> also use Layer 2. I found recent Xing encoders not as bad as I expected
> from earlier Xing encoders, but if you use Xing, you use VBR, and the
> VBR mode in Xing is surprisingly good.
Interesting. Did you try any apples vs. oranges comparison between the
CBR and VBR samples?
The reason that I ask is that one of the whole points to VBR is higher
quality through dynamic bit allocation over CBR with resulting file
sizes and average bit rates that are similar. Anyway ... was VBR
perceptually better than CBR in your test?
(Of course, if these audio professionals couldn't tell the difference
between 128 kbps CBR and the original CD source (as you mentioned
earlier) then this might be a pointless question. :-)
--
Don Melton
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
