Thus spake Cavallo de Cavallis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > 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 ?!?
It is more difficult to hear the artifacts if you use higher bitrates.
i.e. if you encode at 192, most people won't notice any difference
between the encoders.
I also used 112 and 128 and noted the results briefly, which were the
same as for 96, only that all contenders sounded better.
If you want to test encoders, use low bit rates.
> > 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
Comparing blade at 160 with Xing at 128 is like comparing warm pepsi to
cold coke.
Felix
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
