>I used the default settings for all encoders in the constant bitrate
test. Actually, there are not many knobs for the Fraunhofer codec c't
gave me (the one in MusicMatch).
>I don't like the Fraunhofer codec very much for music. It is excellent
for speech, but it makes music sound flat.
>Well, I didn't look at the frames that Fraunhofer generated. I think
that that should not be a criterion. It is perceptual audio
compression, so it should only be judged by the perception of the
listener. And the perception was that the applause part did not get
enough bandwidth from Fraunhofer in VBR mode. lame and Xing are much
more aggressive in the bandwidth distribution.
Let me butt in at this point:
Maybe you should have a look on the new Fraunhofer plugin, as used in Nero.
It's very aggressively using higher bit rates in VBR (96...>>200 in medium quality
setting, avg. about 140) and runs 8-10 faster that real time on a current CPU.
The results in my opinion are brilliant.
I've used Lame a lot in the meantime (mostly w. 128 and medium VBR setting) because
the old (maybe v.1) Fraunhofer in the Audioactive Production Studio I had, would
eventually ignore complex sounds completely and generate strong shortwave effects.
I can hardly hear a difference between Lame and the new Fraunhofer, only the latter is
faster (ripping and encoding together, still 6.5x on my machine).
I'm not surprised at all about your tests, where 'audiophiles' couldn't tell MP3 from
PCM. Psychoacoustics are often more psycho than acoustic ;-)
I often catched myself unintentionally turning an AB comparison test into a double
blind test because I was confusing the MP3 w. the PCM after switching forth and back
several times, and was completely convinced I had heard some artifacts (but in the
PCM!).
Regards
Rolf
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
