Hello Istvan,
Monday, June 26, 2000, 4:57:06 PM, you wrote:
IV> Roel VdB wrote:
>> too much. also, for the moment my mp3's, to be considered
>> transparent, are about 170kbit/s average. why are you aiming at
IV> mp3 transparent at 170 kbps ? Try encoding signals like
IV> http://members.xoom.com/steve_0401/archive/samples/test1.zip
IV> Lame will not be able to transparently encode the four short
IV> noises at the beginning of the file, not even at 384 kbps.
pfff, read the site, critique section. I said "average".
[ http://www.r3mix.net ]
IV> Vorbis may be better in the future, although it needs
IV> _lots_ of tuning yet.
it may be
>> 130-150kbit? be aware that on better Q systems you hear a difference,
>> and imho it wouldn't be bad to get better quality at higher size.
IV> Then why not use mp2 at 384k ? Or even some lossless format ?
because
--
Best regards,
Roel mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
