Hello Pierre,
Tuesday, July 11, 2000, 2:41:54 PM, you wrote:
PH> I've been told several times that at 192kbs or above, mp2 is likely to be better
than mp3. True or False ?
Goh, that's hard. I think reason for this is that many radio stations
use professional mp2 solutions, which are tweaked to the limit. (try
Qdesign) Compare this, 2 years back, to the only HQ FhG alternative,
and the FhG mp3 gives you a muffled-sounding mp3@256 while some mp2
encoders give a crisp sound.
Mp3 has everything in it to surpass mp2, but I see no reason, beside
compatibility (not all mp3 players do mp2, even though backward
compatibility), not to use mp2 @ 256 and up. 192 is insufficient in
both MP3 and MP2. Advantage @192 is that mp3 can give you nice MS
frames in JS mode, saving alot of Q, and MP2 is restricted to the
poor-sounding IS modes leavind JS not really an MP2 archival option.
PH> If true, would it be difficult to add a mp2 option in lame (I don't know to which
extent mp3 and mp2 differ) ?
PH> If no, isn't it the solution for top quality ?
Lame delivers the crisp sound of xing without the artifacts, so I'd go
for 256 mp3/Lame. Tried Blade now, and found the psy seriously
hampered in the 1 clip I tested.
--
Best regards,
Roel mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
