Hello Chris,
Tuesday, July 11, 2000, 11:37:35 PM, you wrote:
CH> We know that LAME now has roughly the same quality of MP3Enc 3.1. But,
CH> as far as I am concerned, full huffman search hasn't been implemented
CH> on LAME yet. I've noticed LAME 3.8x produces better quality than 3.70,
CH> and I presume the main reason is the more efficient huffman coding of
CH> Takehiro. MP3Enc does full huffman search on qualilty 9. So, should MP3Enc
CH> with -qual 9 switch sound a bit better than LAME -h? Please let me know.
MP3Enc flattens the sound and the >16kHz region is not at all coded
accurately. Good for lower bitrates, a waste for higher (eg 256S)
http://users.belgacom.net/gc247244/analysis.htm#MP3ENC31
is a test I did a while back.
--
Best regards,
Roel mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
