> From: "Mark Stephens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> isn't LAME higher quality at a faster speeds? The new FhG codec at high
> speed isn't very good, I thought, or is there proof otherwise?
IMO FhG's "fast" encoder is the best around for lower bitrates - 160kbit/s
and below. But the heuristic they're using fails at higher bitrates. FhG
themselves say
===
Two codecs are provided, the default being the fastest and high quality as
well. Most of the time, you�ll want to use this codec when doing CBR
encoding. The Alternate codec may however work better on some material (or
it may not). It generally has slightly better temporal resolution (which
can be heard by more presence in the high end at times). But the encoding
speed is much slower, especially in �High� mode. The Alternate codec also
improves at rates of 160kbps or greater. Both codecs have their advantages
and disadvantages: try using the first codec (the default) and only try the
second codec if you are having problems with sound quality.
===
In my experience, the "alternate" codec does tend to produce obvious
artifacts at lower bitrates - ringing, flanging, etc.
-- Mat.
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
