So, do we all believe that fraunhofer encoders
still edge out lame at low bitrate cbr?
---- Begin Original Message ----
From: "Mathew Hendry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 16:36:35 +0100
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [MP3 ENCODER] Off Topic Advice
Please
> 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/ )
---- End Original Message ----
Get DSL high-speed Internet access FREE�with FreeDSL at http://www.freedsl.com
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
