On 18 Jan 2002 J.D. wrote:
> For the paranoid, there is always lossless encoding...
> At only 800 kbps (give or take 100 kbps) for CD rate audio,
> never lose sleep again over worries of compression
> artifacts. =)
Thanks for the reply! Ah hehe :) Actually I need a high qual MP3 because
this batch of compressed audio will
be converted and reconverted a few times. Might as well start high and get lower from
there.
One other question for the group, but again just for curiosity I was wondering
if the Lame encoder has gotten
better than the old 1.2.x Fraunhofer codec? Is there a rough consensus that Lame is
now superior or are there applications
where the FhG codec routines are still superior?
I don't mean that in an offensive way, but around v3.8x I remember hearing
mention that Lame's VBR was good,
but its CBR was still inferior. Now I've heard vague rumours that the CBR is also
superior at this point and was wondering if
anyone knew?
j
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
mp3encoder mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
