Hello,
JMC writes: > 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. Usually that's a bad idea, but if you start with high rates and recompress to low bitrates it should be fine. > 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? IMNSHO, FhG is still better for lower bitrates; lame is very good for higher bitrates. > 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. Just the other way round... Lames's VBR-mode improved recently, ABR- and CBR-modes have been always very good. Just my 2 (Euro)cents. Heribert. _______________________________________________ mp3encoder mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
