> Christopher Woods wrote: > > Tech question - what encoder(s) are you using? If it's software in > > realtime or close-to-realtime, please (please please) say it's Lame > > 3.97. If the backend is using the Fraunhofer FhG codec, I think I > > might contemplate going and banging my head against a wall > for a little while. > > Wait, what? > You don't believe in inventors being able to profit directly > from their inventions by selling software? I mean, there are > lots of things wrong with the patent system, but it's not > like FhG are patent trolls or this is a submarine. They're > (co-)inventors, and they even sell software based on it, not > simply lying back and collecting on past IP...
I'm more for the best quality for the price, regardless of whether it's free or not :) The FhG codec has some strange alternatives to otherwise-standard VBR techniques, (Original File Length), and didn't actually have VBR encoding capability until comparatively recently (both Lame and Xing (spit) had VBR before that). I think many are of the opinion that Lame is a higher quality and more efficient software codec than the FhG codec. It certainly excels at VBR encoding and quality at lower bitrates (circa 128kbps, which is where the BBC is initially encoding their stuff). If they're using really expensive hardware codecs then that's their choice, but I suspect they've gone the software route because it's far more cost-effective. And above that, Lame is FOSS. Bar the possible licencing to Fraunhofer for overall use of the MP3 technology, which is likely unavoidable, it'd make little sense not to use it. A question / request to BBC techies who have sorted this out: VBR is widely supported across PC, portable and handheld devices. Is VBR encoding on the cards for the future / could it be? - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
