> I'm just a user, not a developer.
> I've heard a number of results from listening tests and all agree that LAME is better
> than BladeEnc at the same bitrate. I've also heard that LAME@128 sounds better than
> BladeEnc@160. Apart from speed optimizations, BladeEnc uses unmodified ISO code
> which is known to have a number of bugs and poor implementations. I have also used
> Blade @ 160 extensively in the past.
Mmm interesting, probably coz more guys are workin patchin and improving it
> The improvements have often come from samples of audio submitted to the project that
> have produced noticeable artifacts. These are available for download from the LAME
> website. You may do your own tests with each file and make up your own mind.
Which sample do u think is the best to use as an encoder test ?
>
> I can also vouch for LAMEs VBR. It has now come far enough IMO to perform better
> (sound quality) than CBR. If you want to average around 128kb/s then I recommend the
> following switches: -h -v -k -mj
and looking for somethin near 160 which settings are best ?
Cavallo de Cavallis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
=-=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--==
= http://www.s0ftpj.org =
= Digital Security for y2k =
==-=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=-==
"Knowledge chases me, but i'm faster"
"La Sapienza mi insegue, ma io sono piu' veloce"
[Anonymous]
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
