Re: [MP3 ENCODER] the new fraunhofer codec
what material produced artifacts? i havent heard any artifacts as such. - Original Message - From: "Mathew Hendry" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 7:38 AM Subject: RE: [MP3 ENCODER] the new fraunhofer codec From: Ampex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] how is the quality of the new fhg codec, the one included in musicmatch jukebox, cool edit 2000 and nero? encoding time is very very slow at highest quality, is this any indication of a higher quality encode taking place, or simply bad programming? has anyone done any benchmarks of the codec as compared to lame/mp3enc? I found the quality of this new codec disappointing. Although, bitrate for bitrate, it appears to reduce overall noise and improve frequency response, it produced very annoying high frequency artifacts on a lot of the material I tested, even at high bitrates. Overall, I think MP3Enc 3.1 sounds better. YMMV. As for speed, FhG have never been the world leaders in that area. mp3enc -qual 9 isn't much faster. -- Mat. -- MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ ) -- MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
[MP3 ENCODER] the new fraunhofer codec
Ampex wrote: how is the quality of the new fhg codec, the one included in musicmatch jukebox, cool edit 2000 and nero? encoding time is very very slow at highest quality, is this any indication of a higher quality encode taking place, or simply bad programming? has anyone done any benchmarks of the codec as compared to lame/mp3enc? People from my forum say it isn't that good on higher bitrates. I.e. it is good, but there are significantly better ones (lame etc). And earlier one man said Nero rules at lower ones like 160kbs. On the other hand, there is one man who hates lameiso, but likes Nero and last Xing (not fhg) encoders... ...And that's why I've finally moved to lossless compression. Whoa... 8) Have a nice day! Mikhail -- MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
RE: [MP3 ENCODER] the new fraunhofer codec
From: Ampex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] how is the quality of the new fhg codec, the one included in musicmatch jukebox, cool edit 2000 and nero? encoding time is very very slow at highest quality, is this any indication of a higher quality encode taking place, or simply bad programming? has anyone done any benchmarks of the codec as compared to lame/mp3enc? I found the quality of this new codec disappointing. Although, bitrate for bitrate, it appears to reduce overall noise and improve frequency response, it produced very annoying high frequency artifacts on a lot of the material I tested, even at high bitrates. Overall, I think MP3Enc 3.1 sounds better. YMMV. As for speed, FhG have never been the world leaders in that area. mp3enc -qual 9 isn't much faster. -- Mat. -- MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
[MP3 ENCODER] the new fraunhofer codec
how is the quality of the new fhg codec, the one included in musicmatch jukebox, cool edit 2000 and nero? encoding time is very very slow at highest quality, is this any indication of a higher quality encode taking place, or simply bad programming? has anyone done any benchmarks of the codec as compared to lame/mp3enc? -- MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
