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
co
> 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 p
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 ben
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
> >
[On the new FhG codec]
> From: "Ampex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> what material produced artifacts? i havent heard any artifacts as such.
Just about any good quality vocal signal. High frequency components are
distorted, with a sort of noise I'd describe as "twinkling". These noises
are faint indi
