Richard Kuschel
July 1st 03, 05:13 AM
>
>Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:
>
>> Does anybody in this NG have experience with attempting to create
>> higher-quality MP3s or do they all just rip-and-encode like everyone
>> else, taking whatever they can get from _unmodified_ WAVs extracted via
>> DAE?
>
>All MP3 encoders are not created equal. You might find that some
>encoders sound better than others for a given .wav., but generally
>speaking, louder is better regardless of what's being evaluated.
>
>When I make MP3s of my material to send via email or website, I just use
>the program material "as is." I don't recall any serious evaluations of
>MP3 encoders or encoding levels here on RAP.
>
>AT
>
>
>
I've heard some MP3's that were made with variable bit rateat the high quality
setting and vas really surprised at how good they sounded.
There was a little deterioation of reverb tails , but that waas about it. No
glaring artifcts.
Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty
>Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:
>
>> Does anybody in this NG have experience with attempting to create
>> higher-quality MP3s or do they all just rip-and-encode like everyone
>> else, taking whatever they can get from _unmodified_ WAVs extracted via
>> DAE?
>
>All MP3 encoders are not created equal. You might find that some
>encoders sound better than others for a given .wav., but generally
>speaking, louder is better regardless of what's being evaluated.
>
>When I make MP3s of my material to send via email or website, I just use
>the program material "as is." I don't recall any serious evaluations of
>MP3 encoders or encoding levels here on RAP.
>
>AT
>
>
>
I've heard some MP3's that were made with variable bit rateat the high quality
setting and vas really surprised at how good they sounded.
There was a little deterioation of reverb tails , but that waas about it. No
glaring artifcts.
Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty