Comparing the frequency response to the original is problematic because the
encoder is DESIGNED to basically remove frequencies according to various
psychophysical parameters. It's not designed to try to reproduce the
signal. So there's no reason one should try to compare signal A to signal
B.

The only true way to analyze the success of the encoder is to see whether or
not it achieves what it tried to achieve while introducing as few artifacts
as possible. This would require mathematically analyzing the original
signal with the algorithm in mind, and then comparing the encoded file to
that.


"Brett" wrote in message
u...
have a look at this article,
http://www.digit-life.com/articles/oggvslame/
its got comparisons between frequency dynamics in pictures and graphs
showing the delta signals, pretty interesting.

I generally make sure any mp3 i use is at 160 or higher

"Dark1" wrote in message
...

"MOSFET" wrote in message
...
it's minimised though if the MP3 is recorded in 320kbps. But then a
normal
song would be 8-9mb

That's interesting. I have not really experimented much with higher
sampling rates, but I think I will now. I'm curious if anyone else
finds
a
noticable difference between 128 and higher rates.

MOSFET


I can tell a definite difference between a 128k and 192k.. though mostly
in
rock.. definetly in acoustic stuff, not so much in rap..personally 192 is
the min rate I'll bother burning.. anything from original or lossless
always
gets 256k with me.. can't say above 192 is obvious to me, but like most
things audio, headroom is what it's all about