[vlad]

On Nov 11, 7:36 am, Codifus wrote:
Sonnova wrote:

..... Irrelevant, immaterial, and also mostly untrue. I've never heard an LP or a
good analog tape, for that matter make the kind of distorted mess that MP3s
can make of music. MP3s made at a high data rate can sound OK, but I'd rather
listen to an LP or especially a good recent CD of the same performance.

....

There are good and bad MP3 encoders out there. The bad ones tend to be
fast, even at 320 kbps. Try hydrogen audio's LAME or even the
Fraunhoffer MP3 encoder inside CoolEdit. Both of these encoders do a
very good job of making MP3s. They take their time to process but the
results are really worth it if you want the best MP3s.

CD

I am transferring my CD collection to iTunes data base on my PC now. I
have to ways to do that:

- to use internal iTunes codecs and convert my CD's either to MP3 or
AAC,
- to use WinAmp to convert to MP3 and them import it to iTunes.

I guess that they (iTunes and WinAmp) use different codecs because:
(1) WinAmp is about 4 times faster for the same bitrate, (2) WinAmp is
doing better job on faulty hardware. I had an old fashioned DVD-ROM
that caused skips in iTunes codec, at a time when WinAmp was doing
perfect 100% of the time.

So my question to people who know codecs and their internals is:

Do you know what codecs are used in iTunes and WinAmp? What is
preferable? Are there significant audible differences say at 320 kbps
rate?

Again, iTunes is slow as hell in comparison with WinAmp, but it does
better job with labels and art covers. WinAmp does a faster and better
job (no skips) with MP3 track but requires more time for verification
and retyping (sometimes) labels and scanning album cover.

thanks in advance.

vlad