lame 3.89 is oouuuuuttt

[schmooky007]

grab it from dimitry's site;
http://mitiok.cjb.net

[zombywoof]

Thanks schmooky.

[schmooky007]

n/p

Originally posted by schmooky007
grab it from dimitry's site;
http://mitiok.cjb.net

____________________________________________________

how is lame and how is the sound - does it have the new fraunhoffer update? is it better than mm? i only ask because the one internet radio station that i know encodes with lame at 128bits, "Radio XY" http://128.121.114.101:6050/ has the worst sound. other stations that sound great of course may use lame and i'm just not aware of their encoding schemes while XYs' crappy sound may be due to other factors. hence the question.

btw, the best sounding LOW bit (56k) classic rock station is powerrocks http://12.144.42.205:8000 and the two best sounding 128k trance or acid stations that i've discovered are groovesalad http://205.188.245.133:8076 and monkeyradio http://205.188.245.132:8038 both provide high quality recordable mp3s 24 hours a day.

- js.

LAME is probably the best encoder I've used. It's pretty much on par with the Fraunhofer encoder as far a quality, and it is way faster. It doesn't do MP3Pro (if that's what you mean by the new Fraunhofer update) but it doesn't really need it. It's much better than MM with its Xing encoder (Xing is outdated and it wasn't anything special when it was new). It has a lot of different features to play with and it's kinda complicated sometimes, so if you don't use it right you won't be satisfied with the quality. Maybe that's why Radio XY sounds bad.

[schmooky007]

>>>'how is lame and how is the sound'<<<

most audiophiles now swear by lame for high quality encoding (higher bitrates that is, not 128kbits ) and especially vbr. but some still prefer using fhg

for low bitrates (< 128kbits) fhg encoders (in particular mp3enc which is fraunhofer's flagship encoder because its the only one they update from time to time) are still more preferred

as for xingenc, well xing is complete garbage. i really don't want to argue with people who say xing is good any more because there's no point. xing doesn't use shortblocks and as a result it doesn't code fast attacks well at all. granted this is probably one of the reasons why xing is very fast but the outcome of that is significant pre-echo artifacts.. literally takes the whole listening enjoyment away.. if you are still using xing under the illusion that you're getting decent results the only thing i can is stop!!!

i get the gist of it but i'm interested only in 128 and sometimes even less. anything higher and i go right to wav. well maybe 256 occasionally, but that would be rare.
so basically you think mp3enc for 128 down and lame for 160 up?
i'm not hearing pre echo but what i'm also not hearing is impact, and it's by far the biggest shortfall in the whole mp3 equation. the freq response is pretty good but the transients just get lost. and i wants me transients.

[fblaguy]

ok, well i am a bit stupid on this, but how would i update the encoder for a program like say.....cdex?

[mike4947]

Originally posted by fblaguy
ok, well i am a bit stupid on this, but how would i update the encoder for a program like say.....cdex?

I got a couple of messages in to CDEX about that very thing...no answer yet

[schmooky007]

Originally posted by fblaguy
ok, well i am a bit stupid on this, but how would i update the encoder for a program like say.....cdex?

me thinks cdex (like audiograbber) uses both lame_enc.dll which is sort of like a "plugin" of the lame encoder and it also offers to choose external encoders and the ability to use additional command line options. 3.89 beta comes with an updated dll so all you do is just swap it instead of the old one

i would use the executable though instead of the dll

sorry i never used cdex so i cant really tell ya more than that
use eac btw, way better