Page 2 of 2
Re: ...
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 9:32 pm
by nebulae
raapie wrote:Fraunhofer
Compared it with LAME, but it's much better on all settings. 128 kpbs using Fraunhofer sounds more or less ok and is best for web-streaming. Fraunhofer is also better in compression compared to LAME.
I am using Fraunhofer in Wavelab 4. You need to buy a license. Without Wavelab I am not sure what to choose... advices are welcome!
I do hope LAME gets better because I believe in open formats. Ogg is killer though, better than AAC and MP3 of course.
I disagree entirely. I won't get into a bitch-fest with you, but to my ears, Lame sounds a lot better, especially at variable bit rates. We can agree to disagree
*hugs*
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 9:49 pm
by TASTY
All very well, but ridiculously slow compared to the ultra fast xilosoft audio converter.
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 10:27 pm
by leedsquietman
fraunhofer's codec is a good one for lower bitrate recordings such as 128 Kbps and below but LAME is generally acknowledged as a better encoder at 160-256 Kbps with 320 being equal.
To be honest, I barely tell the difference, and use Soundforge 8 for convenience as that's where I finalize mixes for mastering and audio editing, and it uses the fraunhofer codec. People show me graphs with frequency responses and bleat on about lame's superiority, but all that matters is what you hear with your ears and to mine, I can barely tell a difference. I have happily used CD Tag in the past for mp3 (lame), ogg vorbis and flac encoding but it's 25 dollar shareware.
Wavelab 5 and 6 provides fraunhofer and lame codecs so you can choose your personal preference.
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 10:34 pm
by aqua_tek
another vote for the Audacity/LAME combo
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 11:14 pm
by nebulae
TASTY wrote:
All very well, but ridiculously slow compared to the ultra fast xilosoft audio converter.
The reason why Xilosoft is fast is because rather than analyzing all the frequencies, it tends to lob them off. The sound isn't as good.
Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 11:05 am
by TASTY
nebulae wrote:TASTY wrote:
All very well, but ridiculously slow compared to the ultra fast xilisoft audio converter.
The reason why Xilisoft is fast is because rather than analyzing all the frequencies, it tends to lob them off. The sound isn't as good.
I disagree, the sound quality is as good as razorlame, I've tried em all, and I go for Xilisoft every time
Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 12:27 pm
by nebulae
cool cool, if it sounds good to you, that's all that matters
