> The quality of the encoder -engines- are in order: > > Fraunhoffer (spelling correct?) > Xing > ISO
Really? Dit you really try the ISO encoding model? > However, the quality differences are only noticeable > by -very- high trained professionals or with oscilloscopes. To my grandmother, maybe. Did you really try to encode sound of castanets? Using wich of them you got "underwater"sounds trying to encode such sound? And the high frequency noise before short attack notes (not present in the source sound)? The ISO demosnstration code is a mess, full of bugs. LAME sounds better. BladeEnc is a short derivative from ISO, and artifacts are only avoided using _high_ sample rates. It also does not support Variable Bit Rate (like Xing and LAME). Xing does a high frequency cut at 16KHz to reduce work on encoding (changing hardly the sound), while Fraunhoffer and LAME do at 20KHz. Indeed Fraunhoffer is the best till now. LAME is promising (and almost acomplishing). Taupter
