Subject: Re: MP3 rippng too slow
From: Ben Stanley (bds02@uow.edu.au)
Date: Mon Mar 11 2002 - 18:20:19 MST
Chayim I. Kirshen wrote:
>Really?
>
>I've found the exact reverse. First of all it matters what you encode
>at. Assuming they're the same, I've always found iTunes to have far
>better fidelity.
>
iTunes encodes at 196kbps by default, rather than 124kbps which is the
usual for downloaded mp3s and probably the default for lame. So of
course iTunes will sound better - you're comparing apples with oranges.
There is a comparison of various encoders, including iTunes, at
http://ff123.net/signatures.html
It seems that iTunes doesn't come out too well here, but the test
doesn't seem to give objective listening results. It seems to be more
about identifying the encoder by the deficiencies of the decoded output.
For general information on audio encoding, there is a resource at
http://ff123.net/
Some listening tests are at
http://ff123.net/128tests.html
The person responsible for the web site can often be found on IRC at
irc.openprojects.net on #vorbis
Ben.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Mon Mar 11 2002 - 18:32:36 MST