Rich Felker dalias at aerifal.cx
\nFri Aug 12 04:04:00 CEST 2005<\/p>\n
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 07:24:07PM +0200, Balatoni Denes wrote:
\n> Hi!
\n>
\n> Wow. Out of curiosity what mp3 encoder do you recommend?<\/p>\n
I don’t know of any that are better. But in theory, it’s possible to
\navoid these types of artifacts.<\/p>\n
BTW please don’t top-post. It makes it hard to reply in a sane way.<\/p>\n
Rich<\/p>\n
>
\n> cs\u00fct\u00f6rt\u00f6k 11 augusztus 2005 18.23-kor Rich Felker ezeket a bolcs gondolatokat
\n> fogalmazta meg:
\n> > LAME is actually very inefficient and produces noticable artifacts
\n> > that can be avoided on certains kinds of content. It’s not the godly
\n> > mp3 encoder people make it out to be..
\n> >
\n> > Rich
\n>
\n> bye
\n> Denes
\n>
\n> —
\n> – Use the Source Luke ! –
\n><\/p>\n
From: http:\/\/lists.mplayerhq.hu\/pipermail\/ffmpeg-devel\/2005-August\/003200.html<\/p>\n
PS. Previous to this someone sayed that lame, it’s a fine tunned mp3 encoder… and as Nodens points out, ogg and flac do exist… but the important point here, is which is the best mp3 encoder that currently exists. Not theorethically but working right here, right now.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rich Felker dalias at aerifal.cx Fri Aug 12 04:04:00 CEST 2005 On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 07:24:07PM +0200, Balatoni Denes wrote: > Hi! > > Wow. Out of curiosity what mp3 encoder do you recommend? I don’t know of … Sigue leyendo