I believe that codecs do not really differ in the amount of compression per streaming \"setting\" ... [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]
I think the Lame encoder is really good.
The Razorlame GUI is also very simple and quick to use (file and folder dropping, etc).
I also have the old Fraunhofer \"producer\" codec, which is also really good, but once gave me compatibility problems with some players. No longer sure, but I believe it cannot handle the higher settings.
If are to make a top-10, I suggest we put iTunes on 11 [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img]
I also use the LAME encoder. I tested about 4 different encoders a while back, including Fraunhofer, Xing, Lame and I don\'t remember the others, and LAME sounded best to me on my music. In some cases there was quite a difference.
Hey guys, A question if I may. On top of this thread and Kirks recent flute discovery, there has been a discussion of mp3 encoding in the East/West (Sonic Implants?) area. In all of this, I haven\'t heard anyone discuss the new AAC comp that Itunes now has. I believe it\'s mpeg4, yes? There is a lot of discussion on Mac heavy sites but no mention here. I\'m curious if I were to post in that format would you guys be able to download and listen? The general consensus seems to be that quality wise, 128 in AAC equals about 160-192 in mp3. Anybody using it yet?
Francis, I am personally using itunes at 160 vbr. Have to keep my files kinda small as my site is a freebie from my isp with a piddling allowance. Would Lame really be be a better way to go?
Francis, I would love to get my mitts on that flute. Still available?