[LAU] What is the best MP3 encoder?

[Raffaele Morelli]

2013/4/2 Jostein Chr. Andersen <jostein at vait.se>:
> On 04/02/2013 09:31 AM, Peder Hedlund wrote:
> ...
>>
>> Over at HydrogenAudio they have a rule that you aren't allowed to talk
>> about hearing differences between audio files unless you can prove it in
>> an ABX test.
>> You really should try doing one and check if you *really* can hear the
>> difference between the original wav and an mp3 produced by, say, "lame
>> -V4" ( which would be ~160kbps) or if it's just your mind fooling you
>> into thinking you can. Never underestimate the power of belief :)
>
>
> Are you basically saying that it's no need for lossless formats?  ;-)
>
> All respect for HydrogenAudio, but I can't think about other's rules when I
> just have to make a MP3 file without esses or tones that's missing, then I
> just have to do the mix better and somehow compensate a little bit. MP3
> artifacts and some quality loss are well known issues and should not create
> to much debate. I already use LAME through Audacity, I don't need help on
> that and take anybody's word for it when they say that this is the best
> encoder. Then it's only one thing left: I need to improve my mixes, and as
> I've said earlier elsewhere: I have no problem dealing with that. And
> believe me: I know very well that you can't always trust your ears and that
> everything will sound the same every time. :-)
>
>
> Jostein

Does anybody remember the CD vs Vinyl debate? This thread is going in
that direction, really the same old thing again and again...

Audio geeks will tend to the "best air particles recording ever with
hyper-condeser-mics and... To infinity and beyond!", music lovers are
happy (even) with crackling Holiday records from '30 or Lomax
recordings.

/r


-- 
L'unica speranza di catarsi, ammesso che ne esista una, resta affidata
all'istinto di ribellione, alla rivolta non isterilita in progetti,
alla protesta violenta e viscerale. (V. Evangelisti)