Isn't "Cleaner" the best encoder since they are the standard for video? On Saturday, September 14, 2002, at 06:17 PM, organism@hydrophilus.com wrote:
Klonk Sat, 14 Sep 2002 08:43:28 -0700 veschprigt mroktar RM <mreinstein@earthlink.net> [re: Re: [Yello] MP3 Compression]:
I use a program called Musicmatch Jukebox... When you put the CD in the drive it can go out and lookup the CD info in the CDDB if you have a connetion to the internet so you don't have to type all of album info in. Software made for lazy people will sacrifice either quality or functionality first.
It's very worth the money. No, it isn't, when one considers the following facts:
ExactAudioCopy is free. LAME is free. RazorLAME is free. MusicMatch is a howling piece of shit. ... becuase MusicMatch uses a deprecated encoder, more akin to XingTech's. It throws away a lot of information during compression instead of dealing with it. You get a faster encode, but with less information, which is to say, lower quality. Yes, sure, it's compressing /what's left/ at 160kbps or 192 kbps or whatever, but again, you aren't getting /everything/.
It's easy to use. Just because it is easy doesn't make it good.
EAC is fantastic as a ripper, AND it is easy. It'll rip-and-compress with the encoder of your choice, all of which makes it superior to MMJ.
Again, I plug for OGG, which is superior [proven with listening tests]. It is also open and free. Read again my previously posted hyperlink that explains in Thompson/Frauenhofer's own words the fees involved with both encoding and decoding an MP3.
_______________________________________________ Yello mailing list Yello@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/yello