ISO and Fraunhoffer are two different encoding algorythms. Read carefully:)
One of the differences is that Fraunhoffer encoders use joint-stereo on lower bitrates (less than 192kb/s), while ISO-based encoders use two-channel stereo (so for 128kbit/s they will compress each channel with 64kbit/s), thus they sound worse on slower bitrates.
The exact encoder you use doesn't make much difference, it's matter of what codec it uses.
If you make mp3s with bitrate 160 or less, you should use Frainhgoffer-based encoders (such as l3enc).
If you make mp3s with bitrate 192 or more, then the best choice is ISO-based encoders (such as BladeEnc).
ISO-based encoders on lower bitrates (less than 192kbit/s) produce some unpleasant noise (you will hear it if you listen your music on quality hi-fi systems).
XING-based encoders should not be used at all. They produce very poor quality mp3s, and they cut off all frequences above 16000hz.
Here are the reasons not to use VQF: 1. MP3 is the standard now, widely supported. For example, have you seen VQF car player somewhere? (don't tell me VQF is the standard of the future, it has been available for a very long time already and still is used by very few) 2. The quality of VQF is argueble. Some people tell it is better, but many (myself included) see it is as inferior to mp3s.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm.
When I take a photo of some moving objects, ain't I getting a snapshot of their positions at one instant of time?
Hmm.
When I take a photo of some moving objects, ain't I getting a snapshot of their positions at one instant of time?
My personal selections are:
Marduk
Dark Tranquillity
In Flames
Children Of Bodom
Opera IX
Dismal Euphony
Dimmu Borgir
Gehenna
Limbonic Art
Elend
ISO and Fraunhoffer are two different encoding algorythms. Read carefully :)
One of the differences is that Fraunhoffer encoders use joint-stereo on lower bitrates (less than 192kb/s), while ISO-based encoders use two-channel stereo (so for 128kbit/s they will compress each channel with 64kbit/s), thus they sound worse on slower bitrates.
The exact encoder you use doesn't make much difference, it's matter of what codec it uses.
If you make mp3s with bitrate 160 or less, you should use Frainhgoffer-based encoders (such as l3enc).
If you make mp3s with bitrate 192 or more, then the best choice is ISO-based encoders (such as BladeEnc).
ISO-based encoders on lower bitrates (less than 192kbit/s) produce some unpleasant noise (you will hear it if you listen your music on quality hi-fi systems).
XING-based encoders should not be used at all. They produce very poor quality mp3s, and they cut off all frequences above 16000hz.
Here are the reasons not to use VQF:
1. MP3 is the standard now, widely supported. For example, have you seen VQF car player somewhere? (don't tell me VQF is the standard of the future, it has been available for a very long time already and still is used by very few)
2. The quality of VQF is argueble. Some people tell it is better, but many (myself included) see it is as inferior to mp3s.
Where is that quote from? I'm pretty sure I have already seen something very similar somewhere, but can't remember where...