Tom Fine wrote: > Don: > > Absolutely. I find that encoders are even more different. They make > different sounding and different sized files, at the same bitrate. I > prefer real-deal German-licensed MP3 encoders. Have never liked the slow > speed or bad sound results I've gotten from LAME with various front > ends. I find that Sony Soundforge, since they licensed the German CODEC, > makes fine-sounding MP3's but they are bloated compared to what Apple or > MusicMatch turns out. As for decoders, the worst-sounding MP3 player is > by far the Real software. MusicMatch and Apple both play fine-sounding > MP3 but are both bloated programs that use a lot of overhead. If you > want a very low-resource program that sounds just fine, check out the > AudioActive player from Telos Systems. I just noticed there's no obvious > link to download it from their website anymore. Pity. > > -- Tom Fine I analyzed encoders early on and have tried to maintain currency as they have appeared and been upgraded. Oversimplifying, the Fraunhofer codec minimizes artifacts at the expense of high-frequency response. MP3 encoding is one topic appearing on several pages of the primer at my WWW site (on the CD-recording side). This one illustrates the differences in encoders. http://www.mrichter.com/cdr/primer/mp3enc.htm My own taste dictates minimizing what is inserted into the sound, so I choose sample rate and compression to provide the desired frequency response with the Fraunhofer codec. Another good choice (though it does push a bit on the high end with some artifacts) is LAME. Particularly at high bitrates where any artifacts are less likely to be recognized, it is a good alternative. And unlike the incarnations of the licensed Fraunhofer codec, it is freeware. Mike -- [log in to unmask] http://www.mrichter.com/