So it was mentioned that LAME sucks balls, what else is out there, that I should try?

I'm not agreeing that LAME sucks balls, until I hear something audibly superior myself. That I can use.

I dont think lame is that bad, (320 KB), I think it just is no match for another encoder recently discussed.

Lame is still the best MP3 encoder that is publicly available, as far as I know.

Dusty, I know you have computer recording stuff; I would bet Digidesign and similar companies may offer encoders with their products. Or maybe Steinberg Cubase or similar. I think the two basic options are open source LAME and proprietary commercial stuff. Though admittedly, I stick to lossless mah self.

OK. I'll help you out. The encoder I use is the one of two encoders that use the ORIGINAL Fraunhofer codec simply called CODEC. It gives full frequency response from 20Hz to 20kHz at 128kps. That is how you know you have it. Also, it can't and will not encode anything above 128kps. Find one of the two that uses CODEC and you'll be good to go. They were last available sometime in late 1995 / early 1996.

OK. I'll help you out. The encoder I use is the one of two encoders that use the ORIGINAL Fraunhofer codec simply called CODEC. It gives full frequency response from 20Hz to 20kHz at 128kps. That is how you know you have it. Also, it can't and will not encode anything above 128kps. Find one of the two that uses CODEC and you'll be good to go. They were last available sometime in late 1995 / early 1996.

I KNEW IT! Had to be fraunhofer

LAME 3.97+ at the V0 VBR preset sounds good to me ...for lossy compression. I don't spent much time critically comparing different mp3 encoders, however. For anything serious I use FLAC.

I KNEW IT! Had to be fraunhofer

Yes, but Fraunhofer has many different encoders. You want to find the original released sometime in 1991. It is the best one. LAME can't even touch it, although I admit LAME sounds good at 320kps. However, the original sounds almost lossless at 128kps.

Yes, but Fraunhofer has many different encoders. You want to find the original released sometime in 1991. It is the best one. LAME can't even touch it, although I admit LAME sounds good at 320kps. However, the original sounds almost lossless at 128kps.

so do you use lossless at all LFF? might be a stupid question

so do you use lossless at all LFF? might be a stupid question

Yes. Almost everything I own is backed up in APE or FLAC. Some stuff, like some rare needledrops, are archived in 32/96 WAV files. However, for iPod and Car MP3 CD's, I use 128MP3.

Thanks for the info. I'll do some research. Is it VBR? Because I'm not sure that a full-frequency response is necessarily the only goal -- for example, I'm big on group delay distortion (or rather, big on keeping it to a minimum). One of the reasons I like SACD so much, I think.

And sorry for being a pig about it. It's just that, when I hear that there's better out there, my first reaction is that I want to hear it for myself.

Monsieur Samich -- yeah, wouldn't surprise me at all if some of the higher-end companies have superior pay encoders.

Thanks for the info. I'll do some research. Is it VBR? Because I'm not sure that a full-frequency response is necessarily the only goal -- for example, I'm big on group delay distortion (or rather, big on keeping it to a minimum). One of the reasons I like SACD so much, I think.

And sorry for being a pig about it. It's just that, when I hear that there's better out there, my first reaction is that I want to hear it for myself.

Monsieur Samich -- yeah, wouldn't surprise me at all if some of the higher-end companies have superior pay encoders.

I understand completely. I'd love to post it all over the place but I can't. IMHO, it is extremely hard to tell the difference between the original and the mp3. I have Rockbox on my iPod and have both lossless and mp3 on it. When I played it for people at the National Convention, not one could tell that they were listening to mp3. You've probaby already listened to it.