Re: [ARSCLIST] Soundcard/iTunes phollies

[Dave Nolan <davenolanaudio@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tom - 

I mean just that...  Better results.  As in noticably cleaner audio with 
fewer artifacts - especially at the lower kbps rates that many clients want 
to take advantage of.

Again, I have not had the time/energy to do extensive testing of different 
codecs and pieces of software.  I beleive there is also a way to make Lame 
work with iTunes -- http://blacktree.com/apps/iTunes-LAME/ --  but haven't 
had time to test it out...

And FWIW, the suggestion (from Jeffrey Kane)of visiting the 
http://www.HydrogenAudio.org forums was great!  Now I can forsee several 
late nights in a row up at the computer reading through the many many 
discussion threads of different codecs and how they play nicely with 
different software packages... 

Me & the family cat (who seems to enjoy my lap when I surf into the night) 
will be googly-eyed with lack of sleep by Monday I,m sure...

>o,0<~~~

dave nolan
92nd St. Y
nyc


On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 18:08:54 -0500, Tom Fine <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:

>Hi Dave:
>
>What do you mean by "much better results"?  I'm curious.
>
>I've had very bad experiences with LAME on any of my PC's. It's slow, 
deadly slow and the MP3 files
>don't sound any better to my ears than just letting iTunes do the work. 
Sometimes LAME produces a
>little bit smaller file, not sure why. I used to MusicMatch to do the 
ripping but iTunes is just as
>fast and takes care of putting into the library and my iPod. MP3 saved out 
of Sony Soundforge seem
>to sound just fine but for some reason are always larger file size for the 
same bitrate than iTunes
>or MusicMatch. I can't understand that since all three use the official 
German codec as far as I
>know.
>
>-- Tom Fine
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Dave Nolan" <davenolanaudio@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 11:34 AM
>Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Soundcard/iTunes phollies
>
>
>Eric -
>
>Just wondering where you might have heard these "anecdotes" about WMP vs.
>iTunes?
>
>Is there any good resource/online discussion about different MP3 encoding
>techniques / players / etc... that you've found to have a good "signal-to-
>noise ratio"?
>
>I've done minimal testing comparison of encoders for Mac, and am currently
>using Peak with LameLib (much better results @ 128kbps stereo on my intel
>Mac than iTunes)...
>
>dave nolan
>92nd St. Y
>NYC
>
>>I've not tested this hypothesis to a great extent, but anecdotally it
>>seems that iTunes is much less efficient at handling VBR encoded MP3s
>>than Fixed Bit Rate MP3s, whereas WMP seems to handle VBR and FBR MP3s
>>equally well.
>>
>>Anyone else notice similar VBR/FBR difference between iTunes and WMP?
>>
>>Eric Jacobs
>>The Audio Archive
>>tel: 408.221.2128
>>fax: 408.549.9867
>>mailto:EricJ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>=========================================================================