Klemm's vs Buschmann's

2004-03-21 16:58:23

A friend of mine showed me these imgs after I've been telling him to use the Frank Klemm's version of the MPC encoder instead of Buschmann's, as HA recommends.
And the question these imgs pose to us is why does the Frank Klemm's version still sound better than the Buschmann's one? Thx for replying.

[span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%']Wav[/span]:
http://img36.photobucket.com/albums/v110/a...encoder/Wav.jpg

[span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%']Buschmann's Q7[/span]:
http://img36.photobucket.com/albums/v110/a...uschmannsQ7.jpg

[span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%']Klemm's Q8[/span]:
http://img36.photobucket.com/albums/v110/a...er/KlemmsQ8.jpg

[span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%']Klemm's Q7[/span]:
http://img36.photobucket.com/albums/v110/a...er/KlemmsQ7.jpg

[span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%']moderation: Huge images changed to links. Learn to compress them properly too.[/span]

Klemm's vs Buschmann's

Reply #1 – 2004-03-21 17:11:15

Because we don't listen to pictures. Anybody have a link to Garf's explanation of this?

Klemm's vs Buschmann's

Reply #2 – 2004-03-21 17:15:14

Please read TOS #8 first. Graphs say very little about quality of lossy compression. In fact, good lossy encoder should remove as much content as possible without causing audible effects.

Klemm's vs Buschmann's

Reply #3 – 2004-03-21 19:35:11

To add to this, it was an open secret that the "full bandwidth encoding" of the old --insane was added at some time by request, not because it sounds better. Later it was removed again because what it really does is just wasting bits.