Re: Which has a better MP3 encoder, Foobar2000 or Windows Media Player 12?
Reply #17 –
Again in your last post you are confusing the accuracy of the ripping and the audio quality of the mp3 files produced. These are two entirely separate things: the best CD ripper could produce terrible quality mp3 files and vice versa.
Doesn't iTunes use a Fraunhofer mp3 encoder? Nothing to stop mp3 encoding frequencies up to 24 kHz (not quite so high from a CD obviously), although high frequencies are usually filtered out a long way below that. Since very few people can even hear frequencies above 16k (or a lot lower!) and even then can hardly detect whether they are present or not in real music, most encoders make the best use of their previous bits by totally removing high frequencies and concentrating on things that are more important to the perceived quality of the music. Would you prefer that inaudible high frequencies were retained, but the music sounded poor because there weren't enough bits available to properly represent the main melody and vocals?
I guess what was confusing me was how the WMP mp3s actually retained that >20.5kHz data, when that typically is not be expected, when both the WMP mp3 and Foobar2000 mp3 have about the same file size. But as others have said here, it may not be the correct reflection of accuracy or quality.
Okay, thanks. I guess from all that I read here, I'll tell them to use the LAME mp3 encoder (using Foobar2000) rather than the WMP Fraunhofer mp3 encoder. Thanks again for your help, I guess was trying find an ultimate final decision in weighing the factors of 1) which CD ripping program was best (Foobar2000 vs WMP 12) with their "error correcting" or "ripping security" features, and 2) their own mp3 encoder (Fraunhofer vs LAME). I apologize for my confusion.
lame.exe -V0 -b 320 song.wav