Hier staat een test op van een BETA van OGG (toch niet slecht voor een beta vind je niet?):
[url="http://www.digit-life.com/articles/oggvslame/"]http://www.digit-life.com/articles/oggvslame/[/url]
OGG
BETA 4 vs Lame
Er wordt alleen gekeken naar de geluids kwaliteit.
De conclusie van deze site:
Conclusion
1. The new versions of both coders handle their tasks much better than the previous ones.
2. The quality in the ABR mode for the LAME is never worse than in a standard mode, and it is often much better at any bitrates.
3. In the mode of the maximum similarity with an original (320/350 Kbit) both coders perform excellently.
4. In the ABR 256 Kbit mode the LAME better reproduces highs, and the OGG works better with middle frequencies. I would rather recommend the OGG, but it hasn't solid advantage as far as compatibility is concerned.
5. Coding in the 256 Kbit mode for the OGG and in the ABR 256 Kbit mode for the LAME corresponds to high quality and it is a good choice if you don't want the maximum similarity with an original.
6. In the ABR 192 Kbit mode the LAME is on the whole better than the OGG.
7. In case of 160 and 128 Kbit the OGG is an obvious leader.
8. The coding quality of 160 Kbit is much better than that of 128, that is why I recommend to take 160 everywhere where it is possible.
*edit: het is een oude test dus
:strip_exif()/u/23079/microsore60.gif?f=community)
:strip_exif()/u/14956/Untitled-2.gif?f=community)
/u/4375/crop5daf5c8ded030_cropped.png?f=community)
Dit topic is gesloten.