Radium MP3 Codec For XP - Get It Here.


Recommended Posts

Originally posted by Krome

Welcome to the world of rippings! :) This is an old release of MP3 Codec... Released since June 26, 1999... I thought something new... :) but thanks for the info...

You are right, it is an old release, but it's still the best encoder out there and very fast too, even in "high quality" mode.

System Specs:

AMD 1.4 GHz

512 DDR RAM

30 Gig WD HD

Radeon 64 SDR

Windows XP Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a new version of the LAME DLL was recently released...

I personally prefer the LAME codec, I have both...LAME seems to produce better rips for me (audiograbber 1.8)

anyways...

welcome!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by [Fuzzy]a new version of the LAME DLL was recently released...

I personally prefer the LAME codec, I have both...LAME seems to produce better rips for me (audiograbber 1.8)

anyways...

welcome!

I have the LAME 3.90 encoder as well and I think it does a great job too. I use it at times, but NOTHING and I mean NOTHING encodes better than the Windows Media 8 Codec at 48kbps. I tried all MP3 encoders at that setting and they sound terrible, even LAME. The WM8 codec seems to do a fine job at that setting. Try it and you'll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

umm....

errr....

if my friends who use linux wanna listen to cds i rip, how can they with WMA?

or my friends who use macs?

does iTunes support WMA?

or does (insert name of linux-based mp3 player) support WMA?

if not...then...

edit:

screw my friends

what about on MY iBook!!

and can you burn WMA's to cd? (without using XP Built in CD BUrning)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any mp3 encoder usually sounds poor at bitrates below 56Kbps - mp3pro rectifies the issues in these low bitrate scenarios using SBR.

(read about it at www.mp3prozone.com)

WMA is better at low bitrates but still sounds awful. Bizarre phasing in the high frequency range and muffled at mid range.

Even WMA at its max quality (192kbps) still has audible artifacts and does not produce files smaller than Lame.

Like others have said WMA is closed source(platform dependant) and not compatible with the iPod (anyone got one yet?)

On my Intel Pocket Concert Audio Player WMA files sound poor, but custom Lame VBR mp3's sound fantastic (the file sizes are approximately equal too)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really use that WMA encoder for anything, except when I want to be nice to some lady on the web and send her a super compressed song! - Jajajajajajajajaja.

I always use the Radium MP3 codec and sometimes LAME. They are the best out there. LAME encodes faster though but it is barely noticeable. The quality of LAME has improved quite much. Fraunhoffer has some serious competition now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LAME makes better mp3 than FhG in every single aspect.

people who use FhG codec are either stupid or deaf.

Even though I agree with you basic idea...

Part of every Bulletin Board is one Understood Rule

Don't be a dick

If someone prefers FhG...that's their preference...audio is almost always a personal choice because each person's auditory preference is different.

I use LAME...because I like the quality it produces...but until I used LAME FhG was perfect for me...I just found something I liked better..

maybe they just like FhG better...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by MxxCon

LAME makes better mp3 than FhG in every single aspect.

people who use FhG codec are either stupid or deaf.

Well thank you very much for your kind compliments. They are very much appreciated, BUT if you read the notes at the LAME homepage, the creators of LAME admit themselves that although LAME is a good encoder, that they have NOT been able to produce the quality MP3s that the Fraunhoffer encoder makes and that their goal is just that so there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by [Fuzzy]

Even though I agree with you basic idea...

Part of every Bulletin Board is one Understood Rule

Don't be a dick

If someone prefers FhG...that's their preference...audio is almost always a personal choice because each person's auditory preference is different.

I use LAME...because I like the quality it produces...but until I used LAME FhG was perfect for me...I just found something I liked better..

maybe they just like FhG better...

Couldn't agree with you more. Thanks Fuzzy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.