Thanks for the tip. I'll check it out. --Hans
>
>I'm using cdenc
>
>- snip ---
>#!/usr/bin/perl
>#
># Creation of whole mp3 Suite of one CD
>#
># Version 0.3.5 of 06.07.1999 by Stephan Skrodzki
>#
> snip -
>
>with little changes with lame or gogo.
>a very easy way to create *
On Sun, 19 Mar 2000, Hans wrote:
> I've been comparing (not)lame313 and bladeenc today and (not)lame does
> sound equally good at 128 compared to bladeenc at 256 bitrate. I use The
> Who's 'Won't Get Fooled Again' for comparison, if you wonder.
>
> What I can't get done with (not)lame is batch
On Sun, 19 Mar 2000, Hans wrote:
> I've been comparing (not)lame313 and bladeenc today and (not)lame does
> sound equally good at 128 compared to bladeenc at 256 bitrate. I use The
> Who's 'Won't Get Fooled Again' for comparison, if you wonder.
>
> What I can't get done with (not)lame is batch
> What I can't get done with (not)lame is batch jobs. Bladeenc simply names
> the mp3 after the original file, changing wav to mp3. You can type
> $bladeenc *.wav and all the wav files in the directory get encoded. How can
> you do this with (not)lame, as it requires both input and output name? --h
I've been comparing (not)lame313 and bladeenc today and (not)lame does
sound equally good at 128 compared to bladeenc at 256 bitrate. I use The
Who's 'Won't Get Fooled Again' for comparison, if you wonder.
What I can't get done with (not)lame is batch jobs. Bladeenc simply names
the mp3 after the
5 matches
Mail list logo
