green: pcm wave 44.1 khz 16 bit stereo
red: Radium team's mp3 codec (Fraunhofer Institute's hacked)
blue: lame 3.95.1
yellow: lame 3.93.1
(frequency analysis made with adobe audition (cool edit pro 2))
(track ripped with Audiograbber 1.82.2 and every time compressed at 128kbps, at highest quality setting (with all codecs))
(i have made similar alalysis with other tracks and kinds of music and the result were the same)

as i still have to compress my cds in mp3 format for compatibility reasons (my portable cd player support only mp3 and atrac3plus format) i wanted to ask you whether the Radium codec is my best option indeed or not. at my analysis it seems that this codec has the best frequency response speaking of mp3 codecs. however the last version of lame has made a great improvement comparing to the previous one. why isn't the Radium codec mentioned at all at your site?
thanx

music quality is judged by ears, not eyes

How the hell do you think a chart can tell you how something sounds?

I can show you a chart of a codec that has info for 20hz-20khz, but if you listen to it, it screws up all the info in between. Not to mention, didn't the radium codec also suffer from the stereo collapse bug?

a friend told me that average adult human ears can listen only up to about 15khz and only an infant or some supermen are able to capture sounds between 15-20khz (as we have learned in physics). maybe he's wrong and maybe you're right and eyes are also wrong. that's why i posted this. i hope you know better than me.

my friend dreamliner77 that's why i asked for your opinions. so you're telling me that the Radium codec doesn't sound to human ears as good as other codecs (am i right?) can you please be more specific and make suggestions (using arguments always of course)?? thank you in advance

Wow, your friend must be right, cause so I am a superman (or ele...)

A few weeks ago, I tested iTunes with built-in aac-encoder at a bitrate of 128 kbps.
I thought it sounds fine, but there was something wrong with high frequencies.
The reason : at this bitrate encoder's lowpass works at 16 kHz, which is indeed not enough for my ears ...

yes i does and also som other bugs to.
its REALLY not god at all

First of all welcome on the forum.
2. You can always go in MP3 General group and read sticky rules. There is almost anything you would like to know.
3. This picture says nothing about sound quality.
4. At what bitrate do you want to encode? CBR? ABR? VBR? (don't be afraid of ABR and VBR - they are very safe to use with LAME)
5. If 190-220 Kbs fits you well, I advise you to use LAME 3.90.3 with --alt-preset standard or --alt-preset fast standard. It is up todate standard for transparent MP3 encodings for most people.
6. If 200 Kbs doesn't fit you use --alt-preset XXX (XXX - stands for bitrate)
7. Yes, LAME uses lowpass filter, but if you realy want to look at pictures, enable 'spectrum' mode in CoolEdit and you will see that LAME cuts high frequencies not on all positions, but only on selected.

Just hang around HA long enough and read and you will learn all you've ever wanted to know and ssome more.

Not to mention that it's older than dust.

Stick to LAME.

BOLLOCKS!

Get informed before posting bullshit. fastencc has the stereo collapse bug, not Radium.

Also, where to get informed:
http://ff123.net/cbr128.html