After trying last lame beta I get to such a conclusion - many of my music now should have a bitrate > 200Kbit when using profile corresponding to old preset standart.
It is close to bitrates layer 2 is aimed to: 224Kbit and 256Kbit.
So, here goes a question: what should have a better quality with this bitrate ?
Was there any test of layer 2 encoders comparing to mp3 ?

I'd think that the LAME encoder would be better tuned than any MP2 encoder at that bitrate. I have no stats or tests to support this however. The result would be interesting.

mp2 is inferior compared to mp3 because it doesn't support "joint-stereo"



Mp3 for sure, LAME is really tuned, LAME dev has devoted lots of their time (years) to tune that codec.... there is no such highly tuned mp2 codec available

the only tuned mp2 deriviate is mpc, mpc is based on mp2, but has added many other stuffs and is not decodable by a mp2 decoder.

There are at least 2 commercial MP2 encoders which have constantly been tuned at least until year 2000:
the IRT (Institut für Rundfunktechnik in Munich) and the Digigram (a french company selling hardware encoder cards for PC systems) implementations.
They are sure better than toolame, but I don't know of any listening test against MP3 enoders.

edit: the lack of ms-stereo really is a built-in flaw, just like the sfb21 issue of MP3.

That's why I've asked.
MPC produce files about 170Kbit on such a material, so mp2 has at least 55Kbit (for 224Kbit) gain comparing to mpc and that's rather big difference to overcome improvements migrated from mp3 to mpc...
mp2 is a lot simplier than mp3 so while it can not be competitor with bitrates about 128 - 160Kbit, it's overall more simplier design should allow less faults in high bitrate range, may be ?

BTW, as I understand, any mp3 decoder should decode mp2 ? (aka backward compartible)

I thought this was quite interesting, I didn't even know it existed:

Philips Multichannel MP2 encoder

That's very interesting. I have Digigram Xtrack (version 4.4, dated 2002), and I suppose it uses their high quality encoder. I wonder if the difference to tooLame is noticeable to my shitty ears :B

I had never heard of the IRT encoder. Too bad they don't offer a demo version at their site.

There are some samples available encoded with their encoder at http://www.irt.de/IRT/FuE/ak/AKhoeren.htm

But the purpose is to demonstrate different setups of their KEM microphone (a 2-dimensional cardioid)

MPEG compared Layer 2 to Layer 3, repeatedly, in an attempt to get rid of Layer 3 altogether.

The results were clear and in favor of Layer 3.

>>MPEG compared Layer 2 to Layer 3, repeatedly, in an attempt to get rid of Layer 3 altogether.
It's just impossible because this two aimed at different bitrate ranges when designed.

Interesting fact from the archives: about one year ago the topic MPEG1 Layer II vs Layer III was being discussed in this forum.