Is there any difference between using Lame --decode to produce wav files and using Winamp's disk writer plugin? Has anyone done any testing to determine which is more faithful to the original?
What do you use to decode your mp3 files to wav?

--Rizban

See:

http://www.mp3decoders.org/

and

http://www.mars.org/home/rob/proj/mpeg/compliance/

I use lame to decode because there is next to zero chance of screwing up a decode by leaving some dsp or equalization on, or even using the wrong decoder by mistake, which happens more often than one might think when using Winamp.

Also, if you use lame to decode a lame-encoded file, the offset is 0.

ff123

Thanks for the suggestions. The analysis on the web paged you mentioned looks quite exaustive, though they are using earlier versions of LAME and WinAmp. I assume that newer versions are at least as accurate as the ones tested.

All Winamp versions > 2.7 have exactly the same decoder, so yes, they should be equally accurate. I don't know if LAME's (mpg123) decoding routines have changed, though.

I use lame to decode mp3 files encoded with lame, cause it has a very useful feature of eliminating encoder/decoder delay. I believe that is the best way. For the other mp3 files i use madplay and winamp. I prefer madplay in the last time, cause, as volcano said,

[QUOTE]
I use lame to decode because there is next to zero chance of screwing up a decode by leaving some dsp or equalization on, or even using the wrong decoder by mistake, which happens more often than one might think when using Winamp.

I have only a problem with eliminating the padding silence in decoded mp3 cause I am not familiar with any program that does it.

Does anyone know if the problems with the nero decoder have been fixed?