mp3lame vs shine Encoder

[Parham.8]

So yesterday I converted a .FLAC music file using both mp3lame and shine encoders. You can see the spectrogram results below. The thing is, shine encodes the mp3 file without cutting off its frequency. No matter if the bit rate is forced during convert process or not, the frequency will remain. But as some of you may know, mp3lame cuts off the frequency if you force the bit rate. However if you leave it be, it determines the bit rate automatically which I believe is variable. And in most of the files with variable bit rate, the frequency remains the same. I uploaded the files so that you can decide which one is better or not!

Lame 320bit 20.7
Lame 320

http://www.mediafire.com/view/7jkkg3kyctvtyhq/Lame%20320bit%2020.7.bmp

Shine VBR 22.1
Shine VBR

http://www.mediafire.com/view/xfog1llpqus01x2/Shine%20VBR%2022.1.bmp

Shine 320bit 22.1
Shine 320

http://www.mediafire.com/view/s1wh8we3k67x9p3/Shine%20320bit%2022.1.bmp

[Qwcc]

Re: mp3lame vs shine Encoder

What the heck is shine enocder? never heard of it lol

[Parham.8]

Re: mp3lame vs shine Encoder

My bad. I forgot to explain it. Here it is:
"Shine is a minimalistic MP3 encoder developed by Gabriel Bouvigne, of LAME development fame. His goal with it was not quality, but simplifying the encoding algorithms as much as possible while retaining standard compatibility. For that reason, it's a good starting point for people wanting to implement an encoder from scratch.

It is also the only open source MP3 encoder that runs on fixed point math machines - all other known public encoders depend on an FPU. The fixed point implementation was done by Peter Everett for ARM's RISCOS operating system."