Okay, it seems that the consensus is that #2 sounds better. I agree with that fully!
#1 was encoded in Wavelab using the Lame codec.
#2 was encoded in Audioactive Production Studio using the Fraunhofer codec.
This is a funny story, because I started using Wavelab to encode, THINKING I was still using a Frauhofer codec. I tend to just encode, then send them out without listening. So anyways, when I got my dsl and some webspace to upload to, I started listening through some stuff to see what I wanted to upload. I was noticing some disturbing things when I did. I was noticing that the stuff I encoded a long time ago sounded much tighter and more like the original .wav files than stuff I had encoded recently. Then Slackmaster pointed out after my last 128 compared to 192 test I posted that Wavelab uses the Lame codec. ?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! OH shit! I double checked that, and sure enough.
So, I started a few A/B's between Lame and Frauhofer. I posted this example because of the very subtle nuances in the drums, and the very wide dynamic range of the song.
So, anyway, I still stand behind my suggestion to use Fraunhofer codecs. To my ears, at 192kbs, Frauhofer offers a better conversion. It sounds much more like the original .wav than Lame does. If you use Lame and are happy with it, well, go to town friend. I am not happy with Lame. I don't like the way it tends to smear the sound all across the frequency spectrum, and it seems to produce weird sounding artifacts to the audio.
Thanks for participating guys. Your reponses have strengthened my resolve to stick with and only recommend Frauhofer codecs for mp3 encoding.
Ed