Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Any difference in decoders? (Read 4485 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Any difference in decoders?

I was wondering whether there are any significant differences in the results produces by various mp3 codecs when decoding (lame, fraunhofer, thomson etc.)? As I understand it, different codecs encode using different algorithms and the resulting mp3 files are not exactly the same. That goes for the decoding as well right? I mean, shouldnt you use the same codec for encoding and decoding? If a mp3 file was made using lame, then I should use lame when listening to it etc. etc.
Or are there any codecs that are better than others at decoding?

Any difference in decoders?

Reply #1 –
http://mp3decoders.mp3-tech.org/intro.html
"the MPEG standard sets out the requirement for a decoder exactly – a given MPEG-1 layer 3 stream (typically an .mp3 file on a PC) should always decode to a certain uncompressed digital audio signal (typically a .wav file on a PC). Apart from rounding errors in the last bit (i.e. +1 or -1 on a scale ranging from –32768 to +32767 for 16-bit audio) the output should be exact.

Every decoder should produce the same result. They don't. "

http://mp3decoders.mp3-tech.org/tests.html


Quote
shouldnt you use the same codec for encoding and decoding?

No.
You should use a good decoder.

Any difference in decoders?

Reply #2 –
Thank you! Just what I needed.

Any difference in decoders?

Reply #3 –
Hi!  First post so please be gentle.   

I notice the link to the decoder testing, but also notice all decoders tested were created 2+ years ago.  Granted the ones that qualify as perfect, are, well, I get the idea.  I just wonder if there have been additional improvements since the year 2000.  I prefer to think/hope that there have been advancements since then.

Comments?

Any difference in decoders?

Reply #4 –
Best PC based decoder seems to be MAD and the decoder inside Foobar2000. Foobar should be slightly better thanks a better dithering.

Any difference in decoders?

Reply #5 –
Heh, MAD still has problems with VBR (sometimes cuts few last frames), even 15.0 version - just try and see it.

The dithering in fb2k is much better than MAD's broken, noisy dither (at 16bit),
to which I prefer ditherless (MAD supports it) 16bit decode most of the time. It slightly compresses dynamics.
But its 24bit decoding is very good.
ruxvilti'a

Any difference in decoders?

Reply #6 –
hey all, i know some ppl don't like mad's output at 16bit, but i for one absolutely love it, and for anyone else who does or has yet to try it, you might like to know that i've found that there is now a way to use the mad playback plugin in winamp (2.9x) and have the mad decoded mp3s still be affected by the winamp eq values (which i couldn't get it to before)

if you want the info on that, see my post here (the 3rd one down): http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=12062

Any difference in decoders?

Reply #7 –
Quote
The dithering in fb2k is much better than MAD's broken, noisy dither (at 16bit),
to which I prefer ditherless (MAD supports it) 16bit decode most of the time. It slightly compresses dynamics.

Do you have any proof of this dynamic compression? I've never, ever heard of that one before.

That aside, in reference to the original topic, there should be no audible difference between most good decoders whatsoever at 16-bit. If you think there is, try ABXing, because the difference will be incredibly minute, if it exists at all.

If you successfully ABX it, post the results, please. I'm sure we'd all love to know.

However, there's one spot where the output will be different across encoders: they all handle corrupt frames differently.

Any difference in decoders?

Reply #8 –
when it comes to mad, i'm telling you, it's worth comparing with your ears (to standard winamp mp3 output anyway)

i've compared it on a few different pcs with widely varying quality range of speakers and listening environments, and it still always sounds better to me

just my feelings on the matter, but i'd rather decide for myself, wav analysis only proves that waveforms look similar, not necessarily sound -as- similar in heard quality

and since everyone hears quality of sound a bit differently, disagreement is to be expected. all i'm saying is, i really think if the output of two decoders is different but still pretty similar, which it is in this case, the only way one can really be sure which is, if one is, going to sound better to them as a unique individual is to try listening to both

Any difference in decoders?

Reply #9 –
Quote
when it comes to mad, i'm telling you, it's worth comparing with your ears (to standard winamp mp3 output anyway)

i've compared it on a few different pcs with widely varying quality range of speakers and listening environments, and it still always sounds better to me

just my feelings on the matter, but i'd rather decide for myself, wav analysis only proves that waveforms look similar, not necessarily sound -as- similar in heard quality

and since everyone hears quality of sound a bit differently, disagreement is to be expected. all i'm saying is, i really think if the output of two decoders is different but still pretty similar, which it is in this case...

These statements hold no real value if you don't back them up with some proper blind testing. You could search on ABX if you would really like to bring helpful information on this subject. I would love to see some test results on the quality of current decoders. So, if you are up for it, let us know what your results are.

Quote
the only way one can really be sure which is, if one is, going to sound better to them as a unique individual is to try listening to both


You are absolutelly right. But the listening has to be BLIND. With a proper test, disagreement becomes irrelevant.
I'm the one in the picture, sitting on a giant cabbage in Mexico, circa 1978.
Reseñas de Rock en Español: www.estadogeneral.com

Any difference in decoders?

Reply #10 –
Quote
Do you have any proof of this dynamic compression? I've never, ever heard of that one before.

Man, that is so fun.

Some months ago, most people on this forum would swear by MAD saying it's the best MP3 decoder ever, and some going as far as saying that it was much better than the FhG decoder in Winamp.

Now, people say that MAD is "broken" and "noisy", only foobar is the true path to salvation.

Unbelievable

Any difference in decoders?

Reply #11 –
Quote
Some months ago, most people on this forum would swear by MAD saying it's the best MP3 decoder ever, and some going as far as saying that it was much better than the FhG decoder in Winamp.

I dunno... I never could hear a difference, (not even when WA was still using Nitrane) and I liked the features of the default plugin, so that's what I used. And I loved ID3v2.

I suppose the claim of dynamic compression could have something to do with MAD's auto gain control, but... *boggles*
 

Any difference in decoders?

Reply #12 –
I can attest to MAD's crummy 16-bit dithering. My Prodigy music sounded like crap on it way back when I tried out MAD (about 2 years ago).