Skip to main content

Topic: Which Software still uses worse MP3-Encoders? (Read 25171 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • sharp
  • [*]
Which Software still uses worse MP3-Encoders?
hi,
for me mp3 is still a good codec. i always use the lame codec to rip audio-cds. but why are there still so many people who rip with worse mp3-encoders like xing, blade ... and in a bitrate of 128kbit? what programs still use this encoders? is there a black list of ripping-programs which a newbie should better avoid, if not i make a start:

musicmatch jukebox: unknown
windows media player: unknown
apple itunes: unknown
realplayer: unknown

freeware:
cdex: unknown
audiograbber: unknown

sry, i don't have the time at the moment, i will complete my list in the next days... . cya  .

  • darky
  • [*][*]
Which Software still uses worse MP3-Encoders?
Reply #1
CDex and audiograbber are using lame and can be configured to use command lines. The four above are all using their own mp3 encoder.
portable: 128 kbps cbr AAC
local: -7 FLAC

Which Software still uses worse MP3-Encoders?
Reply #2
WMP uses FhG (check properties of C:\Windows\System32\l3codecp.acm)

  • jmartis
  • [*][*][*][*]
Which Software still uses worse MP3-Encoders?
Reply #3
new Media player uses fhg fastenc and i'm sure MMJB too. I think realplayer now uses a modified Xing with short blocks (maybe im wrong). Only itunes uses a crappy encoder from which is better stay away.

J.M.

  • Garf
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer (Donating)
Which Software still uses worse MP3-Encoders?
Reply #4
hi,
but why are there still so many people who rip with worse mp3-encoders like xing, blade ... and in a bitrate of 128kbit?


a) What proof do you have that (recent) Xing is a bad encoder?
b) What proof do you have that 128kbps would not be enough?
  • Last Edit: 25 July, 2006, 06:12:56 PM by Garf

  • cabbagerat
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Which Software still uses worse MP3-Encoders?
Reply #5
a) What proof do you have that (recent) Xing is a bad encoder?
b) What proof do you have that 128kbps would not be enough?
I agree. While LAME is good - that doesn't mean that everything else is bad.

For the record, MMJB uses fastenc - or at least the last version I tried did.
Simulate your radar: http://www.brooker.co.za/fers/

  • Andavari
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Which Software still uses worse MP3-Encoders?
Reply #6
The problem isn't just a particular encoder that's used but the settings the program places on the encoder such as Audacity with lame_enc.dll not using Joint Stereo, and from what I can remember (it's been many months) AudioGrabber was screwing up LAME settings. I don't trust rippers to use my preferred settings because they could inject some bullshit that I don't want and which isn't a recommended settings while encoding which is why I rely soly upon command line encoders via one of Speek's Frontends.

Edit:
And to add I've heard a few encodings made with a newer XING encoder and was delighted with the quality.
  • Last Edit: 25 July, 2006, 08:32:22 PM by Andavari

Which Software still uses worse MP3-Encoders?
Reply #7
How about a listening test featuring these implementations?
Xing, Apple's mp3 encoder, FhG and LAME? Btw. where can I find a program using Xing?

  • jmartis
  • [*][*][*][*]
Which Software still uses worse MP3-Encoders?
Reply #8
How about a listening test featuring these implementations?
Xing, Apple's mp3 encoder, FhG and LAME? Btw. where can I find a program using Xing?

the new Xing with short blocks is open-source and can be downloaded at Rarewares under MP3 as "Helix mp3enc v5.1" 

J.M.

Which Software still uses worse MP3-Encoders?
Reply #9
Ah, thank you. I forgot that.

  • Lyx
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Which Software still uses worse MP3-Encoders?
Reply #10
The last time xing was tested (about 2 years ago i think) it came out quite good.
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

  • Maurits
  • [*][*][*][*]
Which Software still uses worse MP3-Encoders?
Reply #11
According to this topic the iTunes MP3 encoder was improved not too long ago.
There is a hidden message in the song at approximately 4:32. If played at half speed, Waters can be heard to say, "That was pretty avant-garde, wasn't it?"

  • edekba
  • [*][*][*]
Which Software still uses worse MP3-Encoders?
Reply #12
i think itunes uses FHG too ?

realplayer bought up xing so im pretty sure they use a modified xing encoder.

  • halb27
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Which Software still uses worse MP3-Encoders?
Reply #13
new Media player uses fhg fastenc ...

What's the WMP version exactly that uses fastenc?
lame3995o -Q1.7
opus --bitrate 140

  • Tomb
  • [*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Which Software still uses worse MP3-Encoders?
Reply #14
Audiograbber is not bundled with any mp3 encoder. It's recommended to use Lame which is configured for internally but it can use Xing, Fraunhofer etc.

  • jmartis
  • [*][*][*][*]
Which Software still uses worse MP3-Encoders?
Reply #15

new Media player uses fhg fastenc ...

What's the WMP version exactly that uses fastenc?

i think Media Player 10 (edit- oops, or 11??) uses fhg ACM v3.3.0.44, which happens to be fastenc (vey fast). WMP 9 used fhg ACM v1.x (which seems to be similar to the Radium hack v1.2.0.63, very slow and with JS bug)

J.M.

edit- it really seems to be WMP11 that uses fastenc (if you have WMP installed, you can check the version of "l3codecp.acm" in Windows/system32)
  • Last Edit: 26 July, 2006, 02:56:28 PM by jmartis

  • halb27
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Which Software still uses worse MP3-Encoders?
Reply #16
i think Media Player 10 (edit- oops, or 11??) uses fhg ACM v3.3.0.44, which happens to be fastenc (vey fast). WMP 9 used fhg ACM v1.x (which seems to be similar to the Radium hack v1.2.0.63, very slow and with JS bug)

J.M.

edit- it really seems to be WMP11 that uses fastenc (if you have WMP installed, you can check the version of "l3codecp.acm" in Windows/system32)

So essentially FhG ACM v3.3.0.44 = fastenc?
Do you conclude from the encoding speed that it's fastenc? Or do you have more insight?
Out of curiosity I'd like to try an original FhG fastenc, and for that I'd install WMP 10 or 11.
lame3995o -Q1.7
opus --bitrate 140

Which Software still uses worse MP3-Encoders?
Reply #17
Out of curiosity I'd like to try an original FhG fastenc, and for that I'd install WMP 10 or 11.
fastencc.exe is on reallyrarewares
There is no need to install any version of WMP, you can get l3codecp.acm by extracting the installer with something like 7zip.
I didn't realize v3.3x was fastenc based.. it makes sense to me now that I think about it though.

Xing 1.5 is findable with google (if you know what to look for  ).  Wow that baby is fast.
Vorbis-q0-lowpass99
lame3.93.1-q5-V9-k-nspsytune

  • Steve999
  • [*][*]
Which Software still uses worse MP3-Encoders?
Reply #18
I will on the odd occasion use LAME or MMJB, but I usually use itunes vbr highest quality, 160 kbps+ for obviously so-so recordings or stuff I don't care so much about, 192+ kbps for other stuff.  It's very convenient for use with my ipod.  I'm satisfied with it.   

According to this topic the iTunes MP3 encoder was improved not too long ago.
  • Last Edit: 26 July, 2006, 11:37:29 PM by Steve999

  • tool++
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Which Software still uses worse MP3-Encoders?
Reply #19

Out of curiosity I'd like to try an original FhG fastenc, and for that I'd install WMP 10 or 11.
fastencc.exe is on reallyrarewares
There is no need to install any version of WMP, you can get l3codecp.acm by extracting the installer with something like 7zip.
I didn't realize v3.3x was fastenc based.. it makes sense to me now that I think about it though.

Xing 1.5 is findable with google (if you know what to look for  ).  Wow that baby is fast.


I cannot find Xing latest versions.

All that comes up aer HA threads :S

e: I found Helix on rarewares.

I presume you encode using hmp3.exe, but what are the command line switches ?

(I am using foo as a frontend)
  • Last Edit: 27 July, 2006, 02:18:19 AM by tool++
hi

  • halb27
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Which Software still uses worse MP3-Encoders?
Reply #20
e: I found Helix on rarewares.

I presume you encode using hmp3.exe, but what are the command line switches ?

There is a good thread about Helix, and a very good setting level found is

V120 -X2 -HF2 -SBT450 -TX0

This is VBR yielding an average bitrate of something like 200 kbps.

Helix' quality seems to be very good as level found in an intensive test. My own experience concerning my tonal standard problem samples (harp40_1, herding_calls, trumpet): they get at the not-at-all-annoying level with this setting. This is very good as usually it requires at least 224 kbps CBR or ABR, and Fraunhofer VBR mode as well as Lame VBR (prior to 3.98a3) have problems with these samples.
  • Last Edit: 27 July, 2006, 03:01:17 AM by halb27
lame3995o -Q1.7
opus --bitrate 140

  • jmartis
  • [*][*][*][*]
Which Software still uses worse MP3-Encoders?
Reply #21
So essentially FhG ACM v3.3.0.44 = fastenc?
Do you conclude from the encoding speed that it's fastenc? Or do you have more insight?
Out of curiosity I'd like to try an original FhG fastenc, and for that I'd install WMP 10 or 11.

I checked the lowpass, short block usage, bit reservoir etc... and it happens to be very similar to FastEnc (and speed also)
fastencc.exe is on reallyrarewares

I always hate when someone says that. The "fastencc102.exe" is NOT the same as real FastEnc!! "Real" FastEnc does not have stereo collapse bug even in fast mode and also the fastencc102 introduces more noise on some problem samples (Deploration...)

J.M.
  • Last Edit: 27 July, 2006, 04:37:13 AM by jmartis

  • halb27
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Which Software still uses worse MP3-Encoders?
Reply #22

So essentially FhG ACM v3.3.0.44 = fastenc?
Do you conclude from the encoding speed that it's fastenc? Or do you have more insight?
Out of curiosity I'd like to try an original FhG fastenc, and for that I'd install WMP 10 or 11.

I checked the lowpass, short block usage, bit reservoir etc... and it happens to be very similar to FastEnc (and speed also)
fastencc.exe is on reallyrarewares

I always hate when someone says that. The "fastencc102.exe" is NOT the same as real FastEnc!! "Real" FastEnc does not have stereo collapse bug even in fast mode and also the fastencc102 introduces more noise on some problem samples (Deploration...)

J.M.

Thanks a lot.
lame3995o -Q1.7
opus --bitrate 140

Which Software still uses worse MP3-Encoders?
Reply #23
I cannot find Xing latest versions.

All that comes up aer HA threads :S
Like I said, you have to know how to find it (hint: "zip").


I always hate when someone says that. The "fastencc102.exe" is NOT the same as real FastEnc!! "Real" FastEnc does not have stereo collapse bug even in fast mode and also the fastencc102 introduces more noise on some problem samples (Deploration...)
I wasn't aware of that.  Thank you for the enlightenment.  But out of the fhg encoders known as 'fastenc' that I have tested, they all seem to perform similarly.
Vorbis-q0-lowpass99
lame3.93.1-q5-V9-k-nspsytune

  • Hellion
  • [*]
Which Software still uses worse MP3-Encoders?
Reply #24
One of the main reasons why these programs use encoders besides LAME is not because they are bad programs, but because of licensing issues.
  • Last Edit: 24 September, 2006, 05:00:06 AM by Hellion