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: What is better, LAME or Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder? (Read 162248 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

What is better, LAME or Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder?

Reply #25 –
Funny how this question comes up from time to time even if it may be trolling. I didn´t do any encoding with an Fraunhofer one for a while cause of its poor behaviour on transients but had to try this new eig sample floating around here.
Wow! mp3sencoder at highest vbr quality produces sounds like you press the buttons on an old typewriter were just short impulses should be
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

What is better, LAME or Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder?

Reply #26 –
Jimpin if you're still reading this thread, check this MP3 Listening Test

What is better, LAME or Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder?

Reply #27 –
I think Xing rules!!

OMG...couldn't resist.  I feel so ashamed 
flac > schiit modi > schiit magni > hd650

What is better, LAME or Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder?

Reply #28 –
 Ok, thanks for infos.

What is better, LAME or Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder?

Reply #29 –
well, the thing is that Franhofer has a ton of patents on their encoder, meaning that there are likely a bunch of compression techniques that they can use but the LAME team can't.

What is better, LAME or Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder?

Reply #30 –
Quote from: adlai on
well, the thing is that Franhofer has a ton of patents on their encoder, meaning that there are likely a bunch of compression techniques that they can use but the LAME team can't.

And this leads to... ?
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

What is better, LAME or Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder?

Reply #33 –
I think the majority rules here LAME has had much more development and offers excellent results.  Stick to Lame 3.97 and you can't go wrong
:Foobar 2000:
:MPC --standard:
:iRiver H320 Rockboxed:

What is better, LAME or Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder?

Reply #34 –
Quote from: adlai on
well, the thing is that Franhofer has a ton of patents on their encoder, meaning that there are likely a bunch of compression techniques that they can use but the LAME team can't.


MP3 is a patented technology, LAME necessarily uses patented methods.
Also, take in mind the broader range of the Fraunhofer product versus LAME, or even take in mind that it didn't have VBR mode until a few years ago. (Xing and LAME had it before)

What is better, LAME or Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder?

Reply #35 –
Quote from: twostar on
Jimpin if you're still reading this thread, check this MP3 Listening Test


Lame overall score : 3.74
FhG overall score  : 3.27

Yeah that's the best way to settle this. BTW that test used Lame3.95 so it's improved a bit since then. In a later test Lame 3.96 scored 4.18 in a similar test (See http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html ). I don't think 3.97 or 3.98beta have had public listening tests at 128kbs yet, but I think there might be even more improvement now.

What is better, LAME or Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder?

Reply #36 –
3.97b2 was tested in this test, and scored 4.60.  However, I'm not sure about comparing scores from different tests. It was also approx. 128kbps VBR - not sure if that's relevant.
I'm on a horse.

What is better, LAME or Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder?

Reply #37 –
Quote from: Synthetic Soul on
However, I'm not sure about comparing scores from different tests.


Yeah good point, different music selections and different anchors makes it pretty hard to be certain of exactly how they correlate. Still I'm pretty sure Lame hasn't gone backwards since 3.95.

What is better, LAME or Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder?

Reply #38 –
Where do you actually get the Fraunhofer encoder from? I can't remember ever downloading it intentionally.

Would be fun to encode some uneasy music at 128kbs CBR with it in order to get that old-skool-MP3-feeling.

What is better, LAME or Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder?

Reply #39 –
Quote from: Fandango on
Where do you actually get the Fraunhofer encoder from? I can't remember ever downloading it intentionally.

Would be fun to encode some uneasy music at 128kbs CBR with it in order to get that old-skool-MP3-feeling.


I believe software such as Windows Media Player, MusicMatch, and the free version of WinAmp all use the FhG mp3 encoder.  You can also download a stand alone exe, it is floating around out there.  Still, it is a waste of time.  I think there was a time when the FhG encoder actually did a better job than Lame at low bitrates of around 64kbps and below.  I don't know if that holds true anymore though as that was a long time ago during the Lame 3.90.3 era.

What is better, LAME or Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder?

Reply #40 –
I have yet to read someone here post that LAME is superior than FhG at 128 CBR... (that is, using the latest FhG ACM bundled with WMP11)

Till then, the broad question of which is better is still unanswered.

Don't bash me on this, but there would be people who wants 128 CBR.

LAME is, of course, better than FhG at VBR.
"Listen to me...
Never take unsolicited advice..."

What is better, LAME or Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder?

Reply #41 –
I believe LAME has the edge over other mp3 encoders in the 128k range (VBR / ABR) and joint stereo. At 192k all decent encoders should do well so its not that clear. At higher bitrate (224~320k) vbr has no great advantage and all encoders should be transparent less a very rare sample. LAME gapless playback is also important.

There is also a degree of correlation in regards to quality and principles of design. LAME was probably the only mp3 implementation focusing on high quality

What is better, LAME or Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder?

Reply #42 –
Quote from: shadowking on
I believe LAME has the edge over other mp3 encoders in the 128k range with its vbr mode and joint stereo.


While it is true that LAME -V5 would have an advantage over FhG 128 CBR, LAME may not be said to be better in terms of forced 128 CBR.
"Listen to me...
Never take unsolicited advice..."

What is better, LAME or Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder?

Reply #43 –
Quote from: Rio on
While it is true that LAME -V5 would have an advantage over FhG 128 CBR, LAME may not be said to be better in terms of forced 128 CBR.


same here, I think so since the first time that I used lame for encoding in CBR, the fhg encoder seems to produce better subjective quality in that setting

What is better, LAME or Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder?

Reply #44 –
Quote from: Rio on
I have yet to read someone here post that LAME is superior than FhG at 128 CBR... (that is, using the latest FhG ACM bundled with WMP11)


And why would you ever expect to?  It makes very little sense to test codecs using substandard settings.  Generally, you should compare them using optimal settings.

Quote from: Rio on
Don't bash me on this, but there would be people who wants 128 CBR.


I doubt any of them really care about mp3 quality though.

What is better, LAME or Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder?

Reply #45 –
Quote from: Mike Giacomelli on
Quote from: Rio on

I have yet to read someone here post that LAME is superior than FhG at 128 CBR... (that is, using the latest FhG ACM bundled with WMP11)


And why would you ever expect to?  It makes very little sense to test codecs using substandard settings.  Generally, you should compare them using optimal settings.


It would matter for someone running an internet radio station.

What is better, LAME or Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder?

Reply #46 –
Quote from: Mike Giacomelli on
Quote from: Rio on
I have yet to read someone here post that LAME is superior than FhG at 128 CBR... (that is, using the latest FhG ACM bundled with WMP11)

And why would you ever expect to?  It makes very little sense to test codecs using substandard settings.  Generally, you should compare them using optimal settings.

Quote from: Rio on
Don't bash me on this, but there would be people who wants 128 CBR.

I doubt any of them really care about mp3 quality though.

I'm still expecting, because up to now it hasn't been proven.  Till then, no encoder is better than the other across the full bitrate range. Remember, the OP's question has been very broad... Better at what? It doesn't mean that if one is better in high-bitrate VBR, it is better in in low-bitrate also.  There still has been tunings for LAME for the low-bitrate encodings, so it still has room for improvement, even in your so-called "substandard settings."

No doubt I care about quality (LAME -V2, Vorbis -q5) but if you cannot convince other 128 CBR people who are happy with that given bitrate, might as well find the best encoder at that setting. (And don't just tell them encode at --preset standard or -V5).

I must say, up to now even FhG's new Mp3SEncoder at VBR mode is still wanting... It appears to be ABR though.

P.S. I'm not saying one of them is better. BTW, why was Jimpin was banned?

EDIT: Grammar... damn!
"Listen to me...
Never take unsolicited advice..."

What is better, LAME or Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder?

Reply #47 –
Taking into account mp3 limitations:

- For low <100 k encoding use another format
- Using the  most common lossy bitrates of 130k~190k LAME vbr is competitive with the other formats. At very high bitrate of 224~320k I believe any half decent encoder is fully transparent less the odd killer samples (mainly pre-echo with mp3) which also plagues other encoders. I don't believe the other formats have any meaningfull advantage at very high bitrates.

We can narrow down the debate to 128~192 k range. One might test LAME vs fhg in this bitrate range. Since most people won't be able to do a non-killer sample test at 192k, It narrows down to just a 128k test.

What is better, LAME or Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder?

Reply #48 –
I agree to shadowking. A head-to-head 128 CBR test between newest FhG ACM and LAME 3.97 would do. A VBR test using FhG fastencc is no match for LAME at ~128 range.
"Listen to me...
Never take unsolicited advice..."

What is better, LAME or Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder?

Reply #49 –
Quote from: Jimpin on
Because LAME is free.

FHG is too. http://www.all4mp3.com/tools/sw_fhg_cl.html

I have done A LOT of encoding with this (and other) FHG encoder, and I think that with CBR it is at least comparable to LAME. I actually prefer FHG over LAME to encode 128k CBR for my portable player (please don't ask why I don't use lame VBR it's mostly because it produces low frequency hiss in certain parts of my music).
FHG VBR indeed sucks in high bitrates, but in the low bitrate range (below 112kbps) I think the results are quite respectable.