|
Best encoder for quality mp3 ?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| walid114 |
I am using power encoder, is this a good encoder (mp3 from CD) that gives good mp3 quality or there are better ones ?
thanks ! |
|
|
| victor |
| i thinks lame's the best one around!!! |
|
|
| rizen |
| not sure if lame is the best, but it is defiently a free one that outputs great quality :D |
|
|
| Zzyzx |
I agree Lame is one of the best out there, I'm using ver. 3.92
Zzyzx |
|
|
| arctic |
| quote: | Originally posted by Disney
Fraunhofer! |
lol, absolute garbage (What a fun phrase :p)
But seriously, lame is far better, it has been proven time and time again that lame is the best out there.
Head over to www.hydrogenaudio.org and make that same statment please :happy2: |
|
|
| Disney |
| quote: | Originally posted by arctic
lol, absolute garbage (What a fun phrase :p)
But seriously, lame is far better, it has been proven time and time again that lame is the best out there.
Head over to www.hydrogenaudio.org and make that same statment please :happy2: |
Maybe you're right, but this is the first search result I get for Fraunhofer:
| quote: | Very hard to encode test sample (at least for MP3-encoders) found by nickname "h".
From Regurgitator's "Music Is Sport"
http://sivut.koti.soon.fi/julaak/short.pac
(387KB)
use LPAC lossless coder to decompress it.
http://www-ft.ee.tu-berlin.de/~liebchen/lpac.html
lpac -x -n short.pac
This sample is very hard for mp3-encoders, especially for Lame even at 320kbps or with dm-insane. MPC -standard handles it very well, Vorbis rc2 160kbps has some trouble. Psytel -normal handles it also well. Fraunhofer Alternative HQ 256kbps mp3 handles it better than Lame at any bitrate, although there are clear distortions.
The test sample belongs to the same "extreme" group with:
fatboy.wav
them.wav
(http://www.animus-facticius.org/problem_clips/)
etc. |
|
|
|
| Disney |
Secondly, the general opinion on the fact is that there's no encoder that gives the best results in every situation.
Lame, Blade and Fraunhofer are generally mentioned as quality encoders as far as sound quality.
Fraunhofer on the other hand is relatively slow, but the question was about the quality... |
|
|
| RobertRollie |
| technically they all use the same algorithm to do the encoding so it doesnt really matter which one you use. |
|
|
| kiddiejon |
| quote: | Originally posted by RobertRollie
technically they all use the same algorithm to do the encoding so it doesnt really matter which one you use. |
werd |
|
|
| Disney |
| quote: | Originally posted by RobertRollie
technically they all use the same algorithm to do the encoding so it doesnt really matter which one you use. |
So why does Xing suck so bad then?
Just curious... |
|
|
| arctic |
| quote: | Originally posted by RobertRollie
technically they all use the same algorithm to do the encoding so it doesnt really matter which one you use. |
I wont claim to be an expert, but i believe that is totally incorrect. Blade and xing etc are clearly much worse than lame and Fraunhofer.
You just need to encode any song with both, play it on a decent system, and you can hear a clear difference. Lame with eac perfirms much better. |
|
|
|
|
