The latest MP3 encoder from Fraunhofer IIS at http://www.all4mp3.com/tools/sw_fhg_cl.html does a very good job, and sounds much better than LAME in my book. It retains much of the depth and air in the music, while the LAME output sounds comparatively flat and lifeless. After all, Fraunhofer IIS has been a major participant in the development of the MP3 format.
Mats Peterson wrote... > Don't know if it's a "song", but that's what I've got...
Oh, have you not heard it Mats? The Vikings are singing at the top of their voices which is why they keep getting told to shut up, then the sketch ends with "Lovely spam" etc sung by a massed choir with bagpipes! I'm going to try out the Fraunhofer you posted so I could make you an mp3 if you would like a copy, if you don't mind couple of pops and clicks.
>> Don't know if it's a "song", but that's what I've got...
> Oh, have you not heard it Mats? The Vikings are singing at > the top of their voices which is why they keep getting told > to shut up, then the sketch ends with "Lovely spam" etc > sung by a massed choir with bagpipes! > I'm going to try out the Fraunhofer you posted so I > could make you an mp3 if you would like a copy, > if you don't mind couple of pops and clicks.
I have heard it. Regarding pops and clicks, that belongs to the older versions.
Mats Peterson wrote... > Regarding pops and clicks, that belongs to the older > versions.
Slap head again, not my day for thinking, yes my copy is 1973 and of course they are out on CD now, but you lose the surprise of the double groove on Matching Tie. Now that was a masterful piece of mastering.
I also see that the new fraunhofer is command line, I don't think I could manage that.
On 2008-08-29, Mats Peterson <matsp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The latest MP3 encoder from Fraunhofer IIS at > http://www.all4mp3.com/tools/sw_fhg_cl.html does a very good job, and > sounds much better than LAME in my book. It retains much of the depth > and air in the music, while the LAME output sounds comparatively flat > and lifeless. ...
Are you able to say what parameters you used with the two encoders (and the LAME version) for the comprison? (Sorry to ask but I'm rather interested in quality / bit-rate trade-off in codecs.)
>> Regarding pops and clicks, that belongs to the older >> versions.
> Slap head again, not my day for thinking, yes my copy is 1973 > and of course they are out on CD now, but you lose > the surprise of the double groove on Matching Tie. > Now that was a masterful piece of mastering.
> I also see that the new fraunhofer is command line, I > don't think I could manage that.
> _._
Ah, I'm sorry Ken! I thought you were referring to the encoder when you mentioned the pops and clicks... Anyway, I'm familiar with that sketch, but thanks anyway :)
John Phillips <news0...@DontUseThis.mainly.me.uk> wrote: > On 2008-08-29, Mats Peterson <matsp...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> The latest MP3 encoder from Fraunhofer IIS at >> http://www.all4mp3.com/tools/sw_fhg_cl.html does a very good job, and >> sounds much better than LAME in my book. It retains much of the depth >> and air in the music, while the LAME output sounds comparatively flat >> and lifeless. ...
> Are you able to say what parameters you used with the two encoders > (and the LAME version) for the comprison? (Sorry to ask but I'm rather > interested in quality / bit-rate trade-off in codecs.)
There aren't many parameters to talk about. Just give the -br and possibly -q parameter to it, e.g. -br 256000 -q 1 for 256 kbps with high quality (the quality switch only seems to make a difference for bitrates below 192 kbps). For LAME, I have used --preset cbr 128/160/192/256 etc. which I assume will give the best possible constant bitrate encoding.
Mats Peterson <matsp...@yahoo.com> wrote: > John Phillips <news0...@DontUseThis.mainly.me.uk> wrote: >> On 2008-08-29, Mats Peterson <matsp...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> The latest MP3 encoder from Fraunhofer IIS at >>> http://www.all4mp3.com/tools/sw_fhg_cl.html does a very good job, and >>> sounds much better than LAME in my book. It retains much of the depth >>> and air in the music, while the LAME output sounds comparatively flat >>> and lifeless. ...
>> Are you able to say what parameters you used with the two encoders >> (and the LAME version) for the comprison? (Sorry to ask but I'm rather >> interested in quality / bit-rate trade-off in codecs.)
> There aren't many parameters to talk about. Just give the -br and > possibly -q parameter to it, e.g. -br 256000 -q 1 for 256 kbps with > high quality (the quality switch only seems to make a difference for > bitrates below 192 kbps). > For LAME, I have used --preset cbr 128/160/192/256 etc. which I assume > will give the best possible constant bitrate encoding.
I should add that I have encoded a great deal of my FLACs into 256 kbps MP3s, which is a decent quality/bit-rate trade-off for me. It certainly sounds acceptable through speakers as background music.
Mats Peterson wrote: > The latest MP3 encoder from Fraunhofer IIS at > http://www.all4mp3.com/tools/sw_fhg_cl.html does a very good job, and > sounds much better than LAME in my book. It retains much of the depth > and air in the music, while the LAME output sounds comparatively flat > and lifeless. After all, Fraunhofer IIS has been a major participant in > the development of the MP3 format.
I've used their codec ever since MP3 started out,and it was all *gasp* DOS command line based! And I agree,better than LAME. I'm not terribly impressed with the LAME codec.
PhattyMo <phatt...@not.net> wrote: > Mats Peterson wrote: >> The latest MP3 encoder from Fraunhofer IIS at >> http://www.all4mp3.com/tools/sw_fhg_cl.html does a very good job, and >> sounds much better than LAME in my book. It retains much of the depth >> and air in the music, while the LAME output sounds comparatively flat >> and lifeless. After all, Fraunhofer IIS has been a major participant in >> the development of the MP3 format.
> I've used their codec ever since MP3 started out,and it was all *gasp* > DOS command line based! > And I agree,better than LAME. I'm not terribly impressed with the LAME > codec.
This one is command line based too, but that's what I prefer anyway. I use it in a Perl script to convert from FLAC. I thought I was the only one in the world thinking that LAME isn't the holy grail of encoders...
> John Phillips <news0...@DontUseThis.mainly.me.uk> wrote: >> On 2008-08-29, Mats Peterson <matsp...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> The latest MP3 encoder from Fraunhofer IIS at >>> http://www.all4mp3.com/tools/sw_fhg_cl.html does a very good job, and >>> sounds much better than LAME in my book. It retains much of the depth >>> and air in the music, while the LAME output sounds comparatively flat >>> and lifeless. ...
>> Are you able to say what parameters you used with the two encoders >> (and the LAME version) for the comprison? (Sorry to ask but I'm rather >> interested in quality / bit-rate trade-off in codecs.)
> There aren't many parameters to talk about. Just give the -br and > possibly -q parameter to it, e.g. -br 256000 -q 1 for 256 kbps with > high quality (the quality switch only seems to make a difference for > bitrates below 192 kbps). > For LAME, I have used --preset cbr 128/160/192/256 etc. which I assume > will give the best possible constant bitrate encoding.
I'm afraid that gives too little precision for me to test your assertion by experiment.
And I now see you posted the same initial message to two forums where the reaction was just as might have been predicted. It's not good form to engage in puffery in places where critical questions are likely to be asked.
John Phillips <news0...@DontUseThis.mainly.me.uk> wrote: > On 2008-08-29, Mats Peterson <matsp...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> John Phillips <news0...@DontUseThis.mainly.me.uk> wrote: >>> On 2008-08-29, Mats Peterson <matsp...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> The latest MP3 encoder from Fraunhofer IIS at >>>> http://www.all4mp3.com/tools/sw_fhg_cl.html does a very good job, and >>>> sounds much better than LAME in my book. It retains much of the depth >>>> and air in the music, while the LAME output sounds comparatively flat >>>> and lifeless. ...
>>> Are you able to say what parameters you used with the two encoders >>> (and the LAME version) for the comprison? (Sorry to ask but I'm rather >>> interested in quality / bit-rate trade-off in codecs.)
>> There aren't many parameters to talk about. Just give the -br and >> possibly -q parameter to it, e.g. -br 256000 -q 1 for 256 kbps with >> high quality (the quality switch only seems to make a difference for >> bitrates below 192 kbps). >> For LAME, I have used --preset cbr 128/160/192/256 etc. which I assume >> will give the best possible constant bitrate encoding.
> I'm afraid that gives too little precision for me to test your assertion > by experiment.
> And I now see you posted the same initial message to two forums where > the reaction was just as might have been predicted. It's not good form > to engage in puffery in places where critical questions are likely to > be asked.
Now now, Einstein. This is about what we hear, not some figures. And I hope you have understood that these are my subjective opinions. I can't explain *why* I think it sounds better, ok? You might think otherwise, so be it.
> John Phillips <news0...@DontUseThis.mainly.me.uk> wrote: >> On 2008-08-29, Mats Peterson <matsp...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> John Phillips <news0...@DontUseThis.mainly.me.uk> wrote: >>>> On 2008-08-29, Mats Peterson <matsp...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> The latest MP3 encoder from Fraunhofer IIS at >>>>> http://www.all4mp3.com/tools/sw_fhg_cl.html does a very good job, and >>>>> sounds much better than LAME in my book. It retains much of the depth >>>>> and air in the music, while the LAME output sounds comparatively flat >>>>> and lifeless. ...
>>>> Are you able to say what parameters you used with the two encoders >>>> (and the LAME version) for the comprison? (Sorry to ask but I'm rather >>>> interested in quality / bit-rate trade-off in codecs.)
>>> There aren't many parameters to talk about. Just give the -br and >>> possibly -q parameter to it, e.g. -br 256000 -q 1 for 256 kbps with >>> high quality (the quality switch only seems to make a difference for >>> bitrates below 192 kbps). >>> For LAME, I have used --preset cbr 128/160/192/256 etc. which I assume >>> will give the best possible constant bitrate encoding.
>> I'm afraid that gives too little precision for me to test your assertion >> by experiment.
>> And I now see you posted the same initial message to two forums where >> the reaction was just as might have been predicted. It's not good form >> to engage in puffery in places where critical questions are likely to >> be asked.
> Now now, Einstein. This is about what we hear, not some figures. And I > hope > you have understood that these are my subjective opinions. I can't > explain *why* I think it sounds better, ok? You might think otherwise, > so be it.
Well, I have no scientific data either, but I have always found the Fraunhofer encoder to be sonically superior to the LAME encoder. The differences in quality are marked at low bit-rates, such as 128 Kbps. The high frequencies are less distorted and flanged. As you go up in bit-rate, it gets harder to tell the difference, but they are perceivable up to about 256 Kbps. At 320 Kbps, I can't tell the difference.
> Well, I have no scientific data either, but I have always found the > Fraunhofer encoder to be sonically superior to the LAME encoder. The > differences in quality are marked at low bit-rates, such as 128 Kbps. The > high frequencies are less distorted and flanged. As you go up in bit-rate, > it gets harder to tell the difference, but they are perceivable up to about > 256 Kbps. At 320 Kbps, I can't tell the difference.
""Schöön Martin"" wrote... > "Bill Ruys" writes: >> Well, I have no scientific data either, but I have always found the >> Fraunhofer encoder to be sonically superior to the LAME encoder. The >> differences in quality are marked at low bit-rates, such as 128 Kbps. >> The >> high frequencies are less distorted and flanged. As you go up in >> bit-rate, >> it gets harder to tell the difference, but they are perceivable up to >> about >> 256 Kbps. At 320 Kbps, I can't tell the difference.
"Richard Crowley" <rcrow...@xp7rt.net> writes: > ""Schöön Martin"" wrote... > > "Bill Ruys" writes: > >> Well, I have no scientific data either, but I have always found the > >> Fraunhofer encoder to be sonically superior to the LAME encoder. The > >> differences in quality are marked at low bit-rates, such as 128 Kbps. > >> The > >> high frequencies are less distorted and flanged. As you go up in > >> bit-rate, > >> it gets harder to tell the difference, but they are perceivable up to > >> about > >> 256 Kbps. At 320 Kbps, I can't tell the difference.
> UnsteadyKen <unsteadyken...@gmail.com> wrote: > but you lose > > the surprise of the double groove on Matching Tie. > > Now that was a masterful piece of mastering.
Or in fact just very old hat by that time. Disks with many seperate grooves were common years before. My grandfather had a horse racing disk with about 9 or 10 different winners. I thought it was very clever when I was a child. I've seen quite a few similar disks since then.
> > I also see that the new fraunhofer is command line, I > > don't think I could manage that.
There are GUI front ends of course, and many rippers can pass the necessary parameters. That's how many people use LAME in fact. Whether the new Fraunhofer is any better is another matter requiring further testing.
|
