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: Low bitrate and Lame ACM or FhG... (Read 3192 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Low bitrate and Lame ACM or FhG...

Hi all,

I'm trying to find which method is best to encode low bitrate Mp3's, 64kbps to 96kbps (CBR) with the best results. I would like to avoid the Radium FhG codec for several reasons including I've read here is gives bad results.
I see there is a Lame ACM codec, and was firstly wondering if it would give equal or better results than using Radium FhG at those bitrates?

I read someone say that the lame acm gives similar results to the .exe or .dll, but I am guessing that probably using the .exe with --alt-preset cbr would be better than cbr mode in the acm list?

I have also read that at low bitrates like above, which is what I am trying to optimize, that FhG is probably better to use than Lame... even I read Dibrom and Gabriel admit this. If this still holds true, then presumably I should avoid using the Radium FhG hack codec though... but the question remains as to which version then I should use?

(I've read many threads about FhG versions but never saw a real answer, and also been to ff23's website but cannot makes heads or tails of it, it is so very confusing about which version is ok)

If it is recommended to use FhG for optimum results at those bitrates, can you please be specific about suggesting a version to use and maybe even provide a link?

Thank you all in advance,


Jeff  (most confused but hopefully not for much longer)

Low bitrate and Lame ACM or FhG...

Reply #1 –
I'd say below 80 kbits I'd use the MP3 encoder in Mymp3PRO (if you have that encoder) or something like that. Don't use the Radium hack! It's old and buggy and outputs horrible quality below 192 kbits (broken joint-stereo, I think). If around 80-96 kbits (or higher), I find LAME to output pretty good results (considering the bitrate), especially when using ABR mode.

Edit: And yes, the --alt-presets does give better results than the standard modes (though they're probably slower). For bitrates below 80 kbits, and if you really want to use LAME, you'd have to stick with 3.93.1 though. The previous versions don't have --alt-presets tuned under this bitrate, I think. (Or it could be that they were included in LAME 3.92?)

Low bitrate and Lame ACM or FhG...

Reply #2 –
Disable "short blocks" and Force joint-stereo might help LAME to perfome better at lower bitrates. FhG FastEnc Intensity Stereo is great for low bitrates.

Edit : mp3enc and high quality FhG are bad, it is best to use FastEnc.
        mp3PRO is worse than Normal FhG if mp3PRO plugin is not used!
 
  MUSICMATH
  CEP 2.0

Low bitrate and Lame ACM or FhG...

Reply #3 –
I think it's save to say that Fhg, at least Fastencc (i.e. NOT the Radium hack) on High Quality Setting is better on 64 kbit than any LAME settings on similar low bitrate. Check out the info on some glitches and do an encode test on some samples to decide for yourself.

I wouldn't use mp3 pro since almost no standalone supports it yet.

Low bitrate and Lame ACM or FhG...

Reply #4 –
Quote
I think it's save to say that Fhg, at least Fastencc (i.e. NOT the Radium hack) on High Quality Setting is better on 64 kbit than any LAME settings on similar low bitrate.

Yes ....but.....high quality Fastenc is Alternative FhG codec and it's worse than FhG Fastenc fast

Low bitrate and Lame ACM or FhG...

Reply #5 –
Thanks guys for the replies so far,

I've looked at that link, also re-read all the info at ff123's website and it finally started to make sense to me about the different Fhg versions   

I think I will try both the good Fhg Fastenc and lame, and maybe I can decide for myself which gives best results... unfortunately I don't have a golden ear or anything, but perhaps I will be able to tell if one is obviously worse.
It does appear from the replies so far that at these low bitrates a good Fhg codec has the edge over lame?

Regards,

Jeff (slightly less confused now)

Low bitrate and Lame ACM or FhG...

Reply #6 –
Quote
Quote
I think it's save to say that Fhg, at least Fastencc (i.e. NOT the Radium hack) on High Quality Setting is better on 64 kbit than any LAME settings on similar low bitrate.

Yes ....but.....high quality Fastenc is Alternative FhG codec and it's worse than FhG Fastenc fast

If you're talking about Fastenc command line encoder , fast mode is WAY worse than high quality mode.Fastenc command line encoder using fast mode is among the worst mp3 encoding you can find.There's severe narrowing of the stereo image , easily ABXable even with the cheapest low-end equipment.

I'd use the latest fastenc found in MusicMatch Jukebox 7.x , My MP3 Pro 4.0 , Cool Edit Pro 2.0 , etc