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: Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder Comparison (Read 14126 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder Comparison

I wanted to find out what the differences were between the various programs based on the Fraunhofer code. I also wanted to find out which version was the Newest. This comparison includes the version found in the newest version of Cool Edit Pro.  You can find it here:

http://pws.prserv.net/spankdaddy/mp3/

I tried to make it easy to understand as I needed to understand it as well.

Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder Comparison

Reply #1 –
but why do you analyze spectral graphs ? they are nice to look at, but don't tell you a thing about quality

Quote
These Fraunhofer codecs are widely recognized as being the best mp3 codecs available.


heh ? the best fraunhofer encoders yes, but not the best mp3 encoders... and for what bitrate ?

Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder Comparison

Reply #2 –
1. I definitely do not try to tell you which sounds the best, as I am not you. If you read the  page I state that it is meant to compare the different encoders and show their differences, not tell you which sounds the best.
2. Hey. that was radium talking not me, it was a quote saying what encoder was used,  not me telling you they are the best.

Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder Comparison

Reply #3 –
2. ic, sorry for that

Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder Comparison

Reply #4 –
I found that there were several families of straight Fraunhofer mp3 codecs (not talking about mp3pro here):

1. The Audioactive / Producer Pro / Radium family
2. The Mp3Enc / "Alternate" (slow) family
3. The Fast / VBR family

There may be slight differences from program to program within each family, but in general there are the same defining characteristics within each family.  There were a couple of Fraunhofer releases which were buggy -- i.e., the Fast Codec "stereo collapse" release, and the Slow Codec "sounds horrible at high frequencies" release.

I don't know where l3enc falls; I haven't really looked at it, but if I had to take a wild guess, I'd say it belongs in the Mp3Enc family.  There was also another Fraunhofer codec which I believe produced watermarked files.  This was in Liquifier Pro 5.0.

The defining characteristic of the Mp3Enc family is that it is extremely slow when all the options are enabled.  It also has a defining audible quality -- i.e., the low frequency glitching.  The Fast codec is, of course, extremely fast.  Fraunhofer VBR is based on the fast codec.

A bit of confusion to avoid:  The "FastEnc" library used to come packed with both the fast and the slow codecs, but in Cool Edit Pro 2.0, the slow codec appears to have been eliminated.  I typically refer to "FastEnc" interchangeably with the Fast codec, not the slow one.

I haven't looked at what Cool Edit Pro 2.1 has (I have looked at version 2.0), nor have I looked at the latest MMJB version, but I don't have any reason to believe that they would be much improved over previous versions.  Does anybody have information to the contrary?

Confusing, ain't it?

ff123

Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder Comparison

Reply #5 –
Yeah the "Fastenc" is included in Cool Edit Prov2.1. It definitely produces different files than the HQ mode. And stuff has changed like the fixed dropout bug. Take alook at it http://pws.prserv.net/spankdaddy/mp3/

Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder Comparison

Reply #6 –
The Radium / Kristal Studios codecs are not the same thing. At certain bitrates / quality settings / channel modes they produce different results. Set them both to 96kbps / low quality / MS/IS to see what I mean. Further testing beyond 128kbps is needed before you can declare that  "... it's exactly the same as radium, even though Kristal is dated 2001! All these guys did was change the info to read kristal." Their output is very similar, but not the same at many points, and the KS codec IS considered to be latter / slightly better that the Radium codec IIRC.

Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder Comparison

Reply #7 –
Quote
Yeah the "Fastenc" is included in Cool Edit Prov2.1. It definitely produces different files than the HQ mode. And stuff has changed like the fixed dropout bug. Take alook at it http://pws.prserv.net/spankdaddy/mp3/

The Fast codec never had the dropout bug.  The dropout bug happened only in the slow codec, which was dropped from Cool Edit Pro 2.0.  So probably that codec isn't there for version 2.1 either.

ff123

Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder Comparison

Reply #8 –
Quote
The Radium / Kristal Studios codecs are not the same thing. At certain bitrates / quality settings / channel modes they produce different results. Set them both to 96kbps / low quality / MS/IS to see what I mean. Further testing beyond 128kbps is needed before you can declare that  "... it's exactly the same as radium, even though Kristal is dated 2001! All these guys did was change the info to read kristal." Their output is very similar, but not the same at many points, and the KS codec IS considered to be latter / slightly better that the Radium codec IIRC.

What is the relationship of Kristal Studios to Opticom or Audioactive?  Are they the same thing?

I've heard that Radium dropped one of the encoding options to speed up their version relative to Opticom/Audioactive, but I've never verified this.  Also, it's true that I never investigated differences at low bitrates to see how IS differed in the various flavors.

ff123

Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder Comparison

Reply #9 –
Quote
....which was dropped from Cool Edit Pro 2.0.  So probably that codec isn't there for version 2.1 either.
ff123

Codecs listed are:
Fast Codec (High Quality)
Medium Codec (Average Quality)
High Quality Codec (Slowest)


btw, my original post to the Syntrillium forums that verified CoolEditPro2.1 having a new FhG codec has since been deleted, I never found out why or what was posted in the last few weeks, if anything.  Just thought it's kinda interesting they deleted the whole thread instead of just deleting the message in question.

now i really do want to test out the difference between 2.0 and 2.1 with Equal and see if the two HQ codecs are really different.

Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder Comparison

Reply #10 –
Quote
Quote
....which was dropped from Cool Edit Pro 2.0.  So probably that codec isn't there for version 2.1 either.
ff123

Codecs listed are:
Fast Codec (High Quality)
Medium Codec (Average Quality)
High Quality Codec (Slowest)


btw, my original post to the Syntrillium forums that verified CoolEditPro2.1 having a new FhG codec has since been deleted, I never found out why or what was posted in the last few weeks, if anything.  Just thought it's kinda interesting they deleted the whole thread instead of just deleting the message in question.

now i really do want to test out the difference between 2.0 and 2.1 with Equal and see if the two HQ codecs are really different.

You'd definitely know if Cool Edit Pro 2.1 was using the real slow codec.  I'd say it
encodes at least 10 times slower than the fast codec.  BTW, I believe the categories above are the same as for Cool Edit Pro 2.0.

Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder Comparison

Reply #11 –
Quote
The Fast codec never had the dropout bug. The dropout bug happened only in the slow codec, which was dropped from Cool Edit Pro 2.0. So probably that codec isn't there for version 2.1 either.

Nope it never did, wrong wording, both the fast and the codec previously referred to as alternate have  changed in cool edit pro 2.1 though. The dropout bug has been fixed though and the general output is different.,
Quote
The Radium / Kristal Studios codecs are not the same thing. At certain bitrates / quality settings / channel modes they produce different results. Set them both to 96kbps / low quality / MS/IS to see what I mean. Further testing beyond 128kbps is needed before you can declare that "... it's exactly the same as radium, even though Kristal is dated 2001! All these guys did was change the info to read kristal." Their output is very similar, but not the same at many points, and the KS codec IS considered to be latter / slightly better that the Radium codec IIRC.


Ummm, I just tried it and they turned up exactly the same thing. why don't you post your results and how you got them.

Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder Comparison

Reply #12 –
Quote
Quote
The Fast codec never had the dropout bug. The dropout bug happened only in the slow codec, which was dropped from Cool Edit Pro 2.0. So probably that codec isn't there for version 2.1 either.

Nope it never did, wrong wording, both the fast and the codec previously referred to as alternate have  changed in cool edit pro 2.1 though. The dropout bug has been fixed though and the general output is different.,

What I meant to also say is that the "Alternate" or slow codec is no longer included in Cool Edit Pro 2.0, and probably also 2.1.  It's all just the Fast codec now, probably with various switches turned off to make it even faster for the extremely fast option.  That's why there is no dropout bug -- there is no codec with this bug to "fix."

ff123

Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder Comparison

Reply #13 –
L3enc is a different familly.
It belongs to the v2 familly, and the successors of this familly are Mp3enc ones (they have been reffered in the past by FhG as L3enc v3)

It seems that Mp3Enc is an evolution from L3enc, while Audioactive/Acm/Opticom are another familly, not directly evolved from L3enc although they appeared before the Mp3Enc familly.

Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder Comparison

Reply #14 –
It would be interesting to compare FastEnc from CEP 1.2a (with mp3-me plug-in) and the various modes of the encoder in CEP 2.1 to see if any were the same.

Have you tried this ff123?

Cheers,
David.

Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder Comparison

Reply #16 –
I'm just wondering.  I'm using Proteron's EasyMP3 1.1 program.  It has the fastenc engine and alternative.  Am I correct in assuming that the fast setting is recommended in this version? The high quality setting produces those high artifacts problems.  Also what about EasyMP3 1.0 is the fast codec or alternative recommended in there? just curious, because I'm a little confused.

Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder Comparison

Reply #17 –
Quote
It would be interesting to compare FastEnc from CEP 1.2a (with mp3-me plug-in) and the various modes of the encoder in CEP 2.1 to see if any were the same.

Have you tried this ff123?

No I haven't.  I compared with CEP 2.0, though.

I believe I found that CEP 1.2a with MP3-ME used the fast codec for the fastest setting, the slow codec with lower quality for the medium setting, and the slow codec at full quality for the best setting.  The slow codec at full quality was the buggy one (and maybe the medium setting was buggy too).

CEP 2.0 used the fast codec exclusively, the only difference between the settings being things like lowpass (no lowpassing for the fastest) and perhaps some quality setting.

I don't have CEP 2.1 installed on my computer.  Actually, currently no version of CEP is installed on my computer.

ff123

Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder Comparison

Reply #18 –
Quote
I'm just wondering.  I'm using Proteron's EasyMP3 1.1 program.  It has the fastenc engine and alternative.  Am I correct in assuming that the fast setting is recommended in this version? The high quality setting produces those high artifacts problems.  Also what about EasyMP3 1.0 is the fast codec or alternative recommended in there? just curious, because I'm a little confused.

Don't use the highest quality setting in EasyMP3 1.1.  That's the buggy slow codec.  I don't know about version 1.0.

http://ff123.net/notrecomm.html

ff123

Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder Comparison

Reply #19 –
Quote
What I meant to also say is that the "Alternate" or slow codec is no longer included in Cool Edit Pro 2.0, and probably also 2.1. It's all just the Fast codec now, probably with various switches turned off to make it even faster for the extremely fast option. That's why there is no dropout bug -- there is no codec with this bug to "fix."

I think what your saying is that all of the settings in cool edit pro like
Fast Codec (High Quality)
Medium Codec (Average Quality)
High Quality Codec (Slowest)
Are all based on "fastenc"
If so the help file says something different:

The fast option in both Cool Edit 2000 and Cool Edit Pro 2.1 both output files that resemble each other very closely. (see the Comparison)  However the High quality setting in Cool edit pro 2.1 is noticebly different than the fast option in either program and the alternate codec. So if it is based on fastenc it is the high quality version that was tweaked up. After examining  some more files I do see that perhaps the High quality mode in Cool Edit Pro is related to fastenc but it is very different than prevous versions.

Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder Comparison

Reply #20 –
Quote
However the High quality setting in Cool edit pro 2.1 is noticebly different than the fast option in either program and the alternate codec. So if it is based on fastenc it is the high quality version that was tweaked up. After examining  some more files I do see that perhaps the High quality mode in Cool Edit Pro is related to fastenc but it is very different than prevous versions.

You should be able to perform a listening test to figure out if the high quality codec is related to the Fast codec:  try main_theme.wav, which can be found here:

http://www.mp3dev.org/mp3/gpsycho/quality.html

at 128 kbit/s

Problems with this sample should be quite noticeable with the Fast codec.

ff123

Edit:  When I re-install Cool Edit Pro 2.0, I can try this using that version
Edit 2:  But I think I have already done this at the highest quality setting.  It would just be to verify that the fast setting has the same problem.

Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder Comparison

Reply #21 –
ermm i'm just gonna contribute this quick snip of info.. a while ago on the wavelab support forums, the developer was asked a question about the fhg encoder used in wavelab, he said that fhg made quite a few "variants" of their latest encoder, fastenc, and that wavelab was using one called the "pro" version. he also said that one of the reasons this encoder was dropped and switched with LAME was the expensive licensing fee for this particular codec. i think (and i re-emphasize think) fastenc is still available on wavelab, but you will have to pay an extra licensing fee. otherwise the program defaults to LAME
Be healthy, be kind, grow rich and prosper

Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder Comparison

Reply #22 –
I don't get it.  Whats the point of comparing second rate codecs? 

In case all the modern codecs start to sound too good?

Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder Comparison

Reply #23 –
Quote
I don't get it.  Whats the point of comparing second rate codecs? 

In case all the modern codecs start to sound too good?

I'd say lame and FhG's fast codec are roughly equals at 128 kbit/s, so from this standpoint we're not talking about "second rate" codecs.

ff123

Fraunhofer MP3 Encoder Comparison

Reply #24 –
I just now did a listening test of CEP 2.1 compared with the slow codec in fastencc
1.01 and lame 3.90.2 using --alt-preset cbr 128 --scale 1.  I used main_theme.wav.

The two CEP codecs were 1) the highest quality setting (selected by default when using 128 kbit/s) and 2) the lowest, fastest setting.  The CEP codecs sounded pretty much the same to me, and were far worse than than the FhG slow codec and lame.  FhG slow and lame were not significantly different-sounding to me; maybe just a slight bit noisier for the FhG slow codec compared with lame.

The CEP codecs sounded watery.  I think they both sound pretty much the same on this sample as they did in CEP 2.0.  However, it must be said that I'm going on memory for the sound of the CEP 2.0 encode.



ABC/HR Version 0.9b, 30 August 2002
Testname:

1R = D:\junk\main_theme_fast.wav
2L = D:\junk\main_theme_slow.wav
3L = D:\junk\main_theme_highest.wav
4L = D:\junk\main_theme_lame.wav

---------------------------------------
General Comments:

---------------------------------------

1R File: D:\junk\main_theme_fast.wav
1R Rating: 3.6
1R Comment:
---------------------------------------
2L File: D:\junk\main_theme_slow.wav
2L Rating: 4.6
2L Comment:
---------------------------------------
3L File: D:\junk\main_theme_highest.wav
3L Rating: 3.6
3L Comment:
---------------------------------------
4L File: D:\junk\main_theme_lame.wav
4L Rating: 4.8
4L Comment:
---------------------------------------
ABX Results: