Hi,
As a newbie, I hope this is not an awfully stupid question to ask. I don't even know if this is the right thread to post.
I have converted a considerable collection of CDs into mp3 using Realplayer 10, before I discovered that there were actually differences in encoder qualities. I want the quality of my mp3 to be as good as possible so I tried to find out what encoder Realplayer was using for mp3 encoding. I seem to find that Realplayer used Xing which is of reasonable quality only as compared to LAME. I don't know if this is true for the current version of Realplayer because the information may be outdated. I am concerned whether I need to re-encode all my CDs again using a better encoder, if Realplayer's encoder is no good.
Could anyone tell me what the encoder the latest version of Realplayer is using? I am encoding using the highest possible bitrate (320kbps), should I be concerned about the encoder's quality. If yes, what other encoders should I use instead.
Any advice would be very much appreciated.
I believe Realplayer is still using Xing, which is (unfortunately for you) considered one of the worst codecs of all time, after bladeenc and shine... -- It has huge warbling issues, from what I have ABXed, so that's a major bummer.
I'd suggest you use EAC and LAME; you can find a few guides on this site or on the wiki (look at the top nav' bar, right hand corner...)
There are no stupid questions
Peace,
Tristan.
I thought the Realplayer MP3 encoder is now called Helix, and is an improved version of Xing. Not sure how much improved though... just test it and see how it sounds to you. I doubt you'll hear much difference at 320kbits though
I believe Realplayer is still using Xing, which is (unfortunately for you) considered one of the worst codecs of all time, after bladeenc and shine... -- It has huge warbling issues, from what I have ABXed, so that's a major bummer.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=365716")
Incorrect on all counts, and then some:
[a href="http://www.rjamorim.com/test/mp3-128/results.html]http://www.rjamorim.com/test/mp3-128/results.html[/url]
lio, do some testing.
Encode some music with realplayer (xing) and encode the same tracks with lame (try to get close to the same averate bitrate if using VBR). You are the only one who can decide if it is good enough for you.
I have only heard a few songs encoded with xing, but they sounded just fine to me
hi lio, are you the famous french singer ?
,Feb 20 2006, 06:22 AM]I believe Realplayer is still using Xing, which is (unfortunately for you) considered one of the worst codecs of all time, after bladeenc and shine... -- It has huge warbling issues, from what I have ABXed, so that's a major bummer.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=365716")
Incorrect on all counts, and then some:
[a href="http://www.rjamorim.com/test/mp3-128/results.html]http://www.rjamorim.com/test/mp3-128/results.html[/url]
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=365776"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, I'll be... (I must say, from the ABXing I have done, I preferred the sound of LAME to xing, even older versions, but hey..) (but then again, what's the date on that 128 kbps test?)
Well, I'll be... (I must say, from the ABXing I have done, I preferred the sound of LAME to xing, even older versions, but hey..) (but then again, what's the date on that 128 kbps test?)
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=366066"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The bad reputation from Xing comes from the oldest codecs, the 1.x branch, and in part the 2.x (the one used in audiocatalyst). Those are from 1996/1999. LAME wasn't even at the 3.8 version at that time, so comparisons should be done in perspective.
What Garf pointed out is that you were incorrectly saying that it is one of the worst codecs, proven by that listening test, which uses one of the good Xing codecs (Mmm.. i can't tell for sure from the test page, and i don't remember where it came from).
Lastly, the codec in Real has supposedly been improved.
All in all, LAME is better for quality, but Xing/Real is not one of the worsts.
um... old xing is horrible.
but saying that realaudio's current implementation is horrible is incorrect (new xing isn't bad).
sorta two different things being discussed here...
later
Appreciated very much all your advices.
Seems that Real may not be the best but should not be the worst as well. At 320 kbps, the difference with the best encoder, if any, probably would not be significant enough to warrant a total re-do. I will do some comparison if time allows.
When harddisk size continues to grow, I believe lossless is the way to go. This will remove any uncertainties about quality.
Many thanks again for the enlightenment.
P.S. I am not the French singer