[Agent Kang]

Sounds great!

 

[LFF]

You must find the Original Fraunhofer (sp?) codec. CD quality at 128kps. Search and you'll find. Best codec out there aside from APE and FLAC.

 

[Redo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LFF /img/forum/go_quote.gif You must find the Original Fraunhofer (sp?) codec. CD quality at 128kps. Search and you'll find. Best codec out there aside from APE and FLAC.

LAME 3.97 VBR is the best I've tested, and DBPowerAmp's Fraunhofer mp3 setting at 128 wasn't quite as good as -V 0 OR -V 2. I spent a good chunk of change trying to fiddle with bitrates, and 128kbps on ANY encoder or format was the one guaranteed ABX in my favor.

 

[LFF]

Redo, you need to find the ORIGINAL Fraunhofer codec. It's very hard to find. I use to have it but lost it when my HD died. It really is lossless at 128kps. No program carries the original today as far as I know.

Read my blog:

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/blog.php?b=103

 

[error401]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LFF /img/forum/go_quote.gif Redo, you need to find the ORIGINAL Fraunhofer codec. It's very hard to find. I use to have it but lost it when my HD died. It really is lossless at 128kps. No program carries the original today as far as I know. Read my blog: http://www.head-fi.org/forums/blog.php?b=103

Right, because encoding technology has regressed in the past 10 years. I'm sorry, but that's just absurd. Much research has been done in the field, VBR is a huge boon, joint-stereo issues have been sorted out - and why on earth would Fraunhofer make the newer versions sound worse? LAME VBR is widely held as the best MP3 encoder ever available, and from what I've heard over the years, I have no reason to dispute that. Every other encoder I've heard sounds much worse, especially CBR vs. VBR.

But if you really really want to use that steaming pile, I believe what you're looking for can be found as 'FhG Radium' codec (some cracking team released it, but it's very old and based on early Fraunhofer MP3 encoder code). Try here: http://www.timtaylor.net/codec.htm.

According to the NFO file this is the first version that supports 320kbps, so I assume it's what you're looking for...Circa 1999. Modern technology abounds.

 

[Agent Kang]

I used LAME 3.97 encoder on foobar for the conversion. I can't speak for other encoders since I have not tried them personally, but with LAME I'm quite satisfied ATM.

 

[LFF]

Error401 - No - that is not the right codec. The codec I'm talking about is around 1992 - 1996 and it only encodes up to 128kps.

I'm just sharing a story as told by a person I know. No need to get upset and start posting rude comments. It's a shame I can't share the codec with you so you could see that it really sounds lossless at 128kps.

And things can regress. Listen to any CD that contains modern mastering.

 

[krmathis]

Yes, LAME is a very good MP3 (lossy) encoder.
Enjoy!

 

[Orcin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent Kang /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sounds great!

Yes, it does. I have some songs encoded this way (using iTunes codec). I think 256vbr sounds the same though, and takes up less space, so that's what I use now.

 

[Wodgy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LFF /img/forum/go_quote.gif Error401 - No - that is not the right codec. The codec I'm talking about is around 1992 - 1996 and it only encodes up to 128kps. I'm just sharing a story as told by a person I know. No need to get upset and start posting rude comments. It's a shame I can't share the codec with you so you could see that it really sounds lossless at 128kps.

As nice as this sounds, it's just not true. The Fraunhofer codec has always, since the very beginning, included a low-pass filter at 16 kHz for the 128kbps bitrate. All that high frequency information is gone, and it's audible as positional cues on good headphones and certainly on speakers. (There are other easily audible defects as well, but the lack of high frequency information kills your transparency argument easily without having to argue about how somehow that version of the codec had a revolutionary psychoacoustic approach that suddenly got lost in the sands of time.)

BTW, the first release of the Fraunhofer codec was in 1994, and it was a program called l3enc.

Just a general comment too, it's often good to be a little skeptical of claims that hard to find old stuff is better than what's available today. Audiophiles often tend to do this, but apart from rare cases (e.g. HP-2s), it's just not true. Especially in the speaker realm... most "legendary" old speakers are decent but have been surpassed.

 

[Quaddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LFF /img/forum/go_quote.gif Error401 - No - that is not the right codec. The codec I'm talking about is around 1992 - 1996 and it only encodes up to 128kps. I'm just sharing a story as told by a person I know. No need to get upset and start posting rude comments. It's a shame I can't share the codec with you so you could see that it really sounds lossless at 128kps. And things can regress. Listen to any CD that contains modern mastering.

i have been mp3'ing since '94 and havent to my knowledge used this version you are speaking of, but i did fluctuate early on from one encoder to the newer, just keeping abreadth whith what was the 'lastest', so knowing my luck missed its release!

but would be very interested to learn more/use it.

if it ever re-surfaces again, please post a link

do you remember what file sizes this was spitting out on an average track?

thanks.

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quaddy /img/forum/go_quote.gif do you remember what file sizes this was spitting out on an average track?

128 kilobits per second = 128,000 bits per second.

There are 8 bits per byte, and thus 128kbps = 16,000 bytes per second = 960,000 bytes per minute, or roughly 1 MB per minute.

 

[LFF]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wodgy /img/forum/go_quote.gif As nice as this sounds, it's just not true. The Fraunhofer codec has always, since the very beginning, included a low-pass filter at 16 kHz for the 128kbps bitrate. All that high frequency information is gone, and it's audible as positional cues on good headphones and certainly on speakers. (There are other easily audible defects as well, but the lack of high frequency information kills your transparency argument easily without having to argue about how somehow that version of the codec had a revolutionary psychoacoustic approach that suddenly got lost in the sands of time.) BTW, the first release of the Fraunhofer codec was in 1994, and it was a program called l3enc. Just a general comment too, it's often good to be a little skeptical of claims that hard to find old stuff is better than what's available today. Audiophiles often tend to do this, but apart from rare cases (e.g. HP-2s), it's just not true. Especially in the speaker realm... most "legendary" old speakers are decent but have been surpassed.

The low-pass filter wasn't always there and it was implemented after the release of CODEC. l3enc was the first public release of one of their codecs and was the most popular codec to be used in freeware and shareware programs for ripping and encoding.

I can appreciate skepticism as well. Before I got my hands on it, I was more skeptical than all of you combined, so I know where your all coming from. I don't like rude comments though. Hurts the feelings.

Trust me on this. I'm not saying CODEC is better than APE or FLAC but as far as MP3's go, it is the best and has yet to be equalled.

I need to find it again.