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: Xing quality (Read 6888 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Xing quality

Recently I heard the amon tobin album supermodified encoding with xing at 320kbps and sound terrible (worst than fhg at 160kbps). I'm wondering why if xing encoder is so bad there is so many people that use this codec. There is any test that shows the encoding quality of xing against lame and fhg?

Xing quality

Reply #2 –
Thanks Jan S. but I'm really confused and surprised at the same time  , It seems that xing is not so bad, this codec takes the second place in the tests  even winning some of them. Another thing that is clear is that the kind of music to encode is a very important thing to keep in mind at time to choose an encoder.
But if xing is not so bad why it's discredited so much by programs like encspot?

Xing quality

Reply #3 –
Quote
It seems that xing is not so bad, this codec takes the second place in the tests  even winning some of them. Another thing that is clear is that the kind of music to encode is a very important thing to keep in mind at time to choose an encoder.

yes, xing is not so bad as it may have been in the past.
though it's still not as good as e.g. lame (on these samples overall).

xing doesn't come second place, you might want to have a look at the graphs again.

Quote
But if xing is not so bad why it's discredited so much by programs like encspot?
because many many xing-mp3s found today have been encoded in the past, where the app was not sooo good indeed. they are still to be found 'en masse' via filesharing networks and the like I guess.
Nothing but a Heartache - Since I found my Baby ;)

Xing quality

Reply #4 –
Quote
Recently I heard the amon tobin album supermodified encoding with xing at 320kbps and sound terrible (worst than fhg at 160kbps).
Maybe you've stumbled over some transcoded mp3's. Either that or some REALLY old Xing encodes.

I'm a bit surprised too that Xing did so well in the last test, even though it was an older version. I wonder how the latest version stands up agains LAME...
//From the barren lands of the Northsmen

Xing quality

Reply #5 –
Quote
xing doesn't come second place

You are right Digga, I'm a little blind  , it's in third place. I ignored AActive, what program use this codec?
The encspot thing is clear now too  , thanks, By the way what happen with encspot, is still under development?

Xing quality

Reply #6 –
Quote
what happen with encspot, is still under development?

nope, the project is dead, though it still does a decent job.
there a some more or less promising atempts of creating newer alternatives, eg lametag-reader, one or two seemingly dead projects (one by feltzkrone), and the latest baby, mr. questionman
 
Nothing but a Heartache - Since I found my Baby ;)

Xing quality

Reply #7 –
Quote
Maybe you've stumbled over some transcoded mp3's

I'm not sure about this, but the mp3 shows "original, copyright" and I noticed that some codecs removes the copyright when the file is transcoded, besides this encspot shows "xing new", it shouldn't be the newest version of xing but neither the oldest.

Quote
nope, the project is dead

what a pity!

Xing quality

Reply #8 –
Quote
I'm not sure about this, but the mp3 shows "original, copyright" and I noticed that some codecs removes the copyright when the file is transcoded, besides this encspot shows "xing new", it shouldn't be the newest version of xing but neither the oldest.

How would the encoder know that the file is being transcoded if it was decoded to WAV first?
gentoo ~amd64 + layman | ncmpcpp/mpd | wavpack + vorbis + lame

Xing quality

Reply #9 –
Quote
How would the encoder know that the file is being transcoded if it was decoded to WAV first?

Maybe the file was transcoded in that way (mp3=>wav=>mp3) preserving all the s*it. Anyway the fact is these files sounds terrible, but as the test shows the kind of music is a important thing to keep in mind at time to choose a codec, I have "dead cities" by fsol encoded with xing and it sounds great.

Xing quality

Reply #10 –
The new Xing isn't so bad, as shown in the latest test.  I've heard some mp3s created with the old Xing and there were many problems with them.

I think another reason why Xing is popular is because of its blistering speed.  Admittedly, when I want to create an mp3 for casual listening, I go for Xing since on my computer, it takes less than 10 seconds to encode a 3 min song.

However, Xing (the last one released by XingTech) doesn't use block switching so one would expect pre-echo to be a problem.

Xing quality

Reply #11 –
I don't know nothing of the tech behind mp3 but that is what a codec comparison said in www.modatic.net/audio (the site is down now) of xing:

Code: [Select]
Xing: Is a blistering fast mp3 encoder that is owned by Real and can only be found in Real Jukebox and AudioCatalyst. (both of which are not free) Unlike Blade, being outdated isn't its problem, but being absolute rubbish definitely is!!!

"Haste makes waste" certainly applies here. First, frequency reproduction above 16Khz is terrible, even at 320kbps.

Second, their code is buggy. It's not uncommon to have an mp3 mangled from time to time. (clicks and other artifacts)

Third, bad joint stereo implementation. Like with FHG's encoders, joint stereo is only defaulted for 128kbps or lower.

Fourth, a known weakness of the mp3 format is that it has problems with handling sharp impulses (also known as transients) like drumbeats and cymbals. When encoding to mp3, these transients can become less sharp, this is what is referred to as pre/post echo. To help prevent pre/post echo, most encoders use short blocks (Lame, FHG and Blade included, though Blade's implementation is pretty pathetic) which gets rid of some of the pre/post echo problems. Xing does not use short blocks at all.

It does have a few positves. Out of the mp3 encoders compared here, it is by far the fastest. Also, unlike FHG's encoders, the Xing encoder writes a VBR header. If you really want speed, use FHG's FastENC, it may be a little bit slower than Xing, but it certainly keeps a lot more quality.

Recommended MP3 Encoders for quality 

(In order from best to worst)

1st best Lame (Free) 
2nd best Fraunhofer Mp3ENC(Commercial) 
3rd best Fraunhofer AlternateHQ (Commercial) 
4th best Fraunhofer FastENC (Commercial) 
5th best Blade (Free) 
6th best Xing (Commercial)


Obviously this guy hate xing  , there is a lot of of new reviews that discredit this codec. It's not as good as lame, this is a fact, but I don't believe that xing isn't as bad as this review says,

Xing quality

Reply #12 –
Quote
Obviously this guy hate xing  , there is a lot of of new reviews that discredit this codec. It's not as good as lame, this is a fact, but I don't believe that xing isn't as bad as this review says,

The notion that Xing is a bad encoder got perpetuated because of the first versions released by Xing Tech - which happen to be the versions used to encode most MP3 floating in p2p networks.

Xing got much better up to the version used in my test, and even better after Real bought it and started doing in-house tuning.

Unfortunately, most of the critics never tested newer versions, or never tested Xing at all - relying on third party opinions. I believe that is the case with Modatic.

One of my biggest regrets, in the listening tests I conduced, was not testing Real's version of the Xing encoder. I expect Xing would have scored much better.