This review is a delight:
http://www.maz-sound.com/mp3.html

Some special quotes:

(regarding mppenc - the guy doesn't know how to count)
"comes with 4 default presets: thumb (very low bitrate), radio (mid range bitrate), standard (very high quality, default), xtreme (even higher quality, for extraordinary hearings only) and insane (for those who prefer full frequency response"

(regarding Vorbis RC3)
"NEW: bitrate management, instead of choosing one of several VBR modes, you can specify average bitrate, put boundaries on the bitrates to emulate CBR (useful for streaming), or the default VBR modes which have millions of possible quality levels"

(regarding SCMPX - someone should tell him that it's based on Dist10)
"SCMPX and LAME are the reason why I removed all TOP symbols from the other MP3 encoders and even kicked some to black hole"

(regarding AudioCatalyst)
"the XING encoder is really faaaaast, the audio quality is OK considering the speed of the encoder"

Really worth a laugh.

Regards;

Roberto.

So? I don't get your point? except that vorbis has 1000 quality levels i don't see any errors here... What did I miss?

/Erik

Don't knock Maz too quickly... He might not be an expert on lossy audio compression, but he's not _that_ far off the mark, and his site has been _the_ software repository for trackers since 1995... He's a nice guy

These reviews are quite old and for my part, I find that maz-sound is a very good site, it hasn't been updated since last month. But it contains a lot of information regarding audio software, was the first to point me to exact-audio copy some years ago, the first to point me to lame some years ago and also the first to offer me a objective and enthusiast review of the MPC format.
So, I still wonder what is the aim of this post ?

<Sigh>...it is so easy to take the p*ss out of someones hard work, Roberto where is your mp3 review page, so we could post comments...

Guys,

I don't think rjamorim meant it as a p*ss take - it is quite funny really. I do agree however that Maz-Sound is an excellent tracker resource. Perhaps we could drop him an email and help him with the finer points on his compression page.

It's people like Maz raising awareness for the scene - I guess that can only be a good thing.

Ruairi

Yes. I agree the rest site is good. It's a pity that the MP3 encoder information page spreads misinformation.

(Dist10 code encoding as well as Lame? I guess not...)



I didn't say that the site is bad. But the MP3 encoder review is surely misleading the visitors.



I don't need to make one. That would be redundant. I find ff123's page an excelent resource regarding quality of MP3 encoders.

Regards;

Roberto.

Edit: And I definitely don't agree on testing encoder quality via graphs.

Hmm, the biggest problem at maz-sound in my opinion is this page: http://www.maz-sound.com/scmpx.html and the conclusion:

"Both thumbs up, SCMPX and LAME are imho the best freeware MP3 encoders if you encode your files with 128 or 160 kbps, the sound stays crisp, it doesn't cutoff high frequencies to early, it doesn't blur or whash out sharp attacks of drums (other ISO based encoders like BladeEnc or 8Hz ...) and it has less artefacts and unwanted side effects than all other freeware and shareware encoders I tested. Both are a perfect alternative to those commercial xxx$ encoders based on the (superb) FHG algorithm. The difference between SCMPX and LAME is pretty small and I can't say a simple "this one is better". LAME seems to be better in keeping hihats crisp and without the typical frequency wobbling, but SCMPX is sometimes better in keeping sharp attacks."

SCMPX (Dist10) sounds very bad at low bitrates, even worse than Xing.
Latest Lame is listed at the front page. Fortunately latest SCMPX seems to be over 2 years old. Hopefully nobody chooses it over Lame.

I've never even heard of SCMPX (sounds like i don't particularly want to) .

Here is an example:

http://ff123.net/training/41_30sec_scmpx128.mp3

Enjoy.

ff123

Thanks, I just did a quick listen with my relatively cheap soundcard & speakers (PCI128 and Altec Lansing ACS45.1 speakers). The main impression I got is that the cymbals sound like crisco oil frying in a pan (or like those jangling toy cymbals on stuffed monkeys) -- altho I didn't notice any serious artifacting with the middle frequencies. The WinAMP standard EQ seems to make it worse.

I dunno about Xing, but my guess is it's better than Blade at 128, which is practically unbearable even with easy to encode music.