I just analyzed all my mp3 files with EncSpot...there have been quite a lot of different mp3 encoders, so I wonder how good they are. I've no idea about an encoder called 'Plugger' or ‘FhG (l3enc)', so I would like to have a list with all the available mp3 encoders and some sentences about their quality and stuff.

This is what I got (EncSpot):


I know that Xing and Blade are the worst and LAME is the best...but what about the others? Does somebody have a complete list?

i don't think you can compare them in a list
you can only compare at specific bitrates or vbr modes.

fhg is maybe better than lame in low bitrates but fhg is nothing compared to lame in high bitrates.

ok, let's say in a range between 128kbps and 192kbps

i'm not creating a list now as i'm not that familiar with some encoders like plugger or xong(old) but i found some more encoders with encspot when browsing my library:

lame(old) or m3e
QDesign (fast mode)
QDesign
Xing (very old)
Lame KSi©
Unknown

Shine
Scmpx
8hz
Iso
...
I have a few more If i get unlazy.

You never heard shine, that is bad quality! Fortunately nobody use it for anything else than testing. See http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....=25&#entry62600 for all encoders encspot can find out.

Thanks for your list S_O! Could you please rank them? I know that it depends on the music file, but LAME is always better then Blade I suppose. What would be on second place after LAME? I have a bunch of files that are encoded with Gogo (after 3.0) and I wonder if I should rather get the same files encoded with one of the FhG releases.

I already sorted the encoders a bit, first are "Gogo (after 3.0)", which is an speed-optimzied lame 3.8x, and "Lame (old) or m3e". Then all the FhG-encoders (with short blocks), then Uzura3, Lame (old), Gogo (before 3.0), QDesign, and then all the bad encoders without short blocks and the encoders similar to dist10 (Blade etc.) which are using only very little bit reservoir. And the worst of all is shine.
Uzura3 doesn´t use reservoir at all, but it´s a quite good encoder compared to blade and xing.

Thank you very much . Does that mean that Gogo (after or before 3.0) is still better then one of the FhG releases? What is the best FhG release? I suppose it is one of the 'with short blocks, scalefac, but no scfsi' list...maybe FhG (ACM or producer pro)???

Gogo 3.x is like lame, just faster and without alt-presets. So quality is similar if you use lame 3.8x with standard settings. With FhG I don´t know if there are any big differences, encpot detects the encoders by non-quality related things, like is copyright bit set.

Be carefull, Gogo doesn't have NsPsytune

I uploaded some samples which were encoded with m3e here.
Secondary distribution of m3e is not permitted by the author, btw.

Nice, a Japanese guy...

Could you explain what is m3e? Does it features a custom psychoacoustic model? Every information about m3e is in Japanese, so it's hard to understand.

Yes it does, this encoder has also original VBR mode. I do not explain it well, so I encoded
vbrtest.mp3.
Now m3e is a commercial software, and was renamed "M3SE".
I haven't tried M3SE yet.

What does that mean? Is it any quality related? On which LAME release is "Gogo (Before 3.0)" based on? I got a file (192kbps) encoded with "Gogo (Before 3.0)" and EncSpot has rated the quality only to 'yellow'. Referring to that I assume that "Gogo (Before 3.0)"is very bad, worse than FhG...Can somebody please confirm that

its not very bad... just okay. 3.11 is based on 3.88 and 3.91 I used to know what 2.9 was based on but I have forgotten It seems like it was 3.5 but that is a total guess.

Edit: It is actually gogo2.39b is the latest old style version and 3.11 is the latest new style version. Gogo 3.11 quality is much improved over the old version.



Then as I said before 3.11 is based on 3.88 and parts of 3.91.

did anybody compare a current lame version with blade - last developer's build at a bitrate of about 256 kbps? what were the results? couldn't find anything about it in the forum ... shame on me, if a comparison exists anyway ...

there's so much about tonal purity and other stuff discussed concerning blade's quality: what's true about it? my equipment is not that kind of high-tech in order to do a comparison by myself at that high bitrates ...

I scanned my MP3 directory for the first time in ages, found a few encoders not mentioned here yet:

FhG (l3enc) - I suppose this is "just another FhG"?
Xing (very old) - Pretty obvious what this is.

Someone above mentioned something similar, but I have one file apparently encoded with "Lame KSi@" - did someone try to modify Lame?

Check these threads out:
What is Lame KSi??? (see pic)
Lame KSi, Bad? Is it really based on Lame?

Using the dll version of GoGo (with CDex) there's the option "use psychoacustic".
If I activate this option GoGo will use a psychoacustic model, but you said that GoGo doesn't have nspsytune. It will use gpsycho?

gpsycho still does a much better job than nothing. or the dist10 acoustics which were practically nonexistant.

Thanks for the info, I appreciate it

Seems there are two versions, one with an "@" and one with a "©". I wonder if they're any different or it's just that some bored idiot has inflated his ego by altering the tag some more...