CCE or HC

[xcy73]

What is the best encoder to use with DVD Rebuilder Freeware? I recently read some posts that HC can actually produce better results than CCE and is also a little faster, not to mention that is freeware. Is this true?

[SAPSTAR]

READ THE RULES!!!! DONT ASK WHAT IS THE BEST ......:angry:

[jdobbs]

HC's quality is about the same as that of CCE -- but it definitely isn't faster if measured on a single processor. HC takes approximatesly 1.5x as long as CCE.

But... if you are using the Professional Edition, and have a dual-processor computer, you can run multiple instances of HC Encoder (but not CCE). Doing so closes the gap, and on some very fast computers makes it actually faster.

Multiple encoder instances is not supported on the freeware version of DVD-RB.

[Sounddude]

HC's quality is about the same as that of CCE -- but it definitely isn't faster if measured on a single processor. HC takes approximatesly 1.5x as long as CCE.

But... if you are using the Professional Edition, and have a dual-processor computer, you can run multiple instances of HC Encoder (but not CCE). Doing so closes the gap, and on some very fast computers makes it actually faster.

Multiple encoder instances is not supported on the freeware version of DVD-RB.

How do you run multiple instance of HC? I have a AMD dual core cpu and The Pro version of Rebuilder>

[Harrysmiith]

How do you run multiple instance of HC? I have a AMD dual core cpu and The Pro version of Rebuilder>

using 1.10.4 under settings - tick multiple Encoder processes.

I'm using a basic Intel duo2 6300 and although using multiple encoder processes does make HC faster it is still not as fast a CCE basic - 2 pass

[rahzel]

you'll get mixed opinions - some prefer one over the other, and some say they are the same.

i myself prefer CCE, as its faster, and i find it to be less blocky.

[A64]

My favorite is Procoder 1.5 at this point. I prefer it's look over everything else. The problem is that it is the slowest. On dual core processors, it pegs the CPU usage at 100%. It is faster on Intel chips (Core 2 Duo) than it is on AMD chips (Athlon 64 X2). DO NOT run this with the multiple encoder setting on. By slow, it took 5 hours to encode movie only of Lord of The Rings on a Core 2 Duo E6600 with DDR2-800 CL4 memory.

Next would be Procoder 2.0. It is substantially faster than 1.5, but on dual cores, it is only puts the CPU usage at somewhere around 75%. Running the multiple encoder setting makes it much faster and pegs the CPU usage at 100%. Like 1.5, it is faster on Intel chips. I still prefer 1.5's look over 2.0.

Both versions of Procoder can have problems with overclocked systems since the dongles do not like the USB being out of spec (even a little bit).

CCE Basic is then my favorite for the balance of speed vs. look. It is faster than Procoder and HC. It is also faster than CCE SP Trial in my experience. It takes the CPU usage up to around 65%.

[lantern]

If you already own CCE you might as well use it for a general purpose encoder. If you want to use special matrix, you should go with HC (I don't believe that CCE Basic accepts custom matrix). Both encoders will provide high quality encodes.

[MedicineMan]

Don't want to break the rules, but since others have already answered.... and talked about the Pro Edition.

And just to make it more confuse.


AutoQmatEnc :cool:

[KSPSlice]

Is the normal quality/speed selection comparable to CCE or is the best setting comparable? Is it worthwhile to change HC from normal to best and how much extra encoding time would it take?

[subferno]

using 1.10.4 under settings - tick multiple Encoder processes.

I'm using a basic Intel duo2 6300 and although using multiple encoder processes does make HC faster it is still not as fast a CCE basic - 2 pass

I have an AMD64 processor (Hyperthreading?). Does enabling "Multiple Encode Processes" help any?

[happycase]

I'd bet it wouldn't hurt.

I use HC, and find the results very close to CCE Basic.

[elizerrojas]

HC or CCE? let's see. HC is, for some, as good as CCE. for some is better than CCE, just slower. so it comes down to $$$
HC is free and CCE is around $60; i have got it then, HC it is.

i have never use any other encoder, with HC great job and price(free) there is no need to try others.

i stopped using rebuilder because my little old system was way too slow(8 to 9 hours to do the job). now, with a new, much better and faster computer, rebuilder is back(3 hours tops)and a almost every time application. thanks jdobbs.

[Bond007]

I have an AMD64 processor (Hyperthreading?). Does enabling "Multiple Encode Processes" help any?

AMD processors dont have hyperthreading, only Intel do. AMD has hypertransport, which is their name for there bus and not for enabling 2 threads per core. Both use the acronym HT.

If you had hyperthreading, it could increase the speed slightly.

[therat]

using 1.10.4 under settings - tick multiple Encoder processes.

I'm using a basic Intel duo2 6300 and although using multiple encoder processes does make HC faster it is still not as fast a CCE basic - 2 pass

Yep same experiencwe here. Tried it last night, HC set to Best and "multiple Encoder Processes" ticked and with my E6600 it was still 20% slower than CCE Basic 2 passes.

I also thought the CCE out was better than HC but that's my opinion.

[subferno]

AMD processors dont have hyperthreading, only Intel do. AMD has hypertransport, which is their name for there bus and not for enabling 2 threads per core. Both use the acronym HT.

If you had hyperthreading, it could increase the speed slightly.

Thanks for the clarification