The best ac3 encoder

[bairradino]

In your opinion wich is the best ac3 encoder?

[mikecito]

I use only Soft Encode. People have told me that AC3Machine is good too, but it's too unfriendly for me. I haven't had time to figure out how to make a 6 channel wave to feed it when I can encode an entire movie in a little over an hour in Soft Encode anyway.

As far as best goes - you'll have to get a hardware encoder. They only run a few thousand - when AC3Machine is free. But hey - a computer could tell the difference.

I can't.

[rjamorim]

Originally posted by mikecito
I use only Soft Encode. People have told me that AC3Machine is good too, but it's too unfriendly for me.

AC3machine quality is actually quite bad. Much worse than Dolby encoders, for sure.

SoftEncode, SUrcode AC3 and DigiGram MC encoder all use the same encoding routines from Dolby, so they all have the same quality.

As far as best goes - you'll have to get a hardware encoder.

I disagree. Usually, hardware encoders offer lower quality, due to real-time processing constraints.

[mikecito]

Some hardware encoders aren't real-time. They store the data, and crank out an ac3 file. But I've only read about them, never actually used one. The advantage is that they CAN do it real time, with actual audio line inputs, so you could create ac3 on the fly of a concert or studio. I don't know why you would, but you could. I guess it would make for handy storage of near-studio quality samples.

I suppose that software would produce the same quality as such, or better. I've never seen side-by-side comparisons.

I can't tell any difference from the original ac3, and the decoded/reencoded ac3 from a high quality original sample(using Sonic Foundry's Soft Encode.)

Here's a question for you -- Is there a difference in using besweet to decode, and using soft encode to decode? I've always used besweet cuz it's fast (just to decode.) Am I losing quality because of this? I guess it doesn't matter - I can't tell the difference anyway. LOL

[rjamorim]

Originally posted by mikecito
Here's a question for you -- Is there a difference in using besweet to decode, and using soft encode to decode? I've always used besweet cuz it's fast (just to decode.) Am I losing quality because of this? I guess it doesn't matter - I can't tell the difference anyway. LOL

In decoding AC3 (and the same is valid for MP3, AAC, Vorbis...), the decoder only has to conform with the specifications. If Azid is compliant with it, it will output the exact same quality as SoftEncode.

There's no "tuning for quality" needed.

(And yes, SoftEncode is indeed hell slow) ;)

Regards;

Roberto.