Lame vs. Fraunhofer codecs

Xponential

Senior member
Jun 10, 2001
339
0
71
Ok, I've read a ton about these 2 MP3 codecs. The general consensus that I've found is that the current version of Lame is slightly better than the current version of Fraunhofer.
I just wanted to post here and get some more opinions on the matter. What do you guys think??
 

figgypower

Senior member
Jan 1, 2001
247
0
0
Maybe this is a misconception on my part (and therefore sort of a question, too..), but isn't Lame a public domain codec, while the Fraunhofer
codec is patented by Fraunhofer?
 

AndyHui

Administrator Emeritus<br>Elite Member<br>AT FAQ M
Oct 9, 1999
13,141
16
81
r3mix.net.

LAME is an open source project, FHG costs money to be used.
 

Agent004

Senior member
Mar 22, 2001
492
0
0
Lame is a codec:Q

I always thought it's an encoder.

I know mp3 is a codec, owned by Fraunhofer.

Also when people say the lame is better than Fraunhofer, it means lame is a better mp3 encoder
 

JeremiahTheGreat

Senior member
Oct 19, 2001
552
0
0
if Lame is better quality than the Fraunhofer codec.. why on earth would anyone be crazy enough to actually BUY the Fraunhofer one considering that the Lame codec is free?


or is Lame semi-illegal, a bit like Divx3.11?
 

DeeK

Senior member
Mar 25, 2000
700
0
0
Okay, here we go:

MP3 is a codec. LAME is an implementation of that codec.

Fraunhofer/Thomson holds several patents relating to MP3. All MP3-related software makers must pay licensing fees or else face patent infringement charges (not on the list: freely-distributable software decoders are not charged a fee). This applies regardless whose implementation of MP3 you're using - LAME, Fraunhofer, Xing or otherwise. Truth be told, anyone distributing LAME binaries (exe or dll) is infringing on Fraunhofer's patents if the patents apply to the person's home country. Do note that the LAME developers only distribute source code, which is what gets them around the patent barrier.

Why would anyone license Fraunhofer? Because of the LAME licence. Anyone developing around LAME must keep the LAME code in a separate shared library external to the main program or else license the entire program under the GPL, which is the last thing most companies want to do. They would also have to make available the LAME source and any changes they made to it.