Your Fav MP3 encoder !
- Thread starter hongteck
- Start date
sonusman
Banned
nessbass, encoders are a fact of life in sharing your work on the internet! I am not totally opposed to well written code!
I was quite surprised at the quality that was possible with mp3's. It can only get better too! In fact, I bet few of you could actually hear the difference between a stereo .wav file encoded at 320kbs (I might even say 256kbs) and the original .wav when using a Fraunhofer codec. Try it sometime. Set it all up and have a friend switch between the two while you listen.
Ed
I was quite surprised at the quality that was possible with mp3's. It can only get better too! In fact, I bet few of you could actually hear the difference between a stereo .wav file encoded at 320kbs (I might even say 256kbs) and the original .wav when using a Fraunhofer codec. Try it sometime. Set it all up and have a friend switch between the two while you listen.
Ed
Slackmaster2K
Gone
n-Track uses Blade which is a horrible encoder, especially at the standard 128kbps. HORRIBLE!
If you're looking for something in the range of free, try SCMPX, as it does a MUCH better job. (just do a search for SCMPX and you'll find a link to the website)
Of course there are even better encoders out there, but you either have to buy them or steal them....neither of which I feel comfortable talking about
Slackmaster 2000
If you're looking for something in the range of free, try SCMPX, as it does a MUCH better job. (just do a search for SCMPX and you'll find a link to the website)
Of course there are even better encoders out there, but you either have to buy them or steal them....neither of which I feel comfortable talking about
Slackmaster 2000
bball jones
New member
The thing I didn't like about CPA9's version of the fraunhofer was - it took forever and a day to convert a wave to an mp3. Recently I've been using yamp and it'll convert 4 files in less time than that took to do 1 ! Any audio difference is nominal.
I have used, and continue to use, several different encoders. But one I really like which is Freeware is Right-Click. Has a weird DOS-window interface but works quite well, for $0. You can down load it from:
http://www.execpc.com/MrShannon/rc-mp3/
I generally encode things at 192, sounds better than 128 while being almost as compact. If I want better sound quality I just leave it as a .WAV file - isn't the point behind MP3 to make it small?
http://www.execpc.com/MrShannon/rc-mp3/
I generally encode things at 192, sounds better than 128 while being almost as compact. If I want better sound quality I just leave it as a .WAV file - isn't the point behind MP3 to make it small?
hongteck
New member
thanks guys for the help !
anyway here's some response to you
sonusman, which software uses that lean mean killing Frauhofer codec ?
Slackmaster, I've used SCMPX before. as much as i would like to like it, I couldn't because it puts too much screeching sound to it. I dunno why.
RWhite & bball, I have just downloaded Right Click and Yamp version 3.3 and will try them out soon.
anyway here's some response to you
sonusman, which software uses that lean mean killing Frauhofer codec ?
Slackmaster, I've used SCMPX before. as much as i would like to like it, I couldn't because it puts too much screeching sound to it. I dunno why.
RWhite & bball, I have just downloaded Right Click and Yamp version 3.3 and will try them out soon.
RockinRobert
New member
WaveLab
I use the encoder in WaveLab usually, but you'd be surprised at how good the encoder is in Music Match Jukebox at 128 or higher. It works in a pinch, and is quick. I beleive both encoders use the Fraunhofer model.
I use the encoder in WaveLab usually, but you'd be surprised at how good the encoder is in Music Match Jukebox at 128 or higher. It works in a pinch, and is quick. I beleive both encoders use the Fraunhofer model.
MP3 Encoders and Players
AUDIO CATALIST AND SOUND FORGE 4.5
If you want to change a wave into MP3 - Go for Audiocatalist. If you want to change a MP3 into a wave file for CD - forget the rest - Just go for Sound Forge. Pricey, but the latest version is worth every cent.
I've tried all the freeware and free programs. They all sound crap. Sound Forge can change a good quality MP3 into a near master sound. I don't know how Sound Forge does it. I've made about ten CD's of MP3s. All of them encoded into wave with Sound-Forge, About 80% of the tracks sound almost alike CD's pressed by record-companies.
With Sound Forge, You can clean up messy MP3s, normalise soft sounding MP3s, add base and treble to MP3s that have become abit battered from sharing. I love this function as I work in radio. You can put 15-20 MP3 tracks on a CD and normalise them all to the same level peak.
Again Audio Catalist you do pay for but the results are nothing short of amazing. Clean, Crisp MP3s every time and, I think that it even encodes right up to 320kps.
I generally find that what you get is what you pay for.
Mark
AUDIO CATALIST AND SOUND FORGE 4.5
If you want to change a wave into MP3 - Go for Audiocatalist. If you want to change a MP3 into a wave file for CD - forget the rest - Just go for Sound Forge. Pricey, but the latest version is worth every cent.
I've tried all the freeware and free programs. They all sound crap. Sound Forge can change a good quality MP3 into a near master sound. I don't know how Sound Forge does it. I've made about ten CD's of MP3s. All of them encoded into wave with Sound-Forge, About 80% of the tracks sound almost alike CD's pressed by record-companies.
With Sound Forge, You can clean up messy MP3s, normalise soft sounding MP3s, add base and treble to MP3s that have become abit battered from sharing. I love this function as I work in radio. You can put 15-20 MP3 tracks on a CD and normalise them all to the same level peak.
Again Audio Catalist you do pay for but the results are nothing short of amazing. Clean, Crisp MP3s every time and, I think that it even encodes right up to 320kps.
I generally find that what you get is what you pay for.
Mark
Last edited:
bball jones
New member
From what I've tried for decoding - mp3 to wav - the yamp seems to lose it.
Eurythmic
majordomo plasticomo
Blade sucks?
I don't agree with that! While LAME seems to get generally good reviews, there are some that would say Fraunhofer sucks.
Why doesn't Blade sound good at low (128) bitrates? Because it's the only encoder that doesn't discard high frequency sounds. It shoots for tonal accuracy, which the other encoders don't.
But when you keep those high frequencies, you need more bits to reproduce them. That's why some of you have noticed the really large file sizes in songs that I pass around on here. I use Blade. I recently picked up LAME, to see if I can get more acceptable sounds at the low bitrates for distribution.
Blade is meant for archival purposes, really. Of course, if space is NO consideration, you shouldn't even be thinking mp3 to begin with. But if you want to shave file sizes, and you still want the music to sound good, I haven't found anything better than Blade at 320kbit/sec.
High quality VBR sounds really good to me too, though. I can sometimes hear artifacts in VBR, though. It's rare, but it does happen. But offhand, I can't think of an mp3 encoded with blade at 320kbit/sec in which I could hear artifacts.
Take a look here for an interesting analysis.
http://www.airwindows.com/encoders/index.html
I don't agree with that! While LAME seems to get generally good reviews, there are some that would say Fraunhofer sucks.
Why doesn't Blade sound good at low (128) bitrates? Because it's the only encoder that doesn't discard high frequency sounds. It shoots for tonal accuracy, which the other encoders don't.
But when you keep those high frequencies, you need more bits to reproduce them. That's why some of you have noticed the really large file sizes in songs that I pass around on here. I use Blade. I recently picked up LAME, to see if I can get more acceptable sounds at the low bitrates for distribution.
Blade is meant for archival purposes, really. Of course, if space is NO consideration, you shouldn't even be thinking mp3 to begin with. But if you want to shave file sizes, and you still want the music to sound good, I haven't found anything better than Blade at 320kbit/sec.
High quality VBR sounds really good to me too, though. I can sometimes hear artifacts in VBR, though. It's rare, but it does happen. But offhand, I can't think of an mp3 encoded with blade at 320kbit/sec in which I could hear artifacts.
Take a look here for an interesting analysis.
http://www.airwindows.com/encoders/index.html
Nashstudio
New member
There is an encoder that I use Called Audioactive Production Studio that sounds very good, and uses Fraunhofer. I have used quite a few and thats one of the best I have heard so far....
WINAMP?????
I've tried winamp. Seems very limited in what it can do and with converting files, the results where a encoded file with alot of shuttering noise through it. I wouldn't really worry about waisting my time with this one. I don't know why this happened. But that was just my experience. Audiocatalist works every time. It's never failed me. It's even got it's own player.
Mark
I've tried winamp. Seems very limited in what it can do and with converting files, the results where a encoded file with alot of shuttering noise through it. I wouldn't really worry about waisting my time with this one. I don't know why this happened. But that was just my experience. Audiocatalist works every time. It's never failed me. It's even got it's own player.
Mark
Eurythmic
majordomo plasticomo
Eh?
Decoding an mp3 = changing it to .wav. There's not much flexibility there.
I'm not talking about other kinds of conversions; that's the only one I ever need to do (aside from my brief foray into .vqf).
I had my first chance to experiment with LAME today. I figured I'd start with something I know very well, so I picked Who's Next. I tried the following settings:
Optimization: Quality
VBR: Max 192, Quality 3
Mode: Stereo (Tried joint stereo first, big mistake. This album has some heavy panning, and joint stereo ruined the effect.)
Now I'm listening to the result. It's pretty good for size. It reduced the album to about 1/7 of its original size. Right now I'm almost through "Bargain", and I haven't heard any artifacts - but the sound is fairly obviously colored. I don't think I'd use LAME for archiving, but I think I'll start using it for distribution purposes (until I have a chance to give Fraunhofer a shot).
Decoding an mp3 = changing it to .wav. There's not much flexibility there.
I'm not talking about other kinds of conversions; that's the only one I ever need to do (aside from my brief foray into .vqf).
I had my first chance to experiment with LAME today. I figured I'd start with something I know very well, so I picked Who's Next. I tried the following settings:
Optimization: Quality
VBR: Max 192, Quality 3
Mode: Stereo (Tried joint stereo first, big mistake. This album has some heavy panning, and joint stereo ruined the effect.)
Now I'm listening to the result. It's pretty good for size. It reduced the album to about 1/7 of its original size. Right now I'm almost through "Bargain", and I haven't heard any artifacts - but the sound is fairly obviously colored. I don't think I'd use LAME for archiving, but I think I'll start using it for distribution purposes (until I have a chance to give Fraunhofer a shot).