spacedye
Vest
is it possible to use an mp3 encoder other than cakewalks in sonar xl?
if so, where can i download it?
if so, where can i download it?
AlChuck
Well-known member
I don't think so...
heinz
New member
Yeah that's one of my peeves with Sonar, being forced to buy their codec for an extra charge, or else there's NO .mp3 export capability period. Diabolical b*stards.
So here is a huge list of encoders you can download.
http://www.mp3-encoders.com/
I use LAME, probably the best encoder available with the highest sound quality and control options... really a huge leap over the Frauenhofer used in Sonar. It is a command line encoder but is also used as the engine in many popular encoder products.
Read the truth about mp3 quality and get an excellent in depth explanation at
http://www.r3mix.net/
So here is a huge list of encoders you can download.
http://www.mp3-encoders.com/
I use LAME, probably the best encoder available with the highest sound quality and control options... really a huge leap over the Frauenhofer used in Sonar. It is a command line encoder but is also used as the engine in many popular encoder products.
Read the truth about mp3 quality and get an excellent in depth explanation at
http://www.r3mix.net/
spacedye
Vest
thanks for the postings. i appreciate the list of encoders and the info, but if i cant export my sonar wav files to mp3 with it, what would be the point? or have you figured out a way to export and encode with one of those other programs?
i really dont want to spend the extra $30 for the unlock key, but it looks like im going to have to. unless someone wants to be a really nice person.............
that really pisses me off about sonar also. i had no problem with home studio, but it doesnt recognize that fact that i had home studio installed before for some reason.
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/spacedye.htm
i really dont want to spend the extra $30 for the unlock key, but it looks like im going to have to. unless someone wants to be a really nice person.............
that really pisses me off about sonar also. i had no problem with home studio, but it doesnt recognize that fact that i had home studio installed before for some reason.
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/spacedye.htm
heinz
New member
>>"but if i cant export my sonar wav files to mp3 with it, what would be the point?"<<
Ummm... that is the whole point.
All of those programs take a .wav file and convert to .mp3. So export a .wav file out of Sonar, then feed it to one of the external encoders.
Ummm... that is the whole point.
All of those programs take a .wav file and convert to .mp3. So export a .wav file out of Sonar, then feed it to one of the external encoders.
Paul881
Look Mom, I can play!
I have to say this is a piece of commercialism that reflects very poorly on the CW people. Why just MP3? Haven't we paid enough for the software?
Over my dead body am I going to part with any more money for it. Heinz is dead right, export to wav and then convert.
Interesting that win xp shipped without MP3 encoding, when all the beta test o/s had it in. Why was it left out? Cos m/soft didn't want to pay any royalties!
Over my dead body am I going to part with any more money for it. Heinz is dead right, export to wav and then convert.
Interesting that win xp shipped without MP3 encoding, when all the beta test o/s had it in. Why was it left out? Cos m/soft didn't want to pay any royalties!
crosstudio
New member
this is not written directly at you paul881, but put up or shut up.
no software company wants to lose their profit margin, and giving away an mp3 encoder for free means that they have to pay the royalties. that means they either jack up the price of the software to compensate, or make it an option. if they jack up the price, you'll buy the competitor.
and as far as that commericialism thing is concerned you aren't going to give away your CDs so why do you think they should give you the software you use to make the MP3 that gets you noticed for free?
... ok, i'm off the soap box now.
no software company wants to lose their profit margin, and giving away an mp3 encoder for free means that they have to pay the royalties. that means they either jack up the price of the software to compensate, or make it an option. if they jack up the price, you'll buy the competitor.
and as far as that commericialism thing is concerned you aren't going to give away your CDs so why do you think they should give you the software you use to make the MP3 that gets you noticed for free?
... ok, i'm off the soap box now.
heinz
New member
I'm all for paying a company for a product. Heck I'm a software developer for a living, I take licensing seriously and have legal purchased licenses for every piece of software on my computer(s).
That is not the issue here.
The issue is that PA9 had the .mp3 encoder built in as part of the recording package. Makes sense, it's the final output format for most of the work we do in the package for internet distribution. A natural part of the recording suite.
Now, in Sonar, they've suddenly decided to take it away and charge another $30 bucks or something for it.
This was not advertised, mentioned, or discussed in any of the promotional literature explaining the upgrade, or on their website on the Sonar features page. I'm looking right now at the flyer I got from them for my Sonar upgrade (still have it laying around heh). We get to find out after we buy it that we no longer have core functionality we had previously, and that by paying extra we can have it back.
No thanks, don't like my tools held hostage through misleading advertising and surprise 30-day trial implementation. Deal straight up from the top of the deck and I have no problems.
That is not the issue here.
The issue is that PA9 had the .mp3 encoder built in as part of the recording package. Makes sense, it's the final output format for most of the work we do in the package for internet distribution. A natural part of the recording suite.
Now, in Sonar, they've suddenly decided to take it away and charge another $30 bucks or something for it.
This was not advertised, mentioned, or discussed in any of the promotional literature explaining the upgrade, or on their website on the Sonar features page. I'm looking right now at the flyer I got from them for my Sonar upgrade (still have it laying around heh). We get to find out after we buy it that we no longer have core functionality we had previously, and that by paying extra we can have it back.
No thanks, don't like my tools held hostage through misleading advertising and surprise 30-day trial implementation. Deal straight up from the top of the deck and I have no problems.
Paul881
Look Mom, I can play!
No offence taken Crosstudio but Sorry, I'm with Heinz. I am no radical anti-establishment guy, I make money from selling humungous software solutions. But what I don't like is finding out in the fine print that key elements that should be integral to a package are missing...but available at extra cost. I would sooner 12 tones have put the $30 bucks on the price and included it. It wouldn't deter anyone from buying it.
Or, to give 12 tones the benefit of the doubt, what they are saying is, let our customers decide. In which case, (perhaps), fair enough. But I won't be paying!
Or, to give 12 tones the benefit of the doubt, what they are saying is, let our customers decide. In which case, (perhaps), fair enough. But I won't be paying!
crosstudio
New member
good gravy how many software guys are also musicians? i'm a systems architect for IBM working on the IRS modernization in DC.
you are right about 12-tones in this regard because they should have advertised the change. since i owned a particular version of cpa9, i didn't have to pay for the upgrade when i got sonar.
i put in the sonar cd to install the mp3 encoder and it asked whether i owned the 9.01 or 9.02 version of cpa9. since i did, i was able to upgrade without paying the extra $30.
you are right about 12-tones in this regard because they should have advertised the change. since i owned a particular version of cpa9, i didn't have to pay for the upgrade when i got sonar.
i put in the sonar cd to install the mp3 encoder and it asked whether i owned the 9.01 or 9.02 version of cpa9. since i did, i was able to upgrade without paying the extra $30.
tvaillan
New member
it's not the best but it's free.
http://www.crevasoft.com/software/utilities/index.shtml
check it out! it's not bad. and since it's free .. you can't go wrong giving it a try!
(Try to get the older version .. it was faster , had less visual fluff, and you got to choose the encoding properties)
http://www.crevasoft.com/software/utilities/index.shtml
check it out! it's not bad. and since it's free .. you can't go wrong giving it a try!
(Try to get the older version .. it was faster , had less visual fluff, and you got to choose the encoding properties)
K
keith turner
azimuth of new ideas
First off , thanks Heinz for the very excellent links and the tip about lame,I have been needing a good encoder that could make lo-fi mp3's listenable.
One problem I use to have was not being able to stream 32kbps lo-fi mp3 consistently when using a 56k modem. None of the lame based encoders I tried allow 24kbps encoding. #1 Do any of you guys know of any quality(as good as lame)encoders that will do 24 kbps? #2 Should most dial up listeners (56k) be able to stream 32kbps no problem? tia Keith
One problem I use to have was not being able to stream 32kbps lo-fi mp3 consistently when using a 56k modem. None of the lame based encoders I tried allow 24kbps encoding. #1 Do any of you guys know of any quality(as good as lame)encoders that will do 24 kbps? #2 Should most dial up listeners (56k) be able to stream 32kbps no problem? tia Keith