MP3 worth the money?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jingleheimer
  • Start date Start date
J

jingleheimer

New member
Ok I am using cakewalk guitar tracks 3 and i have a couple of files i want to mix down for the internet. My question is should i pay cakewalk for their full version of cakewalks mp3 encoder or should i just mix down to wav or wma format then if i need to i could use a converter to go to mp3. Do i loose any quiality going to wav or wma compared to mp3 or should i front the money and get cakewalks encoder.
Thanks to everyone for thier help. -Jingleheimer-
 
jingleheimer said:
Do i loose any quiality going to wav or wma compared to mp3 or should i front the money and get cakewalks encoder.
Thanks to everyone for thier help. -Jingleheimer-
Click to expand...

I always export to wav (lossless) and convert to mp3 using iTunes or the LAME encoder with DB PowerAmp. mp3 is lower quality than wav, so you should always save your files as wav for burning cds.
 
If you're just posting them on the net, then any half decent mp3/wav converter should be ok. If you want to save your projects to put on cd to give to your friends, then after your mixdown in GTP3, you should have good quality wavs.
 
For posting on sites like Soundclick, the mp3 converter in Musicmatch Jukebox 10 works fine. By all means save your wav files for cd burning, compressed files (mp3) loose some quality by overlapping certain frequencies or merging them together or something (I'm not geek enough to really explain it), while the average listener will not hear much difference, there is a lot of difference in the amount of info contained in the files.
 
Thanks for the info guys it really helps. -Jingleheimer-
 
from what i've been told (by a digidesign instructor), companies have to charge extra for mp3 exporting because they have to pay a fee to the patent holders of the mp3 format...otherwise it would be automatically built into the program. as to how apps like itunes can do this for free, i don't know. i will always choose the free option...
 
loki said:
from what i've been told (by a digidesign instructor), companies have to charge extra for mp3 exporting because they have to pay a fee to the patent holders of the mp3 format...otherwise it would be automatically built into the program. as to how apps like itunes can do this for free, i don't know. i will always choose the free option...
Click to expand...
It depends on which MP3 codec is used. Most software publishers use the Fraunhoffer MP3 codec, with is the original one made by the lab that designed the MP3 specification that was adopted by the MPEG Lords. It generally considered the superior codec sound-wise, but it is internationally copyrighted and a licensed technology, which is why the MP3 plugs by most of the major software manufacturers cost extra money.

The other major codec for MP3 is referred to as the ISO codec. This is the codec used by LAME, Blade and most other freeware and shareware MP3 encoders. It is an inferior codec sound-wise to the Fraunhoffer codec, but it does not have the same licensing restrictions.

I'm not sure whether iTunes is using the ISO codec or whether they are just sucking up the cost of Fraunhoffer licensing. If I had to bet, though, I'd bet they're using ISO (Steve Jobs is not one to give things away ;) )

While the Fraunhoffer codec is superior to the ISO one, MP3 in general is such a crapola format that I almost have to ask, "Who cares? It's gonna suck anyway." :)

G.
 
If you go to Help: about itunes, it displays that it is liscensing the mp3 codec from Fraunhofer and THOMSON multimedia.
 
BTW in all the tests i've done the lame encoder is way better than the frau.... Espesially at very low bitrates and mono.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top