Mastering for MP3

[edteja]

I am wondering if anyone else finds that mastering songs requires a different touch when converting to mp3s (say 128). It seems to me that reverb is emphasized after conversion and songs that sounded fine in the studio, when played on my laptop from an mp3, sound like I am the bottom of a well. For a little ambiance it isn't a problem, but there seems to be an increase in the emphasis when it is used as an effect. Is this just inside my head, or does anyone else find the same thing in their universe?

[ernstinen]

Quote:I am wondering if anyone else finds that mastering songs requires a different touch when converting to mp3s (say 128). It seems to me that reverb is emphasized after conversion and songs that sounded fine in the studio, when played on my laptop from an mp3, sound like I am the bottom of a well. For a little ambiance it isn't a problem, but there seems to be an increase in the emphasis when it is used as an effect. Is this just inside my head, or does anyone else find the same thing in their universe?Hey Ed,First off, make sure your L/R stereo mixes in your studio are in phase. I'm sure they are, but it wouldn't hurt checking.From my experience, a real good sounding CD mix will sound pretty good as an mp3, and as the quality goes down, it's almost a logarithmic descent into audio hell. When you're taking out most of the reverb info by going to an mp3, for instance, the reverb is going to sound pretty terrible. I hate mp3s, but what are ya gonna do? When Napster first came out, the songs that were recorded well in the first place sounded O.K., but the songs that were recorded badly sounded horrible.Anyway, Broadjam suggests making mp3s at 192. I've experimented with higher rates, and they make an itty bitty difference, but it's still a lousy medium, IMHO.Ern

[edteja]

I've heard great sounding MP3s at low rates and crappy ones at high, so I am sure you are right about the initial mix being the real important factor. (I did check the phase-its okay.) The thing that has been bugging me is that is doesn't seem consistent. I have decided that it must be too many continuous hours recording and mixing. I try not to mix what I have just recorded, but sometimes I get greedy to get 'er done and find out what it sounds like.

[davewalton]

Quote:I've heard great sounding MP3s at low rates and crappy ones at high, so I am sure you are right about the initial mix being the real important factor. I've also noticed a (sometimes big) difference in the quality of the different approaches to encoding from company to company. I've tried various things and wound up using iTunes of all things. Their encoding method really produces flawless MP3's at just about any rate you want. I've settled on 192k because it's imperceptable from the original WAV yet still is manageable from a file size standpoint.

[andreh]

Quote:I've also noticed a (sometimes big) difference in the quality of the different approaches to encoding from company to company. I've tried various things and wound up using iTunes of all things. Their encoding method really produces flawless MP3's at just about any rate you want. I've settled on 192k because it's imperceptable from the original WAV yet still is manageable from a file size standpoint. I'm also happy with Itunes' MP3 compression (though their AAC algorithm is much better), but I'm not quite as optimistic as Dave. It may be due to our different musical styles or mixing techiniques, but I notice significant artifacting at anything below 192kbps, and even at that rate cymbals, strings, and other elements with characteristic high-frequency content can become warbley or slurred.I do think that a good mix will sound more than acceptable for demo purposes at 192k, though, so I'm glad that's the standard Broadjam has settled on.Now, if only we could do something about the TERRIBLE MySpace compression! Andre

[mazz]

I agree, iTunes mp3 compression is good but high frequencies seem to suffer the most damage at any bit rate. A recent piece I submitted with very silvery highs in the pads became a bit harsh in places. I guess it pays to encode, listen and remix/master if necessary.

[edteja]

Great info folks. I just got iTUnes (am I slightly behind the times??) and will give that a go. I was having the most problem doing export to 128 in SONAR 6.

[Casey H]

Quote:I agree, iTunes mp3 compression is good but high frequencies seem to suffer the most damage at any bit rate. A recent piece I submitted with very silvery highs in the pads became a bit harsh in places. I guess it pays to encode, listen and remix/master if necessary.I'm confused. Is there an option in iTunes for converting file formats such as wav to mp3? I thought anything imported to iTunes is saved in their m4a format. Casey

[zircon]

Absolutely, iTunes can convert WAV/AIF to MP3 just fine. I don't know where the option is exactly since I don't use it, but my girlfriend converts stuff that way all the time.

[mazz]

Import setup in iTunes: It's in Preferences/Advanced/ImportingThere you'll have options as to what format you want and what rate, etc.Happy converting,John