Page 1 of 2

Opinions on MP3 encoders needed

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:53 am
by che
Sorry if this has been discussed before, but I didn't see anything in recent posts about what MP3 converters people prefer.At the Rally this year one of the breakout sessions we attended suggested Fraunhofer. While researching on the web I see that there are many varied and strong opinions out there regarding LAME and Fraunhofer + others. Just wondering what fellow Taxi members use or prefer?

Re: Opinions on MP3 encoders needed

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:14 am
by bleuciel
Hi Che! (Should I call you Ernesto? )I've tried some different MP3 encoders and the one that works best for me is the Free Rip:http://www.freerip.com/download.phpThere are a free version and the "Pro" one. I have the free version and it has worked always fine.HTHGood Luck!

Re: Opinions on MP3 encoders needed

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:23 am
by davewalton
I use iTunes to make my MP3's. Maybe I'm going deaf, but to my ears, an MP3 encoded with iTunes at 192k is almost imperceptable from the original 16-bit WAV file.

Re: Opinions on MP3 encoders needed

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:37 am
by mazz
Apple licensed the Fraunhofer codec and supplies it free built in to iTunes. Fraunhofer is arguably the best mp3 encoding available.iTunes is free, it runs on both Mac and PC and has some great playlist features. It's really easy to use. It's not perfect but it's good enough to be a no-brainer for encoding and organizing your music.Mazz

Re: Opinions on MP3 encoders needed

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 12:52 pm
by mewman
I have Logic pro 7. When I'm done with a mix and bounce my tracks to a stereo pair I have the option to create an mp3. Different rates are available. I just choose the 192k option, which is the highest acceptable to the TAXI hosting site, and Logic does the rest. I feel the same way Dave does. I barely hear a difference between the mp3 and the 16 bit wav file.mewman

Re: Opinions on MP3 encoders needed

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 1:07 pm
by che
hmmmmmm, good to hear. Unfortunately we have been noticing a difference in quality. We mainly do R&B and hip hop. We are feeling the biggest difference in our base and drums. Seems to lose the punch bit. We've tried several different encoders, but not what's been listed on here so we are off to do more testing. The last one we tried was whatever Cubase LE has in it. Put in on the best settings and still felt it lacking from our original recording. Our DAW is Sonar 7. We just installed it last week. I believe we'd have to license or upgrade whatever they offer for MP3's. Might try that also.Thanks

Re: Opinions on MP3 encoders needed

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 1:20 pm
by og
After several trials and many tribulations, I now do all my mp3 encoding in Cool Edit, which is where all the front-trimming, back-fading, and sample converting gets done. CEP also uses the Fraunhofer codec. Haven't had a problem since...

Re: Opinions on MP3 encoders needed

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 1:48 pm
by mazz
Quote:hmmmmmm, good to hear. Unfortunately we have been noticing a difference in quality. We mainly do R&B and hip hop. We are feeling the biggest difference in our base and drums. Seems to lose the punch bit. We've tried several different encoders, but not what's been listed on here so we are off to do more testing. The last one we tried was whatever Cubase LE has in it. Put in on the best settings and still felt it lacking from our original recording. Our DAW is Sonar 7. We just installed it last week. I believe we'd have to license or upgrade whatever they offer for MP3's. Might try that also.ThanksIf you're mixing your stuff right up to zero than that might be what's messing with your sound (as long as you're encoding at anything above 128Kbs!) If you hit the encoder too hard, it might affect your mp3. Try making a copy of your mix and taking it down 1 or 2 db overall and then encoding.Also try putting a high pass filter on your mix cutting at 20HZ. Any subsonic energy that you can't hear could possibly affect the encoding as well.Good luck,Mazz

Re: Opinions on MP3 encoders needed

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 2:51 pm
by djdeweese
I usually use iTunes, since it is so integrated in my Apple PowerBook, but after doing a comparison with the LAME encoder (which is a horrible choice of acronym), which I use through the Audio processing program Audacity, I use LAME for my Taxi submissions. I noticed a real difference in some of the high end clarity at 192Kbs. (Of course, I'm saving all my high quality originals for the day in the future when bandwidth and storage make mp3 compression as desirable as cassette recordings are today.)

Re: Opinions on MP3 encoders needed

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 3:39 pm
by marcblack30
so i'm hearing that i can convert a wave to mp3 using iTunes?would anyone care to explain how to do so?i've looked it over up and down and don't see how