MP3 Conversion: Help

Hi Bill,

MP3 conversions have improved quite a bit over earlier versions. There are some "secret" things that are done inside of the converters that have changed. In particular, 128 kbps conversions are better than they once were. Nevertheless I try to use 320 kbps myself, but I'm a 96/24 fan.

One way to do this conversion is to obtain LAME source code and compile it, or have someone compile it for you. You can probably find compiled versions out there inside of MP3 encoders --- i.e. wrapped LAME. But you should be aware of (*) below. Cakewalk includes LAME but charges for activation, which no doubt goes to Fraunhofer Institute (whom you probably already paid via Pyro, which raises the question, "How many times do we have to pay Fraunhofer?").

Other compression: Yes, in fact some claim better ones like Ogg/Vorbis. There are also non-lossy compression schemes, but these don't really give much compression --- a factor of two would be good for one of these. The problem is that lots of folks don't know what these formats are --- as in "Who is Ogg Vorbis?" I suspect a lot of folks don't trust anything other than MP3. MP3 is definitely the most recognizable "brand name." "ogg" is probably next; heck my MP3 player can play those files! Ogg is also unencumbered by legal complications, as in "free" both like "free beer" and "freedom to modify."

You'll have to make your own decisions about (*) below, compression scheme or "brand name," lossless versus lossy, size versus quality tradeoffs, and so on, but there are a lot of resources out there to help you make those decisions. No doubt there will be a lot of posts in this thread telling you where to look.

Best regards,
Dave Clark


---------------------------------

(*) Fraunhofer Institute claims intellectual property inside of MP3 encoders, including inside LAME, as I understand it. (The debate continues unabated....) You can avoid this legal issue if you feel that having purchased Pyro does not already give you rights to MP3 encoders, by activating LAME inside of SONAR. Activation costs a fee. Many vendors put a limited, trial version of LAME inside their products so that there is something present, and request an activation fee to avoid legal complications. It probably goes straight to Fraunhofer. But as far as I know, this activates a version of LAME that you can download either as source or wrapped.

Hi Josh,

Yes, LAME is open-source, which means you can read it. The source is licensed under LGPL. Whether or not you can legally use it is a completely separate matter from copyrights --- there are patent isssues.

From the README for 3.97

LAME 3.xx
LAME Ain't an MP3 Encoder
http://www.mp3dev.org
March 2001

Originally developed by Mike Cheng (www.uq.net.au/~zzmcheng). Now
maintained by Mark Taylor (www.mp3dev.org).

This code is distributed under the GNU LESSER PUBLIC LICENSE
(LGPL, see www.gnu.org) with the following modification:

1. If you determine that distribution of LAME requires a patent license,
and you obtain a patent license, you may distribute LAME even though
redistribution of LAME may also require a patent license.

2. You agree not to enforce any patent claims for any aspect of
MPEG audio compression, or any other techniques contained in
the LAME source code.

There is a reason why "If you determine..." is there! (On edit: You can write about a patented process all you want, no problem. You can copyright your description if it is original. You can distribute that description, read it over the radio, impress it onto a CD, perform it, display it, etc. You just cannot USE the process --- or structure for structure patents --- in a way that financially adversely affects the patent holder without their permission. Distribution of executables arguably does that or allows others to do that, hence the controversy over whether or not binaries can be distributed without infringing.)

Regards,
Dave Clark

128kbps is not very good choice anymore now that we have much faster Internet connections, the file size isn't that important anymore (unless you pay for the bandwith ..).

192kbps MP3 prepared using Fraunhofer encoder may sound better than the one prepared w/ Lame. Have you also tried by using 48kHz or/and VBR encoding for those lower bit-rate mp3's.

I've done some tests to see, how is the original data kept after encoding/decoding process ... this testing is done using a linear sweep signal so, as the sound of the compressed audio file is more important than the "technical quality", don't pay much attention into results showing up there ...

http://jiiteepee.fortunecity.com//tests/codecs/comparison.html
http://jiiteepee.fortunecity.com/pictures/comparison.html

There were some testings done regarding the file size, compression ratio and frequency bandwidth @


Junski

I use Itunes also for a converter. I've posted files to soundclick...I don't post music to other sites....I have hear alot of complaints about some sites and the quality of sound files from them.

I've played my Ipod...which sound good through the earbuds.....through a quality sound system, and the quality, or should I say....lack of quality, is really evident.

Converting wave to MP3 does result in loss....but for the current technology & internet speeds, MP3 is OK. Wait a few years and there will be better ways to do it.

Welcome to the frustrating world of MP3 fidelity corrosion. The maddening thing about MP3 is that it will alter your song in unpredictable ways, sometimes requiring you to mix and EQ specifically for that format.

As noted above, Soundclick only accepts 128kb/s for their free accounts. For $10 a month you can buy a paid account that allows higher bitrates. I haven't been able to justify that myself, but I think about it every time I hear my stuff on CD and compare that to the mush that comes out of Soundclick.

The key is something called "variable bit rate". It's a technique that allows the MP3 encoder to use more bits where it's needed, e.g. passages with rich high-frequency content and transients while using fewer bits in places where that's OK.

Unfortunately, even if you send Soundclick a VBR file, they'll still decimate it. So your best bet is to send them a higher-quality file than what they accept. They'll still decimate it, but the final result will be better than if you'd sent them a 128kb/s constant bit rate file to begin with.

Get the LAME encoder, which can be downloaded for free. You can configure it to be run out of SONAR, but I never did that - I instead used a batch file to run LAME and copy the files to my upload folder. Use the "--vbr-new" command line option to create a variable bitrate file.

(I should note that I no longer use LAME myself, having discovered via experimentation that Adobe Audition creates superior-quality files in half the time. But AA3 will set you back about $350, kind of steep for an MP3 converter. I thought I'd mention it, though, in case you're on a quest for the best possible quality.)

ORIGINAL: bitflipper

Welcome to the frustrating world of MP3 fidelity corrosion. The maddening thing about MP3 is that it will alter your song in unpredictable ways, sometimes requiring you to mix and EQ specifically for that format.

As noted above, Soundclick only accepts 128kb/s for their free accounts. For $10 a month you can buy a paid account that allows higher bitrates. I haven't been able to justify that myself, but I think about it every time I hear my stuff on CD and compare that to the mush that comes out of Soundclick.

The key is something called "variable bit rate". It's a technique that allows the MP3 encoder to use more bits where it's needed, e.g. passages with rich high-frequency content and transients while using fewer bits in places where that's OK.

Unfortunately, even if you send Soundclick a VBR file, they'll still decimate it. So your best bet is to send them a higher-quality file than what they accept. They'll still decimate it, but the final result will be better than if you'd sent them a 128kb/s constant bit rate file to begin with.

Get the LAME encoder, which can be downloaded for free. You can configure it to be run out of SONAR, but I never did that - I instead used a batch file to run LAME and copy the files to my upload folder. Use the "--vbr-new" command line option to create a variable bitrate file.

(I should note that I no longer use LAME myself, having discovered via experimentation that Adobe Audition creates superior-quality files in half the time. But AA3 will set you back about $350, kind of steep for an MP3 converter. I thought I'd mention it, though, in case you're on a quest for the best possible quality.)

Hi, Dave,

First of all, thanks so much to all of you who have responded to my question. Obviously, there's a lot more to this MP3 business than I realized. All tips and info are highly appreciated.

Welcome to the frustrating world of MP3 fidelity corrosion. The maddening thing about MP3 is that it will alter your song in unpredictable ways, sometimes requiring you to mix and EQ specifically for that format.

This is what made me ask my question in the first place. I noticed that, at 128, my mix sounded very different from my .wav mix, not just in freq's, but the balance of instruments was way off, "ess" sounds in the vocals were exacerbated to an unacceptable degree, etc.. It's not, obviously, just a loss of high/low freq's that happens with the MP3 conversion. Certainly, the 192 file sounded better, but still "off" in weird ways. I guess I'll try a higher rate file and see how much, if any, improvment there will be.

As noted above, Soundclick only accepts 128kb/s for their free accounts. For $10 a month you can buy a paid account that allows higher bitrates. I haven't been able to justify that myself, but I think about it every time I hear my stuff on CD and compare that to the mush that comes out of Soundclick.

Exactly! I read the whole Soundclick site last night and found that one must pay to post files at higher than 128 rates. Frankly, that's OK with me, I'd rather have the music sound closer to the original file, but my wife just recently lost her job and we're on a budget that's *extremely* tight for the moment. This also eliminates the possibility of spending money on any conversion program that might do the conversion better than Pyro. I'm not sure if Pyro uses the Lame encoder, or not. My version of Pyro is version 2003, so it's a bit long in the tooth nowadays. Heck, I didn't even get the MP3 converter feature authorized until last night, so I have nothing to really compare old/new converters. I'll check out the free versions of Lame and see if I can suss out how to make them work.

The concept of mixing with an ear towards MP3 distribution is an interesting one, but I wouldn't even have a clue as to where to begin. And, that means double the work to put songs out in two formats, each with their own mix. Yikes.

So, I guess the bottom line is that most people are just biting the bullet and accepting the negative impact of MP3 encoding of their material in order to make it available via Soundclick, etc.. I guess I just have to grow up and not be so picky about how my music is represented online. In reality, I don't worry too much about what the general public will hear, as most don't really know good sound when they hear it, nor do they have systems that would reproduce good sound, anyway. But I cringe when I think of fellow musicians/recordists/artists hearing something that sounds godawful and has my name on it. Guess I simply have to get over it.

Thanks so much to all for your informative answers.

Best regards,
Bill

ORIGINAL: chefmike8888

If you're going to be trying LAME, HERE'S A LINK on how to set it up in SONAR.

Mike

Hi, chefmike8888,

Thanks so much for the tip! I'll give it a try tomorrow if I can find the time. Much appreciated!

Best regards,
Bill

Hi there

For putting my stuff up on Soundclick, I save the project as a 44.1/16 wave file and convert it to mp3 using the very free SHUANGS WAV to MP3 CONVERTER - it seems to do a particularly good job for this purpose and well worth a try.

I normally upload at 128kbps as per the recommendation but I'm certainly going to try Bitflipper's advice and upload at 192kbps and let the Soundclick converter drop it to 128 to see if this makes a noticable difference.

BTW, the Shuang mp3 converter works up to 320kbps and also encodes WMA files up to 160kbps and OGG files up to 320kbps.

Best wishes

Steve

ORIGINAL: Cromberger

Hi, all,

I've recently finished a song that I'd like to put on one of the internet download sites such as Soundclick, etc.. Up until today, I've never really been exposed to MP3 files but, apparently, that's the format that the sites want you to use. So, I converted my 44.1/16 song into an MP3 file using my old copy of Pyro, which is the only program I've got that will make MP3's. My first try was at the "normal" 128 Kbs. It sounded awful to me. So, I made another file at 192Kbs, which sounds better than the 128Kb file, but still sounds like junk compared to the original 44.1/16 file. I haven't tried any of the higer rates yet, but I'm guessing the files start getting almost as big as the 44.1/16 files.

I'm having a hard time convincing myself that it's OK to put my music on the net in a format that sounds so inferior to "CD quality". Not that I'm a brilliant composer or musician but, sheesh, I'd like my work to sound it's best, regardless.

So, what do you guys do to make MP3's sound better? Or, is there a good way to make my files available at 44.1/16? Is there a better format than MP3 that's still compressed? I'm not new to recording or playing (been at it for 38 years) but I'm totally new to this MP3/internet stuff and any ideas/tips/pointers you all can give me will be most appreciated.

Thanks!

Best regards to all,
Bill

Edited for spelling.....Doh!

http://www.free-codecs.com/download/LameXP.htm (if you try it, use version 2.03, the 3.0 rc2 is extremely buggy)

i use this constantly, its based on the latest LAME code set which i think is 3.98. it uses VBR (variable birate) settings, which imo is a lot better sounding then a mp3 file encoded using CBR (constant birate). Cause as im sure you know this, VBR only encodes where there is actualy data greatly reducing file size.

LAME caused my computer to crash a couple of times, so I quickly uninstalled and my problems were gone - maybe it was an issue with Vista. I'm using iTunes now for MP3 conversion, and it works fine.

I use the freeware CWENC.

It is a GUI app that uses LAME 3.93.1 under the hood. It does VBR MP3, CBR MP3, and Ogg Vorbis. It offers text boxes to enter common tags: title, author, comment, album, etc. It was originally written to integrate with early versions of cakewalk software, but I run it as a standalone windows app.

at imusicscene with the free membership you can post 192.

I visited imusicscene. I didn't browse long enough to determine whether the signal-to-noise ratio is better there than at Soundclick (by that, I mean crap-to-gems ratio), but there was definitely some good material there. 192kb/s on a free account is a move in the right direction. What about file size limitations?

ORIGINAL: bitflipper

at imusicscene with the free membership you can post 192.

I visited imusicscene. I didn't browse long enough to determine whether the signal-to-noise ratio is better there than at Soundclick (by that, I mean crap-to-gems ratio), but there was definitely some good material there. 192kb/s on a free account is a move in the right direction. What about file size limitations?

Not sure of file size limits. There is a combined limit of 200 MB on free account. Detailed account information can be found at bottom of home page under "artist subscriptions".

ORIGINAL: SteveStrummerUK

I've just been re-reading this thread and noticed Dave Clark mentioned the Frauhofer encoder and its licensing. I remember there was another thread recently discussing the merits of the Frauhofer and Lame encoders.

I have an mp3 CD-R/RW disc player in my car and to create the files from my CD collection I use [sorry about the upcoming swearword] Steinberg's My Mp3 Pro4 which seems to do a really good job as it converts the CD audio directly to the mp3 format, without the intermediate stage of extracting to wav audio first.

It has both Lame and Frauhofer encoders and after a few tests, I found that the perfect balance [to my ears] between quality and file size for my car was using the Frauhofer encoder at 192kbps - incidentally, the Fraunhofer produces noticably better results than the Lame at all bitrates.

If you like Bill, or if anyone else is interested, I'll run a little test to see if the quality of the Frauhofer encoder does a similar job on wave files mixed down from Guitar Tracks Pro.

Cheers

Steve

Hi, Steve,

For sure, I'd like to hear your take on if the Fraunhofer encoder sounds "better" than the Lame version. Since Lame is based on the Fraunhofer model, it seems like they'd sound pretty much the same---but it would be very informative to know for sure.

Best regards,
Bill

ORIGINAL: Cromberger

Hi, Steve,

For sure, I'd like to hear your take on if the Fraunhofer encoder sounds "better" than the Lame version. Since Lame is based on the Fraunhofer model, it seems like they'd sound pretty much the same---but it would be very informative to know for sure.

Best regards,
Bill

It's obviously all very subjective Bill, but to my hearing the CD's encoded using Fraunhofer sound much clearer and 'punchier', and more like the originals than those encoded with the Lame option. When testing out the two for my car, I listened to extracted mp3 files from both encoders from 112kbps up to 320kbps.

Above 192kbps, there were no disceranable improvements on my system and so I just had to decide which encoder to use at that rate - the Fraunhofer won hands down.

However, I understand that it may just be the particular dynamics etc. from my car player/speakers that influenced my decision - that's why I offered to run a few tests with wave files from my Cakewalk software - if I get anything worthwhile reporting, I'll post back and try to upload some examples to my Soundclick site, presuming they don't re-encode the files out of all recognition.

All the best

Steve