Probably a bit off topic to the question of the OP, but ill post it anyway..

Ehh why do it difficult, Export from sonar as usual to wave

then use Mediahuman Audio Converter 

if you download from youtube as well, it will convert the video to audio

Many formats supported, from they'r site :

MediaHuman Audio Converter is a freeware application for Mac OS X and Windows. It can help you to convert your music absolutely free in WMA, MP3, AAC, WAV, FLAC, OGG, AIFF or Apple Lossless format.

• Simple and intuitive interface
• Converts between all key audio formats
• Splitting tracks by CUE sheet
• iTunes support
• Converts multiple files simultaneously
• Keeps folder structure
• Extracts audio track from video
• Absolutely FREE!
  
  I use it much when needed,  and it is quick
  
  Jan
  
  
  

Spot on Kev.
 
I always export to wav first and then IF MP3 conversion is necessary, it's done outside of Sonar.

I have used Traders Little Helper for converting WAV to MP3 or FLAC for years.  Easy to use and contains everything needed within the program and it is free.
 
http://tlh.easytree.org/
 
 

I only create the exported audio to MP3 files to shoot compressed quick and dirty 'in progress' versions to friends or other participants from a given project, as they are easier to send to an email address than uncompressed wave files.
 
Bob Bone
 

Personally I hope MP3, 32 bit plugins and ASIO4ALL die a miserable painful death. There really is not much use for mp3 any more, even with cellphones. Wav is what you should master to, and FLAC is there for compression requirements.

Doktor Avalanche
There really is not much use for mp3 any more, even with cellphones.

Every other audio product I have supports MP3. Sonar is the lone outlier.  Sorry, this is not the way to impress new users. This simply gives the impression that Cakewalk has such a low opinion of users or such a high opinion of themselves that they will dictate what is good and what customers should use.
 
We don't all have the same needs.  For what I do, almost all of the time, people want to receive the output as MP3s.  They aren't interested in arguments from me why they ought to be doing FLAC or something else.  I'm sorry if this offends anybody, but really, folks should get off their high horses and accept that there are valid reasons for people to use the tools in ways that aren't the same as what others might be doing.
 
Simple question, do you want to see Sonar accepted as a mainstream professional product or would you prefer it being seen as a second-class product only for hobbyists, techies, and garage bands?

cparmerlee

Anderton

cparmerlee
Let me ask you a marketing question.  Would you pay $10 to begin a relationship with a new customer that might result in 5-10 years of subscriptions to Platinum?

With respect, your question is not relevant.

You are correct, if the only ambition for Sonar is to have it perceived as a hack's tool as opposed to a a professional, robust product.  The point is that obviously anybody would spend $10 to make a good first impression that would start a relationship with a customer.  I bet Gibson is spending a lot more than that on click advertising.
 
This is a no-brainer.  The company should eat the $10 and have the product ship with seamless MP3 support.

There you go again with selective quotation, presumably so you can avoid answering the relevant question I raised: whether customers who already have multiple ways to convert files to MP3s (including having already unlocked the non-expiring Cakewalk encoder) should be forced to pay $10 in order to subsidize other customers who find either a) following 9 steps "a pain," or b) who don't think to look in the Help file (or do a 1-minute search) to find out how to convert files for free from within SONAR to MP3, or c) refuse to take the free option but also refuse to spend $9.99 for something they presumably need.
 
Care to answer my question this time?
 
And as to "eating" the $10, read what I wrote about the concept of a "bill of materials." Companies have budgets and make forecasts based on what it costs them to make a product. You must think $10 is a pretty big amount of money if you find it onerous for people to need to spend it if they don't want to install a codec for free. Well, multiply that by the number of copies of SONAR that are sold, get our your calculator, and realize it is NOT a trivial decision (or a particularly intelligent one) to "eat" $10 for every copy of SONAR sold. 
 
FYI SONAR Artist sells for $99 and that doesn't take into account dealer margins. So you're asking Cakewalk to give away 10% of the MAP cost of the product to benefit a small number of new users while penalizing existing users, and also, give up a much higher percentage of their profit on that product.
 
Sure, Cakewalk could "eat" the cost of paying $10 for every copy of SONAR by firing someone in customer support (actually that may not be enough). I think that's a stupid tradeoff to make because you want to force what I believe is the majority of users to pay for something they don't need.
 
Remember, Cakewalk wouldn't have to pay the license fee only for people who use MP3 encoding. They have to pay the license fee for every copy of SONAR, including the ones sitting on store shelves. 
 
Besides, the point is moot because you can already get SONAR with built-in MP3 encoding. Just ask for the version called "SONAR + $9.99."

Anderton

cparmerlee

Anderton

cparmerlee
Let me ask you a marketing question.  Would you pay $10 to begin a relationship with a new customer that might result in 5-10 years of subscriptions to Platinum?

With respect, your question is not relevant.

You are correct, if the only ambition for Sonar is to have it perceived as a hack's tool as opposed to a a professional, robust product.  The point is that obviously anybody would spend $10 to make a good first impression that would start a relationship with a customer.  I bet Gibson is spending a lot more than that on click advertising.
 
This is a no-brainer.  The company should eat the $10 and have the product ship with seamless MP3 support.

There you go again with selective quotation, presumably so you can avoid answering the relevant question I raised: whether customers who already have multiple ways to convert files to MP3s (including having already unlocked the non-expiring encoder) should be forced to pay $10 in order to subsidize other customers who find following 9 steps "a pain," or who don't think to look in the Help file (or do a 1-minute search) to find out how to convert files for free from within SONAR to MP3.
 
Care to answer my question this time?

Well if they spend the time to "do a 1-minute search" because they know about Google or whatever :) they will probably come across this...
http://forum.cakewalk.com/TUTORIAL-Getting-LAME-MP3-Encoder-to-Work-With-SONAR-m1255631.aspx
 
Search was "configuring Sonar for lame" 
 
At least for me that is the first search result returned using Google.
 
That thread spans from 2007 to 2015.
 
I really regret participating in this thread. Seems as if my intentions were not understood and feel a little defensive in what seems like a hostile environment. But I'll get over it. Don't worry! :)
 
I have no problem with how cakewalk handles MP3 encoder unlocking or the use of the configuration tool for free Lame etc. My only point was this has been a reoccuring topic and I can understand why.
 
Perhaps this topic could be put to rest if it is explained during installation or in the popup dialog box when attempting to export an MP3 that is locked or not configured to use the free Lame (which I believe may be only for educational purposes but not sure really). There probably is a popup, but maybe it doesn't explain things well enough with all the options and reasoning other than pointing them to the Cakewalk store to unlock.
 
Again, that is a "Perhaps". I still think a lot of people are going to think MP3 export would be included in the initial purchase. But whatever.
 
I'm out! Peace!

WDI
I really regret participating in this thread. Seems as if my intentions were not understood and feel a little defensive in what seems like a hostile environment. But I'll get over it. Don't worry! :)
 
Again, that is a "Perhaps". I still think a lot of people are going to think MP3 export would be included in the initial purchase. But whatever.
 

Absolutely agreed, we know that some people think MP3 export should be included as a "native" feature in SONAR. It may be 1%, it may be 99%. I don't know, and those making statements about how people view a program that doesn't have MP3 export as being amateurish (despite it having DSD import and export) don't know either 
 
But you could also make an argument that Cakewalk should include a goniometer for checking phase. And it should, but you can get one for free that's quite good. And it should include a really good maximizer too. But it doesn't, so you either get a free one like W1, or spring for Ozone or WAVES or whatever.
 
The point I'm trying to make is that baking an MP3 encoder into SONAR requires a tradeoff. There's no free lunch. The tradeoff is either paying more money for SONAR, having less features in order to subsidize those who for whatever reason can't cope with the free installation or don't want to pay $9.99, or firing someone at Cakewalk.
 
Given those tradeoffs, I think the correct decision is to leave the decision about how to handle MP3 encoding up to the user. Others disagree. On the other hand I'm not sure they want to pay more for SONAR, have fewer features, or put someone out on the street; but to be fair, maybe they're totally cool with those tradeoffs, and if so, I respect their opinion regardless of whether I agree or not.

cparmerlee

Doktor Avalanche
There really is not much use for mp3 any more, even with cellphones.

Every other audio product I have supports MP3. Sonar is the lone outlier.  Sorry, this is not the way to impress new users. This simply gives the impression that Cakewalk has such a low opinion of users or such a high opinion of themselves that they will dictate what is good and what customers should use.
 
We don't all have the same needs.  For what I do, almost all of the time, people want to receive the output as MP3s.  They aren't interested in arguments from me why they ought to be doing FLAC or something else.  I'm sorry if this offends anybody, but really, folks should get off their high horses and accept that there are valid reasons for people to use the tools in ways that aren't the same as what others might be doing.
 
Simple question, do you want to see Sonar accepted as a mainstream professional product or would you prefer it being seen as a second-class product only for hobbyists, techies, and garage bands?

Or, configure any free encoder it you would rather.  It is indeed all a series of trade offs and balancing acts - development direction, which fixes for this cycle, what plugins to include, any UI alterations, the encoder, and a thousand other things.
 
Each person will have likes and dislikes about feature present, features absent, etc., and Cakewalk has worked the particular MP3 encoder they offer in the same manner for many many years now.  If you do not wish to purchase a user license for the offered MP3 encoder, feel free to download the exact same one for free, and use the Cakewalk supplied configuration options to simply add it in yourself (saving that license fee), and move forward. Or don't.
 
This perceived shortcoming has really soaked up a lot of some folk's time, and that to me is a bit odd - though I certainly support folks having whatever their opinions are - they are every bit as valid as mine.
 
I DO happen to think it a bit silly to think that the Sonar license fee for the offered encoder, considering how small a part that plays in the whole grand scheme of things - particularly since you can actually get the exact same one for free.  IF it were really true that this MP3 encoder is making any kind of sizable number of folks thinking Sonar is some kind of amateur-hour product - I would imagine that this would be discussed at length and by a wide assortment of industry engineers or reviewers.  I cannot say I have ever seen a review that included some comment along the lines of 'boy, that Sonar is something, but man it just sucks they didn't include that MP3 encoder for free - hey Sonar isn't any good'.  Until I DO start seeing that kind of review on it, or some number of industry pros responding in interviews along the same lines, I will believe that your opinion is in the minority.
 
Good luck with it all - I cheerfully and seamlessly exported SEVERAL MP3 files this evening, in Sonar, so in any case it is not an issue I face.
 
Bob Bone
 

 
If you look at the product description for Music Creator 7, there is no mention of mp3.  In the Music Creator Tutorial 9 - Exporting and sharing and the Export Audio dialog in the online manual, there is mention of mp3, but nothing about you losing the ability to export mp3 after 30 days.  All it says in both cases is :
 
"MP3. Use this preset if you plan on sharing your song with friends, or if you want to listen to your song on an MP3 player. Your song will be saved as an MP3 (.mp3) file."
 
I can't find any reference to having to buy an mp3 licence anywhere.  There is no mp3 entry in the documentation TOC. 
 
If I were new to music software, I'd presume I'd be able to produce an mp3 since that's what most people listen to.
 
   "if you plan on sharing your song with friends"
 
Who wouldn't ?
 
---------------------------
 
The X3 online manual states under Uploading audio to SoundCloud  :
 
"Tip: By default, Cakewalk SoundCloud lets you upload either a .wav file or an .mp3 file. If you want to upload a different audio format, first use the File > Export > Audio command to export to the desired format, then go to Utilities > Share with SoundCloud and select the exported file."
 
In the X3 Tutorial 9 – Exporting, CD burning and sharing, there is no mention of mp3 at all.
 
Again, I can't find any word anywhere about having to unlock mp3 export.
 

Sonar isn't the only sound editor I use, so I'm very happy to not be paying for MP3 capability in Sonar. I use lame, which I adore and which I configured Sonar to use in about three minutes. Adding that feature is nothing more than "checkbox" development for marketing purposes imho. I'd rather have them working on something more valuable to me. Just my two cents.
 
By the way, I do get the point you're trying to make but imho there's nothing wrong with Cakewalk making a profit, or Sony for that matter. I work hard to make a profit in my biz too, the more obscenely big the better. As long as they provide value to me, who cares what their margins are? I sure don't. An MP3 encoder in Sonar adds nothing of value for me.

cparmerlee

Anderton
Here's the question I asked:
 
Should customers who already have multiple ways to convert files to MP3s (including having already unlocked the non-expiring Cakewalk encoder) be forced to pay $10 in order to subsidize other customers

 
If that is what it takes.

 
Thank you for finally answering my question.
 
 

I doubt that is what it takes, however, as these things are probably negotiable when talking about volumes.

 
If you think Cakewalk has anywhere the negotiating clout of a Microsoft or Apple due to huge volumes, you are very much mistaken.
 

Nonetheless, $10 would be a small price for Cakewalk to pay in order to clear out such a basic objection to the product.

 
You still don't understand that Cakewalk wouldn't pay that. Customers would pay it, either because the price would go up, or features would be reduced. Then again, Cakewalk could just fire a tech support person to pay for it :) 
 

You can spin this into sounding the way you want it -- as a "subsidy".

 
Subsidy is not a spin, it is an accurate characterization of what you want to see happen: "Pay part of the cost of producing (something) to reduce prices for the buyer."
 

I am simply pointing out that MP3 is one of the most basic requirements of any audio program, and other suppliers have had no difficulty dealing with it without making the customer jump through hoops.

 
They have simply built the price the consumer pays for it into the cost of the program. So you jumped through a hoop by paying for that MP3 encoder, whether you know it or not. The reason why I object to your line of thinking is that I feel it is fundamentally wrong to penalize Cakewalk for a) being transparent about it, and b) offering a choice to their customers of whether or not to pay for that encoder.

cparmerlee

Ian Ferrin
For $22 you can get Sony Sound Forge Audio Studio 10 at Amazon. 

Which means that Sony probably nets about $15 after marketing costs.  Does anybody really believe they give away $10 out of that $15 to Fraunhofer?  I'm thinking that is pretty unlikely.

 
Of course no one would believe that if they had any sense whatsoever, because they would realize how big Sony is, and what their volume is for the totality of their products that include MP3 capabilities. What do you think they turned to when ATRAC didn't fly? I consulted to Sony for several years, and among other things wrote the app note for Sony on how to convert Acid files for loading into one of their MP3 players. Sony sells a lot of MP3 players. I'll go out on a limb and take a crazy, wild guess that Sony sells more MP3 players than Cakewalk sells copies of SONAR.
 
On the other hand, if you DO use Minidisc and DO need to export as ATRAC, you can actually configure SONAR to export ATRAC files. Or AAC, if you use an iPod...you can even import/export PARIS files in case you have ancient Ensoniq files lying around and don't know what to do with them. (Which is great, given that I have files from a deceased classical guitarist that were only in PARIS format.)
 
Cakewalk assumes their customers can decide for themselves what they need and don't need, and offers them choices on how to fulfill those needs, from free to $9.99. That works for me. I understand that some people, for whatever reason, will not see the merits in that approach. 
 
 

Doktor Avalanche
Sonar supports MP3. To say it does not is totally inaccurate.

 
Yes, and it supports a whole lot of other formats as well, thanks to its open-ended approach.
 

Personally I don't need to spend an extra $10 for this facility and I don't see why I should be charged an extra $10 just because somebody thinks it should be supplied by default.

 
Because it's your duty as a SONAR user to subsidize people who don't want to pay $9.99 or perform 9 steps to configure their own encoder.
 

BTW you better get used to the idea, software in the future is going to become more and more modular and you are only going to end up paying for the parts you need in micropayments. That's the way it is going..

Agreed 100%. For starters, look at Windows 10 or iOS, both of which rely on in-app purchases of options for income. As goes Microsoft and Apple, so goes the rest of the world.