X2a mp3 encoder

Sometime in the Past "Sonar" included an activation code for the mp3 encoder.
If you don't have that code, you purchase it in the Cakewalk store.
If you purchased it in the past, log into your account, and get the "code".
My guess is it runs in "trial" mode awhile and your time has run out;
I don't think its an "a" thing at all.

HTH,

T

I don't know how to do it in sonar but I'm guessing you could use the lame encoder for free. It's a snap in reaper.

Tho I own the Cakewalk Licensed encoder, I did set my system up to use an external LAME encoder long ago...

I found it easiest to create individual batch files (.bat) that contain the command string and have separate entries for the various mp3 configurations that I might want...

I'll look to see if I can find any of them and make them available...

Keni

http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.aspx?m=2268643

if you look at legal in "about" they give a credit to Lame.. so I'm guessing they use that to decode, say imports..

Can anybody comment on the quality and performance of LAME versus the one that Cakewalk requires you to license for $20?
 
During my 30-day period, I used the SONAR encoder a few times.  I didn't do rigorous measurements, but it seemed like it was about 5 times slower than using LAME externally.  It was so much slower that I actually saved time by exporting to WAV, and then running WinLAME as a separate step.  I'd rather not interrupt my workflow like that, of course. 
 
Since that time, I have changed my system configuration.  During my 30-day period most of my project and audio files were on a network attached RAID drive running across a wireless network (very slow) and now they are on a local SSD (very fast).  So even if there is still a performance difference, I can probably live with it.
 
But what about quality of MP3 conversion?  It seems that LAME hasn't been updated in a few years.  Is the SONAR encoder any better?

rabeach
as the years roll by the quality of mp3 encoding will never change. :-)

What I don't understand is this: If there is no difference in quality, then why didn't Cakewalk simply include LAME as the standard way of doing MP3?

Hi:
I just export and use ITunes for mp3.  The ITunes mp3 encoder is very good I think.  Little more work, but the mp3 always sound just like the original 24 bit 48K wawe file.
dan
 

I paid for the mp3 license from Cakewalk a few years ago and it's showing that it IS a lame encoder. Works nicely by the way. ;)

Sonar MP3 encoder IS lame - fwiw I bought my licence with 8.5 and it has run on every version since. Why look at going external when for a measly $20 you can keep it in the box, so to speak :)

 

rabeach

cparmerlee
FWIW, here is a description of the license requirements.
http://lame.sourceforge.net/license.txt
 
That seems to imply that there should be no charge as long as Cakewalk acknowledges LAME.

no it does not and no they can not.
 edit...
http://mp3licensing.com/licensees/index.asp

I don't get your point.  So Cakewalk is licensed for MP3.  That doesn't mean anything with regard to the LAME software, as I understand it.  The LAME license says:
 

LAME
Can I use LAME in my commercial program?

Yes, you can, under the restrictions of the LGPL. The easiest way to do this is to:

1. Link to LAME as separate library (libmp3lame.a on unix or lame_enc.dll on windows)

2. Fully acknowledge that you are using LAME, and give a link to our web site, www.mp3dev.org

3. If you make modifications to LAME, you *must* release these modifications back to the LAME project, under the LGPL.

That says nothing about any fees, as long as you acknowledge LAME and agree to place any mods into the open domain.

Also I would note that SONAR includes the MP3 DECODER at no charge (allowing you to import MP3.) So why do they charge for the encoder?
==========
 
On edit, the MP3 licensing site indicates a fee of $2.50 per encoder (and $.075 per decoder) for the use of MP3 patents.  That's a far cry from $20.  I don't believe Cakewalk should incur any royalties for including LAME.  Considering how commonplace MP3 is in music production, it seems pretty excessive to make the users go to the trouble of making a separate $20 purchase for a $2.50 items, but evidently that is what their marketing people decided to do.
 
And don't make the mistake I made, which was to purchase the encoder.  That's the wrong product.  You have to purchase a different thing that just enables the feature, so now I have to waste my time and Cakewalk's time fixing that mistake.  Surely everybody has better things to be doing for want of $2.50 and customer satisfaction.

scook
Would you like to offer you legal opinion on #6 of the LAME technical FAQ?

I am not a lawyer, but have worked in and around software development organizations continuously since 1974, so I have some experience with this.  I don't have an opinion about the validity of LAME's claim.  Obviously Cakewalk made a decision to avoid litigation altogether by paying the ransom to the MP3 people, and it appears that is $2.50 for the encoder. They absorbed the $0.75 fee for the decoder, but didn't want to absorb the $2.50 fee for the encoder!?  That's my interpretation.  If that is a correct interpretation, I would say that is very short-sighted.
 
Again, I don't believe there is any royalty or any other kind of fee to LAME under the GPL.  Have you seen anything that indicates there would be a payment to LAME?

scook
If, as you say, you have worked in and around software development organizations then you know there is more cost that just the license fee. Even using an existing library does not make it cost free and the company is not a charity. Since you have industry experience, do you have a estimate of what the fully costed inclusion of the feature would be? Where does payment to LAME come into the picture? That is your creation. This is far from the first thread on this subject and sadly will not be the last. Don't want to use the integrated mp3 sells, no problem it is not the only solution.

Obviously producing a software product has costs, and that often includes licensing components.   Cakewalk has revenue to cover that.  How much did it cost Cakewalk to develop take lanes and automation lanes, or the ProChannel capability.  A lot more than the MP3 fees, I would bet.  Yet they made the marketing decision to not charge for every little feature.  They did develop a coherent pricing strategy with three tiers of the product.  It certainly would make sense for the entry level product to not include MP3 encoder because there is such a small margin in that case.  But I don't see any marketing logic whatsoever to position the "Producer" version of the product as "everything you will ever need" (my words, not theirs, but that is the product positioning) and then nick the users for $20 for what is a $2.50 line item internally on a product with a list price of $500 and a lifetime revenue opportunity of probably $2000 or more per customer.
 
That isn't the kind of marketing reasoning I would ever accept from a product manager.  Would you risk a $2000 relationship over a $2.50 item?
 
Granted, most people wouldn't walk away from Cakewalk over a $20 charge.  But it is a very competitive market.  Sometimes it is these little things that start the customer on the path of moving to another supplier.  Why even take that chance? 

 
If I need to create mp3 files, I always do the conversion outside of SONAR.
 
And I've never got better results than using my ancient, but trusty, copy of Pinnacle/Steinberg MyMP3Pro (v.4).
 
It gives you the choice between using either a Lame encoder or a Fraunhofer encoder, and I have to say, the Fraunhofer does a much better job than the Lame. At 320kbps, it's very difficult to tell the difference between the mp3 and the original wav file.
 
I think they gave up making it after version 5, but if anyone comes across a copy sitting around, it's well worth getting hold of.
 
Now, if anyone knows how to 'extract' the Fraunhofer encoder and use it inside of SONAR, I'd be really grateful!