• Register
  • Help
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Topic: mp3 encoding question

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1

    mp3 encoding question

    I encoded a song I recorded to mp3 to upload to the web. Unfortunately, it sounded horrible (at least the cymbals did- they sounded like they were playing through a phaser). I encoded it at 128 kbps using Wavelab. I couldn\'t get Wavelab to encode at any other rate. When I finally got another program to encode it at 256 and 320 kbps, the Windows Media Player couldn\'t play it.

    It doesn\'t seem to make sense to encode it in a format that most people can\'t listen to.

    How do most of you encode for uploading?
    Thanks

  2. #2

    Re: mp3 encoding question

    Wavelab\'s mp3 codec is pretty crappy. Most mp3s sound decent at 128, but I\'d recommend encoding at 192 to make it virtually indistingishable from the original wav, on top of using a good codec.

    SoundForge has a good one, and believe it or not, iTunes is pretty good, as is MusicMatch. I don\'t understand why their are \"good\" mp3s codecs, and \"bad\" ones. Isn\'t a codec a codec? Shouldn\'t they all apply the same algorithm? Apparently not I guess. Maybe someone here knows why.

  3. #3

    Re: mp3 encoding question

    mp3 encoding has 2 steps: the first one uses a psychoacoustic algorithm to eliminite the info we are not going to hear and the second one just uses standar file compression (like winzip).
    the psychoacoustical algorithm can vary drastically from one encoder to another, so the same wav will sound very different when encoded with different codecs even though it has the same bitrate.

    if you\'re in PC i would use dbpoweramp, which is free and uses the last version of LAME codec, quite good.

    here everyone uses constant bitrate to encode their mp3\'s, from 160kbps to 320kbps. If you want to save bandwidth i would go for variable bitrate, sounds better and makes smaller files

  4. #4

    Re: mp3 encoding question

    Originally posted by vaultcomplex:
    Wavelab\'s mp3 codec is pretty crappy. Most mp3s sound decent at 128, but I\'d recommend encoding at 192 to make it virtually indistingishable from the original wav, on top of using a good codec.
    <font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">Funny that this \"crappy\" codec is what have kept people from being able to distinguish MP3, 16-bit wav and 24-bit wav in a couple of threads recently... [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img] Wavelab uses the LAME encoder, which is great.

  5. #5

    Re: mp3 encoding question

    Thanks for the responses. Vault, I think you may be referring to older versions of Wavelab, Version 4.01 has the option of choosing Lame codecs, which are very good, I\'m having a problem with Wavelab choosing anything other than the defult rate of 128 kbps (but I\'ve posted that on the cubase forum to try to resolve that). I downloaded another shareware program that also uses the Lame codec but, when I encode at 192, 256, or 320 kbps, Windows Media Player says it is an invalid format or the file is corrupted. At first, I thought WMP can\'t read those formats (in which case it didn\'t make sense to encode to those formats), but I\'m beginning to think it may be a problem with the encoded files.
    Thanks

  6. #6

    Re: mp3 encoding question

    Problem solved- I got Wavelab to save it at 192kbps with the Lame codec- sounds good.
    Thanks

  7. #7

    Re: mp3 encoding question

    Originally posted by Simon Ravn:
    </font><blockquote><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">quote:</font><hr /><font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">Originally posted by vaultcomplex:
    Wavelab\'s mp3 codec is pretty crappy. Most mp3s sound decent at 128, but I\'d recommend encoding at 192 to make it virtually indistingishable from the original wav, on top of using a good codec.
    <font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">Funny that this \"crappy\" codec is what have kept people from being able to distinguish MP3, 16-bit wav and 24-bit wav in a couple of threads recently... [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img] Wavelab uses the LAME encoder, which is great. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">Actually, each time I did distinguish between mp3\'s and waves, and each time I distinguished a DIFFERENCE between the 16 and 24 bit, I just thought the 16 bit sounded the way the 24 bit was supposed to sound and vice versa. On wave 2, a pizzicato sounded more progressive after the initial pluck, whereas on the 16 bit the progressivness was weak, more of a thud. My thinking was that the file with the more progressive sounding hit had a little compression(which raised the decay) due to bit rate reduction, so that\'s how I picked the wrong file. This is what happens when you don\'t use your 24 bit like a good boy. [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

    Rick.

Go Back to forum

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •