| MP3 Encoding Quality |
I've seen a lot of comments about mp3 compresison artifacts, I'm not sure if some of you are aware, but the quality of the encoder you use greatly affects the quality of the mp3 you get. If you use a 'high speed' encoder you will typically get lots of artifacts, no matter what bit-rate you use. I wouldn't trust any encoder that comes with any software you buy either, typically they will include whatever they could get cheapest.
So if you're suffering from bad artifacts in your mp3s you should use something that supports LAME encoder (the best I've heard). If you grab cdex (it's free) it comes with it.
CDEX is here:
http://cdexos.sourceforge.net/
So if you're suffering from bad artifacts in your mp3s you should use something that supports LAME encoder (the best I've heard). If you grab cdex (it's free) it comes with it.
CDEX is here:
http://cdexos.sourceforge.net/
| re: MP3 Encoding Quality |
clevijoki wrote…
I wouldn't trust any encoder that comes with any software you buy either, typically they will include whatever they could get cheapest./
Steinberg Wavelab comes with both the LAME and Fraunhofer encoders.
Lame I find is good for 192kbps, but introduces noticable audio artifacts at 128kbps, for which I find Fraunhofer's encoder much better.
Fraunhofer's encoder IS much better, but i've experienced issues with mp3 playback on computers that don't have that codec. lame is more universal, but fraunhofer's is more efficient.
If I wasn't going to use mp3 I'd probably use ogg vorbis, which is a higher quality free open source format but isn't fully adopted yet. If you use mp3 in any commercial way you technically have to pay licensing fees.
This site might want to look into supporting that (maybe it does, I haven't uploaded any songs yet).
This site might want to look into supporting that (maybe it does, I haven't uploaded any songs yet).
no, it doesn't support it
ogg is becoming more widespread, but it's certainly not mainstream media. it'd love to use it, but like you said, it's not very popular.
actually, i'd love to move to aac or something.
ogg is becoming more widespread, but it's certainly not mainstream media. it'd love to use it, but like you said, it's not very popular.
actually, i'd love to move to aac or something.
screw wma, regardless of what number follows it. it's got great compression, but it's another locked up music type that microsoft came up with to create their own style of music enforcement.
a friend of mine had ripped all her cds onto her computer using windows media player and saved the files in wma b/c she didn't know better, and then packed away all her cds, threw them out, etc, etc. basically, she didn't have easy access to them. but anyway, she had to reformat the computer and reinstall the OS and when she tried to play the music from the old computer, it refused to let her b/c it wanted her to put in the cds to prove she really had the music and didn't download it. after looking into the matter myself, i realized that it was wma files and that they were the spawn of satan.
so, to make a long story short: i wouldn't use wma if you're looking to use it for anything other than your own computer right where it stands.
beyond that, wma keeps changing, and i find that even the mp3/cd players that claim they can play wma really CAN'T play all wma files b/c microsoft keeps changing the ways you can encode wma files.
if you ask me, it's just not worth the headache.
aac / mp4 (aac is the more common name for it) is a much better alternative, b/c, like mp3, there's a universal standard. though, i wouldn't store your music as aac just yet, b/c it's not very widespread yet either. it's more popular than ogg already, but it's not universally supported.
to give you an idea to support that statment, newer versions of winamp will play the files, but it's hard to find software that can import the file type.
a friend of mine had ripped all her cds onto her computer using windows media player and saved the files in wma b/c she didn't know better, and then packed away all her cds, threw them out, etc, etc. basically, she didn't have easy access to them. but anyway, she had to reformat the computer and reinstall the OS and when she tried to play the music from the old computer, it refused to let her b/c it wanted her to put in the cds to prove she really had the music and didn't download it. after looking into the matter myself, i realized that it was wma files and that they were the spawn of satan.
so, to make a long story short: i wouldn't use wma if you're looking to use it for anything other than your own computer right where it stands.
beyond that, wma keeps changing, and i find that even the mp3/cd players that claim they can play wma really CAN'T play all wma files b/c microsoft keeps changing the ways you can encode wma files.
if you ask me, it's just not worth the headache.
aac / mp4 (aac is the more common name for it) is a much better alternative, b/c, like mp3, there's a universal standard. though, i wouldn't store your music as aac just yet, b/c it's not very widespread yet either. it's more popular than ogg already, but it's not universally supported.
to give you an idea to support that statment, newer versions of winamp will play the files, but it's hard to find software that can import the file type.
Thanks for the input and the info mate 
As far as I am aware, DRM (digital rights management) is optional for WMA compression, perhaps she ticked the wrong box?
Anyway, I don't have a great love for microsoft but I'm still curious about any development for audio compression - after all, the shelf-life of the 'red book' CD audio standard I think is going to expire in the next few years. I guess I like the fact that microsoft are constantly trying to improve the standard.
I agree that it is a shame that many mp3 players don't support WMA...it is a shame, because for novice pc users with windows media player this is the simplest method of getting music on your pc.
Anyway, I agree that aac/mp4 seems to be the way to go, for its more efficient compression.
My theory is that, in a few years time - when broadband is perhaps averaging at 5mbps - and DVD (or the next one
) has replaced the CD - we will be looking more at 'lossless' compression codecs rather than the next MP3. When the constraints of storage space and ease of electronic distribution are lessened, ease of use and sound quality will come to the fore.
I expect that the powers-that-be will have a 'war' over compressing 92khz/24bit audio without compromising sound quality - and this standard will become the new 'mp3'.
As far as I am aware, DRM (digital rights management) is optional for WMA compression, perhaps she ticked the wrong box?
Anyway, I don't have a great love for microsoft but I'm still curious about any development for audio compression - after all, the shelf-life of the 'red book' CD audio standard I think is going to expire in the next few years. I guess I like the fact that microsoft are constantly trying to improve the standard.
I agree that it is a shame that many mp3 players don't support WMA...it is a shame, because for novice pc users with windows media player this is the simplest method of getting music on your pc.
Anyway, I agree that aac/mp4 seems to be the way to go, for its more efficient compression.
My theory is that, in a few years time - when broadband is perhaps averaging at 5mbps - and DVD (or the next one
) has replaced the CD - we will be looking more at 'lossless' compression codecs rather than the next MP3. When the constraints of storage space and ease of electronic distribution are lessened, ease of use and sound quality will come to the fore.I expect that the powers-that-be will have a 'war' over compressing 92khz/24bit audio without compromising sound quality - and this standard will become the new 'mp3'.
Audacity is a nice recording program and supports LAME as well as ogg vorbis. All free, of course, and all run under Linux as well as Win.
Sorry, you do not have access to post...
Wanna post? Join Today!