Best MP3 Encoder For Livesets - TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- DJ Booth
-- Best MP3 Encoder For Livesets

Posted by BattleAngel on Jun-27-2001 13:17:

Best MP3 Encoder For Livesets

I have been using AudioCatalyst for all my VBR highest-quality encodings of CD rips. Is there a better encoder than AC?

DJ Rain

Posted by Bellie on Jun-27-2001 15:58:

nah audiocatalyst is the best there is....

GREETZ!!

Posted by skywarp on Jun-27-2001 19:14:

yes there is

Win32Lame ... you can get it from here http://www.saunalahti.fi/~ljpp/winl...in32LAMEv13.exe

Posted by goodnet on Jun-28-2001 12:34:

quote:
Originally posted by Bellie
nah audiocatalyst is the best there is....
that uses the Xing Encoder, one of the worst mp3 encoders out there.

Go with skywarp's advice and use LAME, it's encoding (espiecially in VBR HQ mode) is tweaked and superior to any other encoders out there.

Posted by NZWaverider on Jun-29-2001 00:57:

quote:
skywarp yes there is Win32Lame ... you can get it from here

I use the razor front end, is the win32Lame better?
why would you use VBR do you think it is better?

i have recorded a couple of live sets from the local radio station here in NZ, after runnung them through cooledit they now sound really good. but with encoding, whats the diff between joint, forced joint stereo? and i did notice a difference between encoding between 128 and 160kbps, cheers

Posted by BattleAngel on Jun-29-2001 03:45:

quote:
Originally posted by NZWaverider

why would you use VBR do you think it is better?

i have recorded a couple of live sets from the local radio station here in NZ, after runnung them through cooledit they now sound really good. but with encoding, whats the diff between joint, forced joint stereo? and i did notice a difference between encoding between 128 and 160kbps, cheers

Why VBR? VBR is more versatile because it can dynamically change the bitrate encoded based on the audio information. For instance, if you have a lot of high frequency data like hi hats and cymbals then 160 or 192 might not encode that data as well as 256 and VBR will do that for you. If you have a static bitrate @ maybe 192 then you're stuck with 192 the whole way. So that's why VBR is better if you want max MP3 quality.

As for Joint Stereo, use it every time. Don't worry about it.

128 vs. 160? MP3 compresses audio and the lesser the bit rate the more high frequency it throws out to save space. Usually only electronic music requires 160+ because it uses more hi-freq instruments which requires less compression if you want to retain quality. But for most R&B, pop, hip hop etc, 128 is just fine.

As always, if you cherrish the music you encode, do HQ VBR, you can afford the space and your ears will thank you.

DJ Rain

Posted by Denser on Jul-05-2001 05:51:

Dude..thats some good info.

AC sux...i used to use it when i listened to pop rock etc...didnt matter then.

I guess I'll second people's opinion on Lame enc.Its the best .. I found Blade is good at 128kbps...but Lame is the da best for HQ.

Get them all in one package here...I've been using this software for a long time now.. : http://www.dbpoweramp.com