|
what prog. to use when?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| ripcurl |
what is the best prog. to encode mp3 to a small birate but with exaptable quality?
what do you use?
and decoders? |
|
|
| breakaholic |
| Well it depends on how small the bitrate is, usually lower than 96kbps totally sux no matter what prog. you are using. I use Wavelab 3.0 and it's one of the bests, other thing is where to find that prog :) but u dont need any others if u manage to get it. |
|
|
| BEACHBOY |
I use that one (available at www.download.com)
I'm pretty happy with that, goes fairly fast and if you have the 'power pack' you can add silences at the end when you dl songs who stop abbruptly (I have that all the time, think you guys too!)
It's easy to use too, when you're in your explorer you just right click on the song and then chose the bitrate/quality and that's it.
Hope this helps
:D |
|
|
| tu_face |
if u r ripping then one of the best encoders around is the x-ing encoding on d1200sl
if ur encoding from wav.. nothing does it higher quality than cool edit 2000/pro.. i encoded 40 mins of a mix into 96k and it sounded just as good as most 160k mp3's... its all in the detail.. cool edit has options for high quality encoding and low quality encoding.. so u can have 192k hi quality & 192k low... the high will alays take much longer but the end result will be so much better :)
cool edit 2000 encodes at anything between 20k and 320k, from damn near any sound file format :) |
|
|
| ripcurl |
thx you guys
i will try them
i use MPEG Suite but when i encode to 96k oor lower the quality just makes it impossible to listen to.
10x if you guys need enything just ask
BTW i opened a locker and im uploading sings now, ask me in a couple of days and i will give you the details |
|
|
| Hyperdimension |
Since we are all music lovers (the name of this site says it all), why would you want such poor audio quality? 96kbps is just far too low things sound muffled etc. The standard at the moment is 192kbps, and even I think that is not good enough, because there are parts of tracks (often complicated parts, and trance music often does have complicated parts) that require a higher rate. The best is variable-bit-rate encoding with the latest version of Lame with the --r3mix setting. You'll see some parts of a track only require 96kbps, whereas other parts require 256kbps and even 320kbps.
Check r3mix.net to find out more. |
|
|
| RavingLunatic |
yeah, but I hate VBR encoded files.
when I try to mix with them, they end before they are supposed to.
the length in winamp is all messed up, and the kb/sec thing is always changing, I find that annoying. |
|
|
| Hyperdimension |
Are you using an old version of Winamp? The length now behaves and is accurate.
I guess the only alternative is to encode at 320kbps, which obviously would give you a huge file, but at least as minimal quality loss. Or just accept a greater loss in quality for a smaller file. Though think about how long you expect to keep these mp3s... you might have equipment in the future that is far superior than what you have now, and you may then notice the drops in quality.
Or just go for lossless audio compression like monkey's audio, you'll retain 100% of the CD quality, and save about 50% of space.
Or just leave them as wav files. |
|
|
| Sir. Lunchalot |
Hwy not use mp3pro? It compresses the high frequencies and the low frequencies seperately (or something like that) and thus gets better quality at a lower bitrate. You encode at 64Kb and the quality is the same as with 128Kb but the size is the same like a 64Kb mp3.
Check out mp3pro here! |
|
|
|
|
