DMusic.com | for indie musicians and fans | Free MP3 music downloads - Forums: The General Forum: What's the best free WAV to MP3 converter?

Forums > The General Forum

What's the best free WAV to MP3 converter?

ThaCoyote	Date: March 8, 2002 @ 5:00 AM I'm looking for a WAV to MP3 converter, which can encode in 128kbps and higher for Windows. It doesn't have to be fast as long as its quality is good, so it musn't be the Xing encoder, that's for sure
ThaCoyote	Date: March 8, 2002 @ 5:05 AM btw: How about converter programs leaving to leave a mark on the MP3, so someone can see what program encoded the MP3. That would give someone the possibility to exclude Xing encoded MP3's from being downloaded.
ThaCoyote	Date: March 8, 2002 @ 5:06 AM ....disregard 'to leave' in 'How about converter programs leaving TO LEAVE a mark on the MP3, ...'
bob2165	Date: March 8, 2002 @ 5:40 AM bob2165 " id="4550">Music Match Juke Box (MMJB) does a good job and offers a wide range of Kbps choices. None of the programs that I know of leave a visible mark that you could see before you downloaded it and took it "apart" with some sort of program editor. I haven't done that for years. I used X Tree for Windows. bob2165
RyanS	Date: March 8, 2002 @ 7:47 AM http://home.pi.be/~mk442837 RazorLame: http://www.dors.de/razorlame/" id="4552">I use Lame 3.91 and RazorLame frontend to encode my MP3s from WAVs. Lame: http://home.pi.be/~mk442837 RazorLame: http://www.dors.de/razorlame/
RyanS	Date: March 8, 2002 @ 7:49 AM Also, I use the --alt-preset cbr 192 command to encode my MP3s to a constant bitrate of 192, and they sound great
milladrive	Date: March 8, 2002 @ 10:04 AM i think the best encoder is included w/the MMJB freeware. MMJB is big and bloated, but it's free and comes w/the Fraunhofer encoder. Fraunhofer 0wnz.
richieZ	Date: March 8, 2002 @ 3:02 PM install the internal fraunhofer codec and you can use sound recorder to do it..
richieZ	Date: March 8, 2002 @ 3:02 PM if you want it i can send it to you
chris	Date: March 8, 2002 @ 3:44 PM http://www.guerillasoft.com/Encspot/ can tell which encoder was used to encode an MP3. I know LAME leaves a string in any mp3 it encodes, but I don't know of anything that reads it. ID3v2 has an "Encoded by" field which I use to save the encoder so I can tell just by looking at the Winamp file info." id="4604">btw: How about converter programs leaving to leave a mark on the MP3, so someone can see what program encoded the MP3. http://www.guerillasoft.com/Encspot/ can tell which encoder was used to encode an MP3. I know LAME leaves a string in any mp3 it encodes, but I don't know of anything that reads it. ID3v2 has an "Encoded by" field which I use to save the encoder so I can tell just by looking at the Winamp file info.
milladrive	Date: March 8, 2002 @ 3:59 PM that analyzer looks pretty decent. i like nero.
pressf8	Date: March 9, 2002 @ 7:14 PM does anybody use CDex? Great freeware program...
RyanS	Date: March 10, 2002 @ 1:27 AM I love using Encspot, found it by accident a few months back. It's really nice to find what kind of (crappy) encoder people use. Just a hint for some people, stay away from Xing and Blade, those both are notorious for sounding horrible! Blade, I think, is the worse of the two. I've downloaded quite a few encoded at 192, 256 & 320 that really sound bad with Blade. Xing doesn't sound that bad, but with headphones, you can tell. Never used Blade, I've always stuck with Audiograbber and Lame, and sometimes I use the FhG encoder with Cool Edit Pro
pog	Date: March 10, 2002 @ 9:56 PM I noticed that a lot of ppl tend to do other things whilst ripping, and that's why it comes out crappy/glitchy. ...yeah, Nero is nice
gregdillon	Date: March 11, 2002 @ 8:53 PM I don't know why XING always gets ripped up. I use AudioCatalyst and Normal/High VBR and I think it sounds great.
fatchuck	Date: March 12, 2002 @ 2:45 PM http://www.cdex.n3.net/ . It's a nice lightweight encoder with a lot of options and doesn't clog up your computer with a lot of junk. Free and easy to use, plus it uses LAME 3.88 or 3.91 (can't remember)." id="4892">The best encoder in my opinion is CDex 1.30, which can be found in different languages at http://www.cdex.n3.net/ . It's a nice lightweight encoder with a lot of options and doesn't clog up your computer with a lot of junk. Free and easy to use, plus it uses LAME 3.88 or 3.91 (can't remember).
richieZ	Date: March 12, 2002 @ 3:26 PM radium has a good version of the internal fraunhofer codec which installs to windows. after that, just about any audio program can encode into mp3.
richieZ	Date: March 12, 2002 @ 3:27 PM its all i have been using for years... quality is great...
richieZ	Date: March 12, 2002 @ 3:28 PM Easy CD-DA Extractor is what i usde to rip, and it will encode on the fly.. WinDAC is another good ripper and will also encode on the fly
RyanS	Date: March 13, 2002 @ 5:23 PM http://www.digit-life.com/articles/mp3comp/" id="5099">note on the Xing encoding, the only good thing that Xing has about it is speed.. and that's it. I found a site that compares a few of the mp3 encoders/decoders. Check it out http://www.digit-life.com/articles/mp3comp/
Gritche	Date: March 14, 2002 @ 6:17 AM http://www.cdngo.com/" id="5216">I recommend you the cd'n'go software: It's free. It can use about a dozen of different codecs (and you can choose between plenty of different qualities, ranging from 64kbps to 320 kbps) It does the tags (v1 and v2) It does the file renaming according to the tag (and the opposite) It uses freecddb It's fast It's translated into plenty of different languages. There are regular updates and they're all free. Try it out. You can find it at http://www.cdngo.com/
jank0	Date: March 15, 2002 @ 4:49 PM This EncSpot thing is fascinating. Anyone knows how it works?
microbeat	Date: March 16, 2002 @ 2:34 PM http://www.r3mix.net if you are really interested in this stuff." id="5425">When it comes to ripping, everyone seems to have their favorite program, I use CDex because it's free and has CDDB support. The best MP3-encoder is definitely LAME; it's free (Open Source), fast and gives the best quality MP3-files. If you want real CD-quality, try using VBR-encoding in LAME (variable bitrate) with the "r3mix" preset. Go to http://www.r3mix.net if you are really interested in this stuff.
pog	Date: March 17, 2002 @ 12:43 AM I tried that cdngo yesterday. Nice program... but it crashed whilst encoding. Back to audiocat we go... might try lame next
RyanS	Date: March 17, 2002 @ 10:42 AM audiocatalyst pukes
coolguy91	Date: March 17, 2002 @ 7:49 PM does anybody use easy CD-DA extractor/easy audio file converter? i think it uses LAME. it's easy to use
milladrive	Date: March 17, 2002 @ 8:04 PM ...and richieZ OWNZ!" id="5581">repeat after me: "fraunhofer." ...we will accept no imitations. ...and richieZ OWNZ!
coolguy91	Date: March 17, 2002 @ 8:48 PM why is fraunhofer better than LAME?
mtbatol	Date: March 18, 2002 @ 12:50 AM dbPowerAmp is da bestest thing that i use for my ripping needs, it encodes in lame, blade (but who used that :P) and in other codecs. Not only does it do VBR but it's also 50% fat free, gets rid of bad breath, great fruit flavors, and it can cut your taxes by 156.8%!!! Why because i'm using it i'm now surrounded by chicks all around me :D:D:love::D!!! Go to www.dbpoweramp.com and see how it can also give you a hot date for tonight while putting you in that car that you wish you could afford :D" id="5595">because lame is "lame"??? (doesn't sound lame though which could be considered false advertising ) dbPowerAmp is da bestest thing that i use for my ripping needs, it encodes in lame, blade (but who used that ) and in other codecs. Not only does it do VBR but it's also 50% fat free, gets rid of bad breath, great fruit flavors, and it can cut your taxes by 156.8%!!! Why because i'm using it i'm now surrounded by chicks all around me !!! Go to www.dbpoweramp.com and see how it can also give you a hot date for tonight while putting you in that car that you wish you could afford
pog	Date: March 18, 2002 @ 1:56 AM does it encode in fraunhofer ?
ThaCoyote	Date: March 18, 2002 @ 7:41 AM I think LAME is based on the fraunhofer psycho-acoustic models. Fraunhofer does have its own encoder, but it is very expensive. There are other encoders that do the job for free while using the same algorithms (fraunhofer)
milladrive	Date: March 18, 2002 @ 10:09 AM LAME actually stands for Lame Ain't an Mp3 Encoder. That says a lot. Open source LAME started as a patch against an iso demonstration source, and thus was incapable of producing an mp3 stream or even being compiled by itself. Eventually, the last remnants of the iso source code were replaced, and now LAME is the source code for a fully LGPL'd mp3 encoder, with speed and quality to rival all commercial competitors. LAME is distributed as source code only, but many popular ripping and encoding programs include the engine. Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft, on the other hand, INVENTED the iso mpeg audio layer3 (mp3). They are the commercial competitor that all others rival and pursue. More expensive? MusicMatch Jukebox, which is freeware, comes w/it. The only beneficial thing i find about lame over fraunhofer is that errors are usually fixed very quickly w/lame, since it's open source. ...but who wants to update their main encoder, like, every day? Granted, LAME isn't as lame as Xing (stay away) or bladeEnc (stay away) or whatever, but it's just not my choice for the cleanest highest quality rip possible. (And nobody should confuse encoding to mp3 with decoding from mp3. You can use basically anything for the latter and get essentially the same wav.)
Frawgster	Date: March 18, 2002 @ 10:23 AM my two cents: fraunhofer, fraunhofer, fraunhofer. i've been using this shiznit for years not. accept no substitute my friends lame is aight, but doesnt compare to fraunhofer. xing, bladeenc, ummm...yeah, do like milla says and stay away...stay far, far away.
jank0	Date: March 18, 2002 @ 10:33 AM vorbis, vorbis, vorbis! if only my hardware player woudl support it ... and the NI traktor DJ studio ...
pog	Date: March 18, 2002 @ 7:30 PM Firstly, I'd like to say I use fraunhofer for most sereous encoding (I totally agree with milla on this,) but shame is encoded with xing just to make this argument more interesting.
ThaCoyote	Date: March 19, 2002 @ 2:29 AM May sound strange to you who have the MusicMatch JukeBox, but where can I find it? I looked at MusicMatch site but I can only download a very basic MusisMatch. Where can I find the whole version for free?
jank0	Date: March 19, 2002 @ 4:21 PM of course i'm not suggesting to use some crackz site. i got my pro version with my Archos" id="5723">There is no such big difference between the basic and the whole version. Both have the Fraunhofer encoder. The basic just annyos you from time to time by suggesting to upgrade The biggest difference is the CD burning feature, because the basic version just lets you burn with 1x speed. And you can upgrade your "basic version" by entering the right key. of course i'm not suggesting to use some crackz site. i got my pro version with my Archos
simoncowells...	Date: March 25, 2002 @ 5:12 PM musicmatch jukebox dude!
ThaCoyote	Date: March 25, 2002 @ 5:37 PM Thanks for all the replies. I think I'll try lame soon. I will use MMJB when it is shipped with the new treo.
pog	Date: March 25, 2002 @ 9:44 PM I used to use MMJB... Think I might check it out again sometime soon. But you know I'd just feel dirty not using winamp for too long... kinda like a traitor to a long time friend.
oat	Date: March 27, 2002 @ 11:12 AM I use the CDex 1403 beta version, never had any problems with it and it is fast!!!(and free) good for reconversion also
forrix	Date: March 30, 2002 @ 11:24 PM cd 'n go is GREAT!!! i have tried about all of the products people have listed here and i'm sticking with cd 'n go! MMJB & Creative Labs are good, but bloated.. the only bad thing about cd'n go is that it's a little glitchy. sometimes my filenames and tags come out in all caps (despite trying to use that little button at the bottom to stop it) and other times it will lock up (i'm using XP pro)... but i'm pretty paticular about my filenames & ID3 tags and cd'n go lets me do whatever i want, plus it uses fraunhoffer! yay thanks, gritche!
pog	Date: March 31, 2002 @ 8:54 PM cdngo crashed on me so I shitcanned it.
djdennis	Date: April 1, 2002 @ 10:49 PM http://hitsquad.andja.com have a great day all" id="6690">All I can say is Check out the HITSQUAD for details http://hitsquad.andja.com have a great day all
DiscoProJoe	Date: April 9, 2002 @ 6:36 AM I use Xing's AudioCatalyst 2.0, which I've heard is far better than the first version that you may be confused with. 2.0 uses high-frequency encoding, and sounds phenomenal on all my large sound systems at 192 Kbps, joint stereo, constant bitrate. It's also very fast & reliable. For ripping I use Adaptec Easy CD Creator 3.0, and MP32WAV for decoding back to wav. For encoding, get that sour taste out of your mouth with AudioCatalyst 2.0!
pog	Date: April 9, 2002 @ 7:31 AM heheh... most ppl don't like xing, Disco.
DiscoProJoe	Date: April 9, 2002 @ 4:45 PM Why not? Are they all paranoid or something? I've heard that the first version of AudioCatalyst sucked, but I've got version 2.0 and it rocks. Last fall I used AudioCatalyst 2.0 to convert my entire 300-plus CD collection onto 41 CD-Rs. I also have large, sophisticated home & car audio systems with MP3/CD players in both. At 192 Kbps, joint stereo, constant bitrate, I cannot notice any difference in quality between my Xing-encoded MP3s and the original CDs. Not in the treble, bass, midrange, not even in the analog-surround rear-reverb. So when people bash Xing, I totally have no idea what they're talking about, unless they're referring to the first version of AudioCatalyst.
milladrive	Date: April 9, 2002 @ 5:01 PM because they're comparing it to the better encoders, like Fraunhofer. Xing pales in comparison, imo.
DiscoProJoe	Date: April 9, 2002 @ 6:18 PM Which version of Fraunhofer do you use? A long time ago I used a 1997 version and didn't like it. It took 5 minutes to encode just one song (using a Pentium II 400), with 128 Kbps max bitrate available. AudioCatalyst 2.0 usually takes less than 1 minute per song, and allows up to 320 Kbps encoding. They sound great at 192.
RyanS	Date: April 9, 2002 @ 6:21 PM Playing Xing encoded mp3s on standard speakers don't sound that bad, but listen to them using high-end headphones.. and you'll know exactly why Xing encoded mp3's suck! I use to use AudioCatalyst for about a year until I realized how bad they sounded with my portable. Now I use Fraunhofer for my portable now, and sound just great. I use the Fraunhofer mp3 plugin for CEP and works very fast, and sounds great. I now switched to CDex to rip and encode my MP3s (using Lame 3.91 and the --alt-preset extreme preset to encode at VBR) for archival, and I can't even tell. I'd use them for my portable, but for some reason it doesn't like VBR files that well. FhG does a better job at 128kbps, and I can fit more songs on a CD
DiscoProJoe	Date: April 9, 2002 @ 6:33 PM I'm a big-time audiophile and am very critical of getting good sound quality, and Xing's AudioCatalyst 2.0 suits me fine." id="7255">I've used high-end headphones plugged into my home stereo Pioneer receiver with clean high power, and my MP3/CD discman's "line out" running through one of the receiver's RCA auxillary inputs, and still can't notice any difference between the Xing-encoded MP3s & the original CDs at 192 Kbps, joint stereo, constant bitrate. I also have sensitive ears when it comes to mids & highs. I'm a big-time audiophile and am very critical of getting good sound quality, and Xing's AudioCatalyst 2.0 suits me fine.
princess-angry	Date: April 9, 2002 @ 7:07 PM I need to know that too!!
princess-angry	Date: April 9, 2002 @ 7:07 PM I need to know that too!!
princess-angry	Date: April 9, 2002 @ 7:08 PM dang repeats....
StreetCinema	Date: April 9, 2002 @ 9:55 PM I just use this small bootleg type program called Streambox. Let's you choose your quality and plus it converts real audio too so it works good for me.
pog	Date: April 9, 2002 @ 10:27 PM When was the last audiocat update... umm ? years ago
DiscoProJoe	Date: April 10, 2002 @ 12:24 AM The release notes document for 2.0 says April 1999, so it was 3 years ago.
pog	Date: April 10, 2002 @ 8:50 AM o
ThaCoyote	Date: April 10, 2002 @ 9:34 AM a
weaponzero	Date: April 10, 2002 @ 8:14 PM poikosoft.com - the best ripper & encoder on EARF." id="7363">poikosoft.com - the best ripper & encoder on EARF.
RyanS	Date: April 11, 2002 @ 9:18 AM Read the article I posted a while back in this thred to see how Xing encodes it's MP3s, and you'll find out why Xing sucks!
DiscoProJoe	Date: April 11, 2002 @ 2:08 PM Whatever, Ryan. I agree with Gregdillon's comment.
blah123	Date: April 18, 2002 @ 10:47 PM I'm not sure Gregdillon really understands the issues based on his comment, but I think you and Ryan are arguing over different issues. Xing's encoder uses VBR mostly to cover up the fact that it not an efficient encoder...it encodes at higher rates in many cases to enable it to get high quality in a section where Xing's encoder would lose valuable information. Fraunhofer is the most efficient encoder because it can produce a very good file at 128 Kbps. _No_ other encoder can do this. Xing particularly cannot accomplish this, but _can_ produce pretty similarly-sized files by only going to a higher rate when it is absolutely necessary. The problem (as I see it) is that even Fraunhofer's 128 Kbps isn't perfect at certain frequencies. At 160 Kbps, all of the encoders are essentially equal, so the debate becomes meaningless. I use Lame at 160, and they sound better than anything at 128, and just as good as any other encoder at 160 (why pay money?). Blade seems to be just as good @ 160 as well. By the way, I use CDEX, which supports lots of encoders. Disco: if you are happy with Xing, I wouldn't change. VBR tends to sound ok, especially at higher rates. Personally, I have heard artifacts in Xing's encoder at many bit rates. You said you are encoding at 192...at that bitrate, it is unlikely that you would be able to tell the difference between any of the encoders, because @ 192 you are getting very close to the size where the compression isn't destroying any of the information. If you want to encode at such a high bit-rate, I suggest you compare what Xing does with the other commercial and free encoders...you might be surprised. IMO, even the worst encoders sound pretty good at 160+, so there is not much point in comparing their respective qualities at that point. I also hope you aren't just trying to justify your purchase of Audiocatalyst. One should always be open to recognizing what is the best, regardless of past choices. Fraunhofer is the best (IMO), and Lame is the best free one. They are all equal after 160Kbps, more or less. Like I said, if you're happy, why debate it? -Dan
ThaCoyote	Date: April 19, 2002 @ 3:19 AM Blah: ***** Great clear post dude. I only disagree on your opinion about encoders at high frequencies. I don't think they all result in the same quality @160 or 192 kbps. I usually don't encode myself, but I sometimes hear differences in 2 different 160kbps or 192kbps mp3's. I sometimes find a 128kbps mp3 sound even better than a 160kbps or 192kbps mp3. That COULD be the source (radio, TV), but the symptoms aren't quitte as a result of the source: I'm often hearing distorted high frequencies (the 'Xing' hiss), even at 160kbps. I think that the so-called 'fast encoding' option on some players results in these differences at higher bitrates. I agree that vbr 'always' sounds good. I can't remember deleting any VBR files because of bad quality.