DMusic.com | for indie musicians and fans | Free MP3 music downloads - Forums: Help: Your ears, please (WAV to MP3)

Forums > Help

Your ears, please (WAV to MP3)

zedsalt	Date: April 30, 2007 @ 3:07 PM I just uploaded a couple of unfinished acoustic guitar pieces. I tried a different WAVtoMP3 converter this time; everything else in the chain is the same as the other "It's open to interpretation..." tracks. A friend suggested that the WAV converter I was using is "bunk" and recommended using a much more popular freebie. I'd like to get a few opinions as to whether or not the different converter made an appreciable difference. Along those same lines, what do you good people think is the best free A/D converter?
LiQuidMetamo...	Date: April 30, 2007 @ 6:46 PM which converter are you currently using? Fraunhofer or LAME codec ?? You'll find much less difference if you encode at 192 Kbps. I personally have not found much difference between the free encoders. CD-EX was ok. I use Soundforge 8 to convert mine (which is not free) this uses the fraunhofer codec. I have occasionally used CD-Tag, a cheap shareware program which uses the LAME encoder. A great program that can encode mp3, ogg vorbis, FLAC, wavpack, monkey audio and great for tagging mp3's. Costs about 29 dollars US. What I find makes more difference is producing a different mix for mp3. Shelving freqs above 15 Khz and below 40 Hz frees up a lot of extra bits to encode the main audible sound better. Watch how you compress too. This article is helpful... http://www.digifreq.com/digifreq/article.asp?ID=40 I don't agree with everything here and there isn't an 'easy' button that fixes everything, you will need to listen and adjust things such as EQ and compression thresholds and attack/release times differently for each track - and I totally disagree with normalization except for very exceptional cases (usually where the audio was pretty terrible to start with).
Rodrica	Date: May 1, 2007 @ 4:46 AM I find that it depends on what kind of song I'm converting. I find that all converters that I've tried so far have different characteristics - for example some seem to enhance the bass more, others lose some of the mid-range clarity - it's minimal, but it's there. I'm kind of stuck with itunes at present because I was having trouble with DM/Audacity compatibility and I use a mac - but I'm going to use my pc to convert in future so that I have access to a wider range of converters
HenriRoger	Date: May 1, 2007 @ 5:03 AM The sound of the 2 guitar pieces is better . Compared to the ioti. I won't have enough technical words to explain, the main thing I hear is a more clear sound with a better level . Both are very cool tracks
zedsalt	Date: May 1, 2007 @ 10:21 AM For WAV to MP3, I used AARE's "WAV/MP3 Converter" for everything I have up now, with the exception of the two posted yesterday, which were converted with Switch. For A/D conversion, I used PolderBits for the "Every Culture..." tracks and Audiograbber for the "It's open..." tracks. Offhand, I know Audiograbber uses Fraunhofer, kind of hate to open the AARE program, because every time I open it, it counts as one of the limited number of uses... Thanks for the advice! I knew I'd get some quality opinions/suggestions here.
LiQuidMetamo...	Date: May 1, 2007 @ 7:30 PM I have read many times on respectable sites such as recording.org, cubase.net and kvraudio that fraunhofer is the better codec at 128 Kbps or below and Lame is the better codec at 160-256 with 320 Kbps the same but I honestly have found the differences to be inaudible in most cases, although the lame codec seems to max out at -0.3 db lighter in CD Tag than fraunhofer in SOundforge, suggesting that lame is producing fewer compression artefacts or conversion spikes than fraunhofer but I still mostly use Soundforge for convenience as I edit and master using it. btw, you can download the lame codec .dll and use it within audiograbber or cd-ex, maybe this might help?
pog	Date: May 2, 2007 @ 9:32 AM I seem to remember switch being laced with some spyware. I prefer dbpoweramp, but the encoders are now 30 day trials... it used to be completely free... thats the version I have kept using. Also, occasionally I have had minor popping in output files. There are some good encoders around for free, but often the best ones are difficult to find. When I'm looking for encoding software, I often start with what's available on sourceforge.net
zedsalt	Date: May 2, 2007 @ 10:06 AM As it happens, I did a search for CDex and ended up getting it through Sourceforge! And watching it download/install, I'm sure I saw LAME in there. Now, the tough part becomes what to guinea pig it on. I've written and recorded about two hours of "finished" material since last November (the last time I encoded a batch of tunes), and I have several tunes that are complete, minus lyrics and vocals. Hmm...
zedsalt	Date: June 14, 2007 @ 12:05 PM I have five new tunes posted, all encoded with the new software, all edited in the manner described in the article leedsquietman so kindly and generously recommended, and all converted from WAVs to MP3s by the new software. So...um...how do they sound, internet-sound-quality-wise?
LiQuidMetamo...	Date: June 15, 2007 @ 12:34 AM Will try and listen to some to give you some feedback but your music is usually well presented aesthetically and sonically anyway ...
zedsalt	Date: June 16, 2007 @ 10:27 AM Thank you, leeds', for both the compliment and the advice. The article you recommended taught me that I had been going about things backwards, really. I'd been doing my best to try to make up for the "lossyness" of digital encoding. The article pointed out that it's better to cut what digital can't handle in order to avoid artifacting and get the best sounding file. Ironically, an old and dear friend of mine said the other day that these new songfiles sound more like my cassettes than anything that I've ever posted on the internet. Gotta love learning something new (well, new to me, anyway).
mattbanx	Date: June 22, 2007 @ 8:30 AM Good Morning! Hav'nt been here in awhile and wanted to browse around. I have Wav2MP3Wizard to encode 192 kbps files, as well as the aftermentioned cdex. But another I discovered to my amazement (don't browse for software too often, software packages with the disc seems less troublesome) is RealPlayer. I downloaded it for my newest computer mainly because I like using it for videos, but discovered that mp3 files of just about any bit can be encoded off it. I can't say for the quality. I just moved from .wav and a souncard and just purchased a Tascam US-122L that has cubase and MIDI software included. It's a starters unit and a 2 channel. But a giant recording step for me. Anyways, good day!
Louie-D	Date: June 22, 2007 @ 12:12 PM Well... They pretty much use all the same encodings. But I would say the best one is LAME. But you know what, you loose so much quality when converting to mp3 that a better converter won't change much ... And in the end, you're Mp3s are only previews ... i hope.
zedsalt	Date: June 24, 2007 @ 2:52 PM Just about everything I've done exists also in analog, and I can't bring myself to get rid of higher-quality digital versions of things that I plan only to use as MP3s, so as you'd guess, I DEFINITELY agree. I'm just doing my best to avoid turning folks OFF of my material...I mean, y'know, with the sound quality...

Post A Reply
From:	Guest	(Icons - Linking)
Post: