KVR Audio

twister · Post by **twister** » Sat May 28, 2005 1:46 pm

I thought mp3 encoding was based on the same algorythm. So, doesn't matter which program (freeware, shareware, commercial) you use - results should be the same. Well, just found its not. I have a tune with some high resonance filter sweep of the saw (benassi tek-house style). I tried encoding it with different programs (192 kbps mp3), and some of them add distortion/clicking right around the time where filter sweep happens. Others work fine (free one better than paid ones

). Also, the one I had a problem with sounds cleaner when I got to 320 kbps. But, in A/B comparison at 192 kbps, I can hear difference between different mp3 encoders.

Whats up with that?!? Has anybody seen a similar problem? What do you guys use to encode your mp3s?

cold c · Post by **cold c** » Sat May 28, 2005 2:45 pm

twister wrote:I have a tune with some high resonance filter sweep of the saw (benassi tek-house style). I tried encoding it with different programs (192 kbps mp3), and some of them add distortion/clicking right around the time where filter sweep happens.

What format are you encoding from (bit depth etc.)? You have to ensure your track is not clipping before you encode.

twister · Post by **twister** » Sat May 28, 2005 3:02 pm

cold c wrote:What format are you encoding from (bit depth etc.)? You have to ensure your track is not clipping before you encode.

It has nothing to do with clipping, I have plenty of headroom in the mix. Its just a different mp3 encoders (programs) give me different results at the same 192 kbps rate. The original rendered wav is at 44.1kHz, 16bit stereo. BTW, SoundForge "save as" mp3 encoder is the one that gives me a problem. I don't think I ever paid much attention to that before until now, when I'm working on a demo to send out to a record company.

cold c · Post by **cold c** » Sat May 28, 2005 3:17 pm

twister wrote:
cold c wrote:What format are you encoding from (bit depth etc.)? You have to ensure your track is not clipping before you encode.
It has nothing to do with clipping, I have plenty of headroom in the mix. Its just a different mp3 encoders (programs) give me different results at the same 192 kbps rate. The original rendered wav is at 44.1kHz, 16bit stereo. BTW, SoundForge "save as" mp3 encoder is the one that gives me a problem. I don't think I ever paid much attention to that before until now, when I'm working on a demo to send out to a record company.

If the source material is standard 16bit 44.1kHz with no clipping then there should be no added "distortion" at bit rates such as 192kbps (assuming the export is set to high quality and the same 44.1kHz sample rate), only the expected attenuated frequency response.

If that encoder is causing problems don't use it, I wouldn't be surprised if it was a bug/anomaly in the encoder, just use LAME with the "known good" settings from hydrogenaudio mp3 forums.

dusted william · Post by **dusted william** » Sat May 28, 2005 3:21 pm

The free Lame codec is way better than the costly Frauhnhoffer (sp) codec.

dw

dusted william · Post by **dusted william** » Sat May 28, 2005 3:28 pm

I used to open up MP3's in soundforge and run them through OZONE. YOu could easily see in the EQ what the soundforge mp3 conversion was doing to the sound. It wasn't all in my ears.

From that point on I've used only programs with the LAME codec.

dw

jsd · Post by **jsd** » Sat May 28, 2005 3:29 pm

MP3 encoders are definitely NOT the same. The "psycho acoustic model" that they use is totally different between them, and that's what makes all the difference in terms of sound quality. LAME codec is acknowledged by most people as the best. I use it with "alt preset standard" mode for excellent VBR encoding results.

dusted william · Post by **dusted william** » Sat May 28, 2005 3:30 pm

Try this one out.

http://www.dbpoweramp.com/download.htm

dw

twister · Post by **twister** » Sat May 28, 2005 9:02 pm

Thank you! dB Power Amp does the job! It doesn't have a fancy gui like other programs or freewares, but who cares. As long as it converts without adding any artifacts to the sound, I'm happy!

EnzymeX · Post by **EnzymeX** » Sun May 29, 2005 4:09 am

Dusted William,

Thanks for the link. When I upgraded my DAW, Wavelab 4 no longer worked due to lack of DVD writer support. I could spend $200.00 to upgrade to Wavelab 5, but I DL'd the DBpowerAMP CD Writer today in hopes that won't be necessary.

Troy

deggy · Post by **deggy** » Tue May 31, 2005 9:37 pm

for PC, I use Wavelab or LAME. I', just about to get a mac soon though and I have no idea what i'll use then (prob just use Logic)

deleted · Post by **deleted** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 2:51 pm

DELETED

jdg · Post by **jdg** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 3:11 pm

they all actually sound different.
http://www.codecreview.com/
but who cares, all mp3s sound like shit anyway

fake · Post by **fake** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 6:06 pm

I use lame and have only just found that it has a "very high quality" setting.

Just done a 4 min track at 128k and it has taken 5 mins to encode.

fake

z15 · Post by **z15** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 6:10 pm

deggy, FYI - there's lame for osx too... several ports in fact.

mp3 encoder - are they all the same???