Open Source Mp3 Encoders

[Joe_caithness]

Hi, I am currently setting up a mastering house with online mastering capabilities, one thing I am noticing is a lot of artists and labels really require 320 mp3s and flac files prepared for mass consumption directly from me.

I havn't had any experience in encoding my outputted waves into compressed formats and I am wondering if anyone here would help me? firslty by suggesting a decent Open Source option I can play about with

I also come accross different encoding types of mp3s and wonder if there is a website or youtube video or whatever where the difference in sound quality is discussed where I can get some ideas of what to listen out for

thanks

Joe C

[kjg]

LAME MP3 Encoder
FLAC - Free Lossless Audio Codec

[macc]

Hello Joe

Try CDEX - highly configurable and very high quality free mp3 software. Drop me a mail if you want a hand with the options and whatnot

[kzkingsley]

LAME is easily the best MP3 encoder. Learn more than you ever want to know here LAME - Hydrogenaudio Knowledgebase

[Joe_caithness]

Originally Posted by macc

Hello Joe

Try CDEX - highly configurable and very high quality free mp3 software. Drop me a mail if you want a hand with the options and whatnot

Easy Macc!

I think ill do just that!

how's everything at your end? we're ALMOST ready to open now for trading

[macc]

Originally Posted by Joe_caithness

Easy Macc!

I think ill do just that!

how's everything at your end? we're ALMOST ready to open now for trading

Snowed under here, all good.

Hope the setup went ok

[space2012]

Originally Posted by Joe_caithness

Hi, I am currently setting up a mastering house with online mastering capabilities,

I am wondering if anyone here would help me? firslty by suggesting a decent Open Source option I can play about with

I also come accross different encoding types of mp3s and wonder if there is a website or youtube video or whatever where the difference in sound quality is discussed where I can get some ideas of what to listen out for

thanks

Joe C

Master:
master - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
an artist, performer, or player of consummate skill
having authority over another
one that conquers
one having control
a teacher
a master mechanism or device
an original from which copies can be made
a master recording
******************************************

setting a mastering house?


YES THERE IS A DIFERENCE, if you cannot hear it = you are in the wrong bussiness.
BUY ADOBE AUDITION, has the latest "Current" best sounding .mp3 encoder algorithm also has the old algorithm.
all Fraunhofer encoders are diferent!, all LAME encoders are diferent, etc...

mp3 diferent lame encoders 3.95 3.97 vs. Fraunhofer vs. ogg vs. mpc vs. wma vs. ape

Most Fraunhofer encoders erase the highs around 20khz at 320kbps, and erase from 12khz with 128kbps, but they all try to preserve the dynamic range & harmonics.
Most Lame encoders try to preserve the highs, but remove harmonics and lower bits.
MPC preserves the highs but smash/compacts the dynamic range. sounds verry good, but not with verry dynamic stuff.
WMA creates strange distortions, but much better than OGG, OGG creates way too much distortions.
WMAL is the best lossless. APE and FLAC miss TAGs easy integration, also have CPU / clock jitter problems with realtime decoding.
The new Fraunhofer algorithm in Adobe Audition sounds verry dynamic, more than the olders Fraunhofers algorithms.
Most people cannot hear 20Khz becouse they have too much wax in the ears for playing loud music all day long, or not having good loudspeakers or good amplifiers or good room acoustics.

[NorseHorse]

Free cd to mp3 converter: A free and easy to use mp3 converter software.

Makes WAVs to MP3s easily.

[fenderbender.]

winLAME (LAME GUI for Windows)

Here are some presets that I created for someone. Append the following to your winLAME presets file, if you'd like... (\Program Files\winLAME\presets.xml)

  <preset name="Preset 1 - *Highest Quality (CBR)*">
   <comment>
      winLAME MP3 encoding preset 1
      This preset will output an mp3 file of the HIGHEST quality, encoded at 320kbps in Constant Bitrate Mode. The resulting file will generally be larger in size than a similar VBR-encoded file. The exact LAME encoder settings could best be repeated as "-b 320 --cbr" or "--preset insane".
   </comment>
   <value name="lameQualityOrBitrate">0</value>
   <value name="lameBitrate">320</value>
   <value name="lameEncodeQuality">2</value>
   <value name="lameCBR">1</value>
   <value name="hideLameSettings">0</value>
  </preset>

  <preset name="Preset 2 - *High Quality (VBR)*">
   <comment>
      winLAME MP3 encoding preset 2
      This preset will output an mp3 file of high quality, encoded in Variable Bitrate Mode to save bits where possible without lowering the quality. The resulting file will generally be smaller in size than a similar CBR-encoded file. The exact LAME encoder settings could best be repeated as "-V 2" or "--preset standard".
   </comment>
   <value name="lameQualityOrBitrate">1</value>
   <value name="lameQuality">2</value>
   <value name="lameEncodeQuality">2</value>
   <value name="lameVBRMode">0</value>
   <value name="hideLameSettings">0</value>
  </preset>

  <preset name="Preset 3 - *Standard Quality (CBR)*">
   <comment>
      winLAME MP3 encoding preset 3
      This preset will output an mp3 file of medium quality, encoded at 192kbps in Constant Bitrate Mode. The resulting file will generally be larger in size than a similar VBR-encoded file. The LAME encoder settings could best be repeated as "-b 192 --cbr".
   </comment>
   <value name="lameQualityOrBitrate">0</value>
   <value name="lameBitrate">192</value>
   <value name="lameEncodeQuality">2</value>
   <value name="lameCBR">1</value>
   <value name="hideLameSettings">0</value>
  </preset>

  <preset name="Preset 4 - *Standard Quality (VBR)*">
   <comment>
      winLAME MP3 encoding preset 4
      This preset will output an mp3 file of medium-high quality, encoded in Variable Bitrate Mode to save bits where possible without lowering the quality. The resulting file will generally be smaller in size than a similar CBR-encoded file. The exact LAME encoder settings could best be repeated as "-V 4" or "--preset medium".
   </comment>
   <value name="lameQualityOrBitrate">1</value>
   <value name="lameQuality">4</value>
   <value name="lameEncodeQuality">2</value>
   <value name="lameVBRMode">0</value>
   <value name="hideLameSettings">0</value>
  </preset>

[Alexey Lukin]

Originally Posted by space2012

mp3 diferent lame encoders 3.95 3.97 vs. Fraunhofer vs. ogg vs. mpc vs. wma vs. ape

Most Fraunhofer encoders erase the highs around 20khz at 320kbps, and erase from 12khz with 128kbps, but they all try to preserve the dynamic range & harmonics.
Most Lame encoders try to preserve the highs, but remove harmonics and lower bits.
MPC preserves the highs but smash/compacts the dynamic range. sounds verry good, but not with verry dynamic stuff.
WMA creates strange distortions, but much better than OGG, OGG creates way too much distortions.

This is not a proper way of testing mp3 encoders, and most conclusions are irrelevant of actual quality. The only proper way of testing is a blind listening test, like those at Roberto's public listening tests

[Jesse Graffam]

Alexey Lukin++

thumbsup

And another thing to remember is that not all decoders are created equal either, despite what some people might say or "believe". RJ helped me blind ABX (under P<0.05) the difference between very recent MAD and FhG (as heard in Winamp) decoding, despite someone (who i won't name) from Nullsoft claiming that they are "exactly the same". Whoops.

[Joe_caithness]

Originally Posted by space2012

Master:
master - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
an artist, performer, or player of consummate skill
having authority over another
one that conquers
one having control
a teacher
a master mechanism or device
an original from which copies can be made
a master recording
******************************************

setting a mastering house?


YES THERE IS A DIFERENCE, if you cannot hear it = you are in the wrong bussiness.
BUY ADOBE AUDITION, has the latest "Current" best sounding .mp3 encoder algorithm also has the old algorithm.
all Fraunhofer encoders are diferent!, all LAME encoders are diferent, etc...

mp3 diferent lame encoders 3.95 3.97 vs. Fraunhofer vs. ogg vs. mpc vs. wma vs. ape

Most Fraunhofer encoders erase the highs around 20khz at 320kbps, and erase from 12khz with 128kbps, but they all try to preserve the dynamic range & harmonics.
Most Lame encoders try to preserve the highs, but remove harmonics and lower bits.
MPC preserves the highs but smash/compacts the dynamic range. sounds verry good, but not with verry dynamic stuff.
WMA creates strange distortions, but much better than OGG, OGG creates way too much distortions.
WMAL is the best lossless. APE and FLAC miss TAGs easy integration, also have CPU / clock jitter problems with realtime decoding.
The new Fraunhofer algorithm in Adobe Audition sounds verry dynamic, more than the olders Fraunhofers algorithms.
Most people cannot hear 20Khz becouse they have too much wax in the ears for playing loud music all day long, or not having good loudspeakers or good amplifiers or good room acoustics.

as informative as the second half of this post is,what was the patronising shouting and mis-reading of my original post all about? I'm asking for some formal knolwedge about why different encoders sound different NOT suggesting there isn't a difference? Not needed mate.

99% of this forum is industry proffesionals, including some legends in that exat manor!

[space2012]

Originally Posted by Alexey Lukin

This is not a proper way of testing mp3 encoders, and most conclusions are irrelevant of actual quality. The only proper way of testing is a blind listening test, like those at Roberto's public listening tests

Listening tests depend so much in the DAC used, the cables, the AC line purity, the wordclock jitter, etc...

same audio file sounds totally diferent:
SoundBlaster Live 5.1 24-Bits
vs.
Roland MMP-2
vs.
Behringer DDX3216
vs.
others
with same wordclock.

i dont see why frequency response, dynamic range, noise floor, crosstalk, spectrographs is irrelevant of actual quality.

its about learning to see what you hear.
& hear what you see.

its like AD/DA converters tests,
but with audio encoders/decoders.
with converters tests there are more variables, jitter, AC line purity, cable quality, Chip brand & model.
with encoders & decoders tests there are less variables.

[space2012]

Originally Posted by Joe_caithness

as informative as the second half of this post is,what was the patronising shouting and mis-reading of my original post all about? I'm asking for some formal knolwedge about why different encoders sound different NOT suggesting there isn't a difference? Not needed mate.

99% of this forum is industry proffesionals, including some legends in that exat manor!

legends or lucky?
you ask begginer questions,
even a kid in school knows all about .mp3

[24-96 Mastering]

Originally Posted by space2012

legends or lucky?
you ask begginer questions,
even a kid in school knows all about .mp3

Knowing that you don't know something is the basis for learning. And not that I or you are ones to judge, but imo Joe is asking all the right questions. When is the last time you asked a question, Mr. Space?

[AUDIOBOMBER]

hey - mac guy here - whats about THE aif - mp3 convertion there..?????
just seeing windows apps here..

[Joe_caithness]

Originally Posted by space2012

legends or lucky?
you ask begginer questions,
even a kid in school knows all about .mp3

in your world, all music sounds amazing, I wish I was in it!

[peteblues]

why open source?
just use itunes, it's free. Can encode to mp3 or aac.

[Teacher]

whas the deal with FLAC? how much better is it then mp3? or is it the same sh!t different toilet?

[Bob Olhsson]

The LAME folks lost in court so there is no such thing as an open source MP3 encoder.

Most developers that used LAME switched to the most recent Fraunhofer encoders as soon as they needed to pay Fraunhofer.

[Darwin James]

I dont like the sound of LAME. Sounds too metallic.

[Cellotron]

Originally Posted by Teacher

whas the deal with FLAC? how much better is it then mp3? or is it the same sh!t different toilet?

FLAC is completely different from mp3 in that it is a lossLESS codec - in that it gives absolutely the same exact quality as the original source on playback - but at approximately half the data size for the file. It does this through the same data packing methods used by common data compression codecs like WinZip, WinRAR, and StuffIt - but in a format that has been optimized for audio and that allows for full tagging (including ISRC and image files). More info at FLAC - Free Lossless Audio Codec

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Cellotron]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

The LAME folks lost in court so there is no such thing as an open source MP3 encoder.

Most developers that used LAME switched to the most recent Fraunhofer encoders as soon as they needed to pay Fraunhofer.

I'm not sure whether I agree with this assessment. Most developers that use LAME simply don't include an actual binary with their front ends and simply link to a download server located outside of the nations that allow for Fraunhofer's patent.

LAME is still actively being developed - the 3.98.2 is a stable version that was issued just a few months ago and the 3.99 alpha version was just recently released.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Alexey Lukin]

And yes, Lame IS an open-source encoder.

Originally Posted by Darwin James

I dont like the sound of LAME. Sounds too metallic.

Which mp3 encoder do you prefer to Lame? In blind listening tests, Lame shows best results, on par with Fraunhofer and a couple of others. You may not be using the latest version in a high-quality mode - it makes a difference. Old versions of Lame used to be inferior to Fraunhofer.

[Darwin James]

Originally Posted by Alexey Lukin

And yes, Lame IS an open-source encoder.


Which mp3 encoder do you prefer to Lame? In blind listening tests, Lame shows best results, on par with Fraunhofer and a couple of others. You may not be using the latest version in a high-quality mode - it makes a difference. Old versions of Lame used to be inferior to Fraunhofer.

I did use the latest version on high quality, the highs (or artifacts of some sort in that range) are too metallic for lack of a better description for my ears. I actually find the itunes encoder to have a better sound.

[Alexey Lukin]

This one is pretty good too, but somewhat less consistent in quality.

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by Alexey Lukin

.Old versions of Lame used to be inferior to Fraunhofer.

Old versions of Fraunhofer or lame were not nearly as good to my ears as the current version which Magix uses. I haven't seen any tests newer than five or ten years.

[Alexey Lukin]

There's definitely a constant improvement happening in both camps.
Is Magix using Fraunhofer?

Here's one new test: Results of the public MP3 listening test @ 128 kbps (October 2008)

[bcgood]

Yesterday I used the latest version of iTunes to convert a 24/48 wave to an mp3 at 256 kbps. It sounds nice and it's free.

[Bob Olhsson]

Magix is using Fraunhofer professional version 3.04.000. That doesn't appear to be in the tests.