Converting to MP3 format HELP!

[recordhead]

At the risk of sounding like I just rolled in off the last covered wagon. It's getting to the point where media player isn't enough. So I need some advise on what might be the best way or best program for converting songs to MP3.

Thanks in advance for any and all help

John

[travisbrown]

Simplest: install the LAME framework and use iTunes.

You can select the format in preferences. You could also use AAC and AAC lossless.

[recordhead]

Will Itunes allow me to email the songs?

[jfw3]

Originally Posted by recordhead

At the risk of sounding like I just rolled in off the last covered wagon. It's getting to the point where media player isn't enough. So I need some advise on what might be the best way or best program for converting songs to MP3.

Thanks in advance for any and all help

John

Is there a particular reason you wish to use MP3 rather than AAC? If not, use AAC.

Smaller. MUCH better sounding.

When I send clients mixes for evaluation and they request an MP3, they get an AAC. Under NO curcumstances do I ever send MP3's. With AAC files, they have no reason to still exist. The lexicon should be updated and MP3's done away with as they have, do, and always sound like complete garbage.


JFW

[recordhead]

Thanks JFW & Travis

I have a client requesting MP3 as the only thing they can open. (Dail up)!
Would AAC work as well? And then the question is how might I do that?

Thanks,
John

[Ihsahn1981]

Winlame is a pretty straightforward app to use. Its free too.

winLAME home page

[recordhead]

Thanks JFW!

I think I figured out the AAC formating in Itunes. And seems to be working.

And I will be spending some time at the winLAME web site as well.
Thanks for the tip Ihsahn!

John

[AgentSanchez]

Originally Posted by jfw3

Is there a particular reason you wish to use MP3 rather than AAC? If not, use AAC.

Smaller. MUCH better sounding.

When I send clients mixes for evaluation and they request an MP3, they get an AAC. Under NO curcumstances do I ever send MP3's. With AAC files, they have no reason to still exist. The lexicon should be updated and MP3's done away with as they have, do, and always sound like complete garbage.


JFW

Nothing wrong with LAME encoded MP3s. 256 is good... 320 is transparent. All this hate on for the MP3 format is starting to get old, as it is patently undeserved.

[paultools]

Originally Posted by AgentSanchez

Nothing wrong with LAME encoded MP3s. 256 is good... 320 is transparent. All this hate on for the MP3 format is starting to get old, as it is patently undeserved.

Are you serious?
I must have something new to learn...

[AgentSanchez]

100% serious.... I've heard alot of people claim to be able to tell the difference, but I've yet to meet anyone who can do it (in a blind test).

[Mr.HOLMES]

When I send clients mixes for evaluation and they request an MP3, they get an AAC. Under NO curcumstances do I ever send MP3's. With AAC files, they have no reason to still exist. The lexicon should be updated and MP3's done away with as they have, do, and always sound like complete garbage.

For sure MP3 is an poor format.
But if you do 320 kb MP3 at the highest possible Quality that you DAW will do you will hardly notice a big difference.....I know there have been big listening tests ..... it was very difficult

It is in my ears OK to send the client such an MP3.
Most clients have bad Monitoring Situation so I guess it not mattering IF MP3 or not.
We are living in 2008 we also have to mix for that poor format....If I look in the Berlin Subway I can see everywhere I PODS......

[theblue1]

One problem with AAC is that your listener needs the AAC codec. If he doesn't have iTunes or the dreaded Quicktime installed, he may not have it.

AAC arguably offers higher fidelity with smaller files. Advanced formats like AAC and WMA offer the perception of "more highs" at lower file sizes than Mp3s... but there are those who feel that Mp3s offer a better sound, overall.

After some experimentation, I've settled on VBR Mp3s as a good tradeoff between quality and file size. I may need to use a somewhat bigger file (higher bitrate) with the Mp3 format to get a sound that's more or less indistinguishable from the original, but it's the most widely recognized format. I don't have to worry about Mac folks who don't have a WMA player or Windows people who don't have AAC.


A great alternative -- from a quality and social perspective (it's Open Source) is the Ogg Vorbis format. Not everyone has a player that supports it, but the codec is freely available (still, I don't want to force my listeners to go DL and install a new codec just to hear a tune).

[moogz]

While constant 320 is a great rate to use if you're forced to compromise quality for space - as I am, for web publishing - it most certainly is not indistinguishable.

I took part in an academic blind test, using low end active monitors (Tannoy Reveals) and while it didn't 'stress' my ears identifying it from WAV, there were apparently only two of us (out of forty) able to correctly identify each of six rates of compression.

[moogz]

Regarding AAC/MP3 encoding in iTunes, I've read reports that Apple have crippled the quality of their MP3 encoding to promote use of AAC.

Although this is just hearsay which I wouldn't stake my reputation on, I've heard that people encoding using iTunes get drastically worse results on identical bit-rates than if they'd use LAME independently.

Perhaps someone could see if this is true? It would certainly be interesting if so...

[travisbrown]

Originally Posted by moogz

Regarding AAC/MP3 encoding in iTunes, I've read reports that Apple have crippled the quality of their MP3 encoding to promote use of AAC.

Although this is just hearsay which I wouldn't stake my reputation on, I've heard that people encoding using iTunes get drastically worse results on identical bit-rates than if they'd use LAME independently.

Perhaps someone could see if this is true? It would certainly be interesting if so...

I don't notice any difference between LAME MP3s encoded in iTunes and LAME MP3s encoded in any other application (Peak and DP5 are my other usual apps). I also have heard that the default iTunes MP3 encoder is less than stellar too, though. I'm not sure they crippled it rather than just didn't put any extra work into it. They probably had to license it too. I just never have used it. It's AAC or LAME.

I'd be very suspicious of anyone that claims they can definitively pick between a well-encoded high bitrate LAME MP3 or AAC file and an unencoded file. Not saying that it is impossible, but I'd be suspicious. Only the smallest percentile of critical listeners even own a system that could reveal any differences.

[AgentSanchez]

Originally Posted by moogz

While constant 320 is a great rate to use if you're forced to compromise quality for space - as I am, for web publishing - it most certainly is not indistinguishable.

I took part in an academic blind test, using low end active monitors (Tannoy Reveals) and while it didn't 'stress' my ears identifying it from WAV, there were apparently only two of us (out of forty) able to correctly identify each of six rates of compression.

So assuming you did so with 100% accurracy, then it's indistinguishable 95% of the time.

Can you post details of this study/links/anything etc??? I'm genuinely intrigued here...

[moogz]

Originally Posted by travisbrown

I don't notice any difference between LAME MP3s encoded in iTunes and LAME MP3s encoded in any other application (Peak and DP5 are my other usual apps). I also have heard that the default iTunes MP3 encoder is less than stellar too, though. I'm not sure they crippled it rather than just didn't put any extra work into it. They probably had to license it too. I just never have used it. It's AAC or LAME.

I'd be very suspicious of anyone that claims they can definitively pick between a well-encoded high bitrate LAME MP3 or AAC file and an unencoded file. Not saying that it is impossible, but I'd be suspicious. Only the smallest percentile of critical listeners even own a system that could reveal any differences.

It appears the iTunes mp3 encoder quality is a hot topic, and while it's probably just blog noise, it does spark curiousity as to how a nulling test would go. If I have a spare ten minutes tomorrow, I'll try it.

I'm happy to absorb your suspicion as a pat on the back - while completely empathising with your scepticism, especially considering the sub-prime monitoring circumstances (though the room was great) - as I must admit I was rather curious as to how commonly success is enjoyed in such tests.

Regarding the program material used for that test, it genuinely wasn't challenging. They used an exceptionally lush recording of acoustic guitar, and the top end detail in the finger/string interactions was my 'anchor'.

'They', by the way, are an academic sound research facility in London. As nothing has been published online, I won't name names at present but I can contact the professor who led the test to find out about disclosure.


This has made me really curious to see if I can repeat the results as casually as before - I've set up an ABXY test using WAV->320->WAV vs. WAV and I'll try it out tomorrow.

[djwayne]

I don't have any scientific stuff for you guys, but I do have a comment, that my music on iTunes in the AAC 256 kbps format, sounds better there than the 256 kbps mp3's at the other stores. Just an opinion, but I did notice a difference right away. iTunes definitely sounded better.

[Sigma]

i use switch

alot of conversion options

[paultools]

Originally Posted by AgentSanchez

100% serious.... I've heard alot of people claim to be able to tell the difference, but I've yet to meet anyone who can do it (in a blind test).

Are these "people" that can't tell the difference consumers, or professionals who make a living using their ears?

[chribble]

I just use mp3 because i know it'll be around for a while.

I encoded to Ogg for a bit and then that shit wouldnt play on anything.

224 variable MP3 for me.

back on topic:
itunes will encode your file and then place it into your itunes folder. Which, you can hunt the MP3 down (in finder or My computer) and attach into an email that way.
you can designate this folder in options.

[recordhead]

Thanks everyone this has been a real education. I'm not going tp pretend I know it all now but at least now I can fumble my way through a bit.

John

[travisbrown]

Originally Posted by chribble

itunes will encode your file and then place it into your itunes folder. Which, you can hunt the MP3 down (in finder or My computer) and attach into an email that way.
you can designate this folder in options.

You can just right-click or ctrl-click on the song in iTunes as choose "reveal in finder", or whatever the Windows equivalent is.