samirdelta
hi all if some one have a mp3 encoder for encode wav to mp3 he dont use the sound card or a pro encoder please can u help me and thx
Posted Mon 29 Jul 02 @ 2:28 pm
samirdelta
for normalize song for a better sound Quality what u prefer to use a program for it
Posted Mon 29 Jul 02 @ 2:34 pm
The program i use to encode & convert wav to mp3 is dbpoweramp.( www.dbpoweramp.com ).
But there are loads of other programs you can use. ;)
But there are loads of other programs you can use. ;)
Posted Mon 29 Jul 02 @ 4:38 pm
Phenryll
Easy Cd-DA extractor, for extraction and conversion. With that one, you can use the CDDB (titles, Artist's informations...), too.
For a good quality, use 192/224 kbit minimum. 256 is excellent and 320, a useless luxury. 128 Kb isn't enough for a good quality.
For a good quality, use 192/224 kbit minimum. 256 is excellent and 320, a useless luxury. 128 Kb isn't enough for a good quality.
Posted Mon 29 Jul 02 @ 4:48 pm
aknit44
I use Music Match, and it's pretty good. On a system with a 48X CD-ROM driver, and faster, you can encode songs from CD to MP3 at rates of up to 28x.
You also get CDDB information for original CDs, you can burn CDs, and it allows bit-rates from as low as 8Kbps, to as high as 320Kbps, with an option for customised bit-rate.
I think 128Kbps is a good enough quality. It strikes the balance between quality and disk space, offering you CD quality for the right amount of disk space. I think anything higher would be a waste of space.
I encode all my CDs at 128Kbps, and I play the MP3s on Atomix in night clubs and pubs, with outstanding sound quality.
You also get CDDB information for original CDs, you can burn CDs, and it allows bit-rates from as low as 8Kbps, to as high as 320Kbps, with an option for customised bit-rate.
I think 128Kbps is a good enough quality. It strikes the balance between quality and disk space, offering you CD quality for the right amount of disk space. I think anything higher would be a waste of space.
I encode all my CDs at 128Kbps, and I play the MP3s on Atomix in night clubs and pubs, with outstanding sound quality.
Posted Mon 29 Jul 02 @ 6:58 pm
Grimm
192kbps is near cd quality. 128kbps isn't even in the same ballpark. You either need better equipment, or better hearing in order to tell the difference. :)
That being said, if you share files, do the DJ scene a favor and rip/encode properly. Use EAC (Exact Audio Copy) to rip CDs and LAME to encode. Minimum bitrate used sould be 192kbps CBR (constant bitrate) with Q (quality) level of 0. A good frontend to use for LAME in Windoze is RazorLame. And heres a general command line options you can use.
-b 192 -m j -h --lowpass 19.5 -q 0
A lowpass of 19.5kHz is more then adequate for the files. Most people by the time they reach 20 cant hear past 18kHz. I'm 25 and can still hear up to 18.5kHz. This also allows the encoder to allocate more bits for the audiable range instead of wasting bits for the range the general public cant hear.
Grimm
That being said, if you share files, do the DJ scene a favor and rip/encode properly. Use EAC (Exact Audio Copy) to rip CDs and LAME to encode. Minimum bitrate used sould be 192kbps CBR (constant bitrate) with Q (quality) level of 0. A good frontend to use for LAME in Windoze is RazorLame. And heres a general command line options you can use.
-b 192 -m j -h --lowpass 19.5 -q 0
A lowpass of 19.5kHz is more then adequate for the files. Most people by the time they reach 20 cant hear past 18kHz. I'm 25 and can still hear up to 18.5kHz. This also allows the encoder to allocate more bits for the audiable range instead of wasting bits for the range the general public cant hear.
Grimm
Posted Tue 30 Jul 02 @ 12:57 am
DJ Rick
Geeze, let's not drag this up AGAIN!! Listen to your favorite song at 128, then listen to it again at 192. Then make your own choice. I'm a working DJ... I put in 4 - 6 shifts a week. to be honest even through the very nicest house syatems, 128 is probably fine. I can mix from a CD to a 128 bit song, and no one in the room will know the difference. There's a few among us who feel that their personal almighty gave them better hearing than the average crowd that I play to and will tell you all night and all day that anything less than 192 makes their ears bleed. Let's each of us make our own choice without having to be concerned with getting flamed here in the forum. Personally, I have a 120 gig hard drive. I carry around 18,500 songs. I have about 40 gigs of free space. Most of my songs are at 128, the rest are at 160. I think anything greater than 160 is an incredible waste of space.
but that's just me.
but that's just me.
Posted Tue 30 Jul 02 @ 1:46 am
Grimm
And as I asked in the last bitrate discussion and am asking now again, get your hearing tested. :)
If I couldn't hear past 8khz and encoded all my mp3s accordingly (highpass filter of 8kHz), I wouldn't be able to tell the difference from the original CD source and my mp3. But if I took those same files and used them to perform, you can darn well bet that people would notice the difference, even if I can't. Most of the anomolies and distortion in mp3s at low bitrates happens in the upper frequency range. So if your hearing is damaged, it will affect your ability to hear the difference between a 128kbps mp3, and a 192kbps. Equipment of course plays a role in thise as well.
And as I stated in my reply to this tread, if thier planning on *sharing* thier files, encode the files at those settings as a favor to others. Theres nothing worse then downloading a poorly encoded mp3 that sounds like it came from a tape recording.
If I couldn't hear past 8khz and encoded all my mp3s accordingly (highpass filter of 8kHz), I wouldn't be able to tell the difference from the original CD source and my mp3. But if I took those same files and used them to perform, you can darn well bet that people would notice the difference, even if I can't. Most of the anomolies and distortion in mp3s at low bitrates happens in the upper frequency range. So if your hearing is damaged, it will affect your ability to hear the difference between a 128kbps mp3, and a 192kbps. Equipment of course plays a role in thise as well.
And as I stated in my reply to this tread, if thier planning on *sharing* thier files, encode the files at those settings as a favor to others. Theres nothing worse then downloading a poorly encoded mp3 that sounds like it came from a tape recording.
Posted Tue 30 Jul 02 @ 4:05 am
DJ Rick
OK, that's twice you suggested that my hearing must be bad just because I don't agree with you. Your "my way is the only way" attitude is a bit off beat in what is supposed to be a discussion forum. I am alligned with about 24 DJ's in my state between us we play around 90% of the resort bars, clubs, and restaurants in this state. Most of these guys are younger than me, and probably 85% of the customers are MUCH younger than me. All of these DJ's are using 128 as the standard for ripping.
All I want to say here is that in 2 years of MP3 playing to some very young crowds, it has never been suggested that there was a problem with the sound, or quality. My suggestion to the individual who asked the question, is to rip a handful of songs at 128, & at 192. Compare the size of the file. Then try both out at a gig. See if you hear a difference, decide if the difference you hear is worth the additional space trade off, then make your own choice as to which is best for you. I'm not trying to make an argument here, I'm just advocating that each person should decide what's best for him/her. If drive space is a major concern, 128 is CERTAINLY good enough. If drive space is not an issue, perhaps you would perfer 192 or higher. Personally, when I drop in a CD to rip, I rip it at 128. In the rare occurrance that I download one.. I look for something 160 or better. If I download something 192 or higher, I resample it down to 160. That's just me, I am free to make my own choices.
All I want to say here is that in 2 years of MP3 playing to some very young crowds, it has never been suggested that there was a problem with the sound, or quality. My suggestion to the individual who asked the question, is to rip a handful of songs at 128, & at 192. Compare the size of the file. Then try both out at a gig. See if you hear a difference, decide if the difference you hear is worth the additional space trade off, then make your own choice as to which is best for you. I'm not trying to make an argument here, I'm just advocating that each person should decide what's best for him/her. If drive space is a major concern, 128 is CERTAINLY good enough. If drive space is not an issue, perhaps you would perfer 192 or higher. Personally, when I drop in a CD to rip, I rip it at 128. In the rare occurrance that I download one.. I look for something 160 or better. If I download something 192 or higher, I resample it down to 160. That's just me, I am free to make my own choices.
Posted Tue 30 Jul 02 @ 4:53 pm
Phenryll
Is the space disk a real problem or an argument if you play in club!? The standard is 30 gg disk space on today. How much is it? 120-130 euros. Besides, the 128 bitrate ISN'T the quality CD. And if you would like to play in club, the audio quality is the most important. 192, it's real real better and up, excellent. 320, perhaps useless.
Ok, the space disk is a problem for laptop. But, there are hard disks which work fine on a usb port. No?
Phenryll
Ok, the space disk is a problem for laptop. But, there are hard disks which work fine on a usb port. No?
Phenryll
Posted Tue 30 Jul 02 @ 6:12 pm
DJ Rick
I have a 120 gig firewire hard drive that the collection is on. And, I play in clubs. Geeze, come on man, many clubs are still using analog equipment. 128 is fine if you are ripping them yourself...
Posted Tue 30 Jul 02 @ 7:22 pm
Dj T-Bone
indeed, when you rip them YOURSELF @ 128 from ORIGINAL cd's the quality is very good!
When encoded from an already decoded mp3 file it's not cd quality ...
When encoded from an already decoded mp3 file it's not cd quality ...
Posted Tue 30 Jul 02 @ 7:32 pm
Tommy_2Tall
Alright.. I'll try to stay as neutral as possible since I don't really have an oppinion worth hearing (just a bedroom-DJ with an audience consisting of ..well.. me!)
I've heard 160kb and even 192kb MP3's sound like shite and I've heard 128kb MP3s that sound just like the 160kb's I use myself so it's just a matter of getting them correctly encoded...
If you download something you can never be sure what quality you're getting: could be encoded by some 12yrs old kid who just happened to figure out how to make MP3's of the family collection or you can get some properly ripped warez-people releases (GOD I miss those weekly "jaydee.cz"-releases *sob*) so it might sound like shite even if it looks alright when looking at filesize/duration-ratios.
If you do them yourself: try the ripping same song with a variety of different bitrate/encoder-options and then listen to it through a good pair of speakers or headphones, preferably rather LOUD so you hear any potential glitches, however discrete they might be and I'm sure you'll find a level of quality that suits you. :)
Btw.. Grim: EAC doesn't work at all on W2k: it freezes my system.. *sob*
I've heard 160kb and even 192kb MP3's sound like shite and I've heard 128kb MP3s that sound just like the 160kb's I use myself so it's just a matter of getting them correctly encoded...
If you download something you can never be sure what quality you're getting: could be encoded by some 12yrs old kid who just happened to figure out how to make MP3's of the family collection or you can get some properly ripped warez-people releases (GOD I miss those weekly "jaydee.cz"-releases *sob*) so it might sound like shite even if it looks alright when looking at filesize/duration-ratios.
If you do them yourself: try the ripping same song with a variety of different bitrate/encoder-options and then listen to it through a good pair of speakers or headphones, preferably rather LOUD so you hear any potential glitches, however discrete they might be and I'm sure you'll find a level of quality that suits you. :)
Btw.. Grim: EAC doesn't work at all on W2k: it freezes my system.. *sob*
Posted Thu 08 Aug 02 @ 12:18 pm