Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Post-Processing, Computer / Streaming / Internet Devices & Related Activity => Topic started by: kirk97132 on January 19, 2014, 02:21:20 PM
-
DISCLAIMER:
We will just start off with the fact that the file HAS to be encode to MP3. This is not a replacement for the wave file but as an addition to. So please no comments on lossless VS Lossy. I get it, I don't do lossy....ANYWAY...............
I am using Sound Forge Pro v10.0 to do wave to MP3 encoding. Encoding MP3 at 320 Kbps. I see that there are options for Stereo & Joint Steeo. And under Joint Stereo are options for M/S and Intensity Stereo. What setting will yield the best results. And as best I mean most accurate. Original file was 16/48, resampled in IZotope Rx advanced to 16/44.1. I was just gonna set the MP3 to stereo but then I found conflicting info on best results. Any insight would be great. Thanx, Kirk
-
Skip Joint stereo if you want most accurate response.
Basically, Joint Stereo sums the low end to mono. Holdover from dial-up days.
-
Beat me to it. Use a current version of LAME as well. Best encoder I've seen.
-
What's been said... I like -v0 which is overkill but gives me "nice sounding" mp3 files for the purposes I need them.
-
Original file was 16/48, resampled in IZotope Rx advanced to 16/44.1
You needn't resample (or dither/truncate if they were 24bit originals) prior to MP3 conversion. However, there is no problem in doing so if that is part of your workflow for the lossless version of the files.
-
Original file was 16/48, resampled in IZotope Rx advanced to 16/44.1
You needn't resample (or dither/truncate if they were 24bit originals) prior to MP3 conversion. However, there is no problem in doing so if that is part of your workflow for the lossless version of the files.
Master was 16bit and I did need it to be 16/44.1 anyway. So is a LAME conversion better than the Sound Forge encoder? IS using LAME still as accurate as I can be? Or does LAME "beef up" the recording in some way?
-
Original file was 16/48, resampled in IZotope Rx advanced to 16/44.1
You needn't resample (or dither/truncate if they were 24bit originals) prior to MP3 conversion. However, there is no problem in doing so if that is part of your workflow for the lossless version of the files.
Master was 16bit and I did need it to be 16/44.1 anyway. So is a LAME conversion better than the Sound Forge encoder? IS using LAME still as accurate as I can be? Or does LAME "beef up" the recording in some way?
LAME is as good as it will get. V0 or 320 presents are what you're looking for if.
edit: some more info: http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=LAME
-
Appreciate it. Realized that Foobar has Lame encoder...after finding out getting Lame to work most of my other DAW, etc is a pain in the ass. But hindisght is, the MP3 is not for my personal use and using Sound Forge will be just fine. Besides the other options I originally asked about i can choose what ever bitrate I want too. Thanks all