Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: MP3 encoding question  (Read 2926 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

kirk97132

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
MP3 encoding question
« 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

Offline ScoobieKW

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1664
    • ScoobieSnax Audio Archive
Re: MP3 encoding question
« Reply #1 on: January 19, 2014, 05:34:11 PM »
Skip Joint stereo if you want most accurate response.

Basically, Joint Stereo sums the low end to mono. Holdover from dial-up days.
Busman BSC1, AT853 (O,C),KAM i2 Chuck Mod (C), Nak 300 (C),
M10, UA-5, US-1800, Presonus Firepod

http://kennedy-williams.net/scoobiesnax/

Offline page

  • Trade Count: (25)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 8388
  • Gender: Male
  • #TeamRetired
Re: MP3 encoding question
« Reply #2 on: January 19, 2014, 09:41:14 PM »
Beat me to it. Use a current version of LAME as well. Best encoder I've seen.
"This is a common practice we have on the bus; debating facts that we could easily find through printed material. It's like, how far is it today? I think it's four hours, and someone else comes in at 11 hours, and well, then we'll... just... talk about it..." - Jeb Puryear

"Nostalgia ain't what it used to be." - Jim Williams

adrianf74

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: MP3 encoding question
« Reply #3 on: January 20, 2014, 12:50:00 AM »
What's been said... I like -v0 which is overkill but gives me "nice sounding" mp3 files for the purposes I need them.

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (16)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 15700
  • Gender: Male
  • "Better to love music than respect it" ~Stravinsky
Re: MP3 encoding question
« Reply #4 on: January 20, 2014, 09:53:18 AM »
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.
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<< (note: This is a 1st draft, now several years old and in need of revision!  Stay tuned)

kirk97132

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: MP3 encoding question
« Reply #5 on: January 20, 2014, 02:22:36 PM »
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?

Offline page

  • Trade Count: (25)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 8388
  • Gender: Male
  • #TeamRetired
Re: MP3 encoding question
« Reply #6 on: January 20, 2014, 02:34:26 PM »
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
« Last Edit: January 20, 2014, 02:36:42 PM by page »
"This is a common practice we have on the bus; debating facts that we could easily find through printed material. It's like, how far is it today? I think it's four hours, and someone else comes in at 11 hours, and well, then we'll... just... talk about it..." - Jeb Puryear

"Nostalgia ain't what it used to be." - Jim Williams

kirk97132

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: MP3 encoding question
« Reply #7 on: January 20, 2014, 03:42:25 PM »
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

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.078 seconds with 37 queries.
© 2002-2024 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF