Forum

Please consider registering
guest

Log In

Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 4 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

The forums are currently locked and only available for read only access
Best studioware for making mp3 from midi/wave
Mar 14 2004
14:09
gray
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 304
Member Since:
Feb 27 2004
Offline

Something with good editing features. I just bought Cakewalk home studio which claimed to make midi into mp3. That part of program requires external items to work. I’m very disappointed with it. Heck, it dont even have a mixer!! Quartz freeware does better than the Cakewalk studio but not what I’m wanting. Any suggestions?? Vocaloid vocals really need something that can add tone controls to it (treble, bass, mid-range)

Mar 19 2004
04:17
gray
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 304
Member Since:
Feb 27 2004
Offline

WOW. I never replied to myself before, though I do talk to myself a lot. Never mind, I found a good studio called Ntracks. Makes great mp3. Half the price of cakewalk studio and twice the quality.

Mar 19 2004
09:22
quetzalcoatl
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 173
Member Since:
Feb 26 2004
Offline

Eh? :? I’m getting a little worried about this one <img class=” />

Mar 28 2004
10:43
bobyordan
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 88
Member Since:
Feb 28 2004
Offline

Hi

I heard of a swedish mp3 development company that have made a new technique, SBR, based on enhanced aacPlus, that converts a Wav file, to 40-50% smaller size than a previous mp3 file. With as low as eg 64kbit/second stereo streaming, that sound acceptable. This shall be used in future telephony applications.

Well making a long story short, they recommended Fraunhofer mp3 encoders (their biggest compeditor). Because they make the best present mp3 encoding. They also said a loth of stuff found on the net are rather sad mp3 encoding applications.

Cheers
Bob
:roll:

Mar 28 2004
15:00
gray
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 304
Member Since:
Feb 27 2004
Offline

One of the programs I have uses something called Org or Vorg?? something like that. compresses to a smaller file with no hearable quality loss. But I’m afraid mp3 has th market cornered. The Blade enc encoder i have seems to do a decent job. I been using the 64 compress instead of 128 or larger recommended and dont hear much difference. Hmmm, think I should have my hearing checked?

Mar 28 2004
18:53
administrator
UK
Admin
Forum Posts: 268
Member Since:
Feb 4 2004
Offline

[quote="gray":2n29nhdr]One of the programs I have uses something called Org or Vorg?? something like that. compresses to a smaller file with no hearable quality loss. But I’m afraid mp3 has th market cornered. [/quote:2n29nhdr]
Do you mean Ogg Vorbis? [url:2n29nhdr]http://www.vorbis.com/[/url:2n29nhdr]

I think Ogg is cool. Compared to mp3, ogg is certainly better sound quality. My experience of Ogg is that in order to get the same quality, you only need about 2/3 the filesize (I have not done exhaustive tests – its just something I noticed, so please correct me if I am wrong!!).

Like you said the trouble is most software doesnt support it, which is a big shame.

Mar 28 2004
19:12
robotarchie
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 223
Member Since:
Feb 27 2004
Offline

My homepage the other day had a news item on it about a new version of the mp3 format being announced. I didn’t really check it out in depth as it was only mildly interesting – and it’s moved on now from the page, but I think the gist of the thing was more to do with embedded copyright than any improvement in efficiency of compression. Maybe someone might want to pursue this further?

Mar 28 2004
20:54
quetzalcoatl
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 173
Member Since:
Feb 26 2004
Offline

Thanks for mentioning SBR BobYordan, and I love the kitty :D

You can read about SBR here:

http://www.codingtechnologies.com/news/ … ch_eng.htm

I think they’re referring to MP3PRO, which I have had as an export option in my Cool Edit (now Adobe Audition) for ages .. can’t say I’ve noticed any amazingly small files, but then I didn’t know that MP3PRO files were smaller, I haven’t been looking out for that, but suppose it’s good news.

BTW gray, the lowest bitrate you should encode at before losing quality is 128kbps, especially for distrubuting your songs. If you can’t hear the difference between 64kbps and 128kbps you need better speakers/headphones, you don’t need to spend more than $100 for decent pc speakers, so I would go for it, your music enjoyment wil be transformed <img class=” />

The most impressive audio format in years has been the Windows Media (.WMA and .WMV) audio and video codec! No question about that. The only problem is that they only play in Windows Media Player for now, and given that many peoiple in the music biz prefer (for some strange reason) the Winamp player (yuk!), WMA’s popularity has had a slow take-up. But WMA/WMV wins the quality Vs filesize battle hands down .. the WMA filesize is around a quarter of the MP3’s filesize, for the same audio quality! I loved it when I first got WinXP, but had to stop delivering in WMA format because too many of my recipients didn’t use the Windows Media Player because of its (supposed) bloat-ware.

Mar 29 2004
00:32
gray
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 304
Member Since:
Feb 27 2004
Offline

I got kickin’ speakers. Just bad hearing. If I used 128 to compress, a lot of my mp3’s would be too large to post here. I’m fixing to post another Pink Floyd sonf done at 64. Give it a listen then tell me what sounds bad. I think it sounds better than the wave vecause the vocal stands out a bit more. But like I said, my hearing isn’t so good anymore.

Mar 29 2004
10:58
robotarchie
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 223
Member Since:
Feb 27 2004
Offline

I know what you mean, but I find it irritating to have to switch between Windows Media Player, Quicktime, RealOne Player, etc etc just to listen to all the various file formats around, not to mention video streaming formats. I think that Admin’s current choice of plain vanilla mp3 is fine and universal enough for our purposes at least for now. If it ain’t broke, as they say. Having said that (it’s my new catchphrase?) I can understand some small concern over filesize limits here on the forum. I’ve been working on a song which currently runs to over nine minutes length. Yes, every moment of it seems so essential (probably). To post it, I’d have to either chop it into two or lower the bandwidth to some unacceptably grungy level. I don’t like the idea of reducing my carefully crafted snare sound till it sounds like someone kicking an empty crisp bag around.

Forum Timezone: UTC 0

Most Users Ever Online: 108

Currently Online:
4 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

gray: 304

robotarchie: 223

andromeda: 188

quetzalcoatl: 173

Giuseppe: 167

Luka Mitutoyo: 147

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 1

Members: 7988

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 5

Forums: 27

Topics: 764

Posts: 3555

Newest Members: kprem, yang7764, lisajim, gameace, Sunnydoot, Anildoot

Administrators: administrator: 268