Please tell me the best quality tool or method to go from Live 7 to an mp3.
MP3 task is NOT about quality, but about data compression/deletion (does this word exists english speakers?).
This is two different things no?
Please tell me the best quality tool or method to go from Live 7 to an mp3.
So it's Live's rendering engine that makes my songs sound like crap.drush wrote:probably not appreciably.
but i'm someone who thinks that the uber-anal argument about the quality of a 320 mp3 vs. LAME is just a waste of breath. 99% of the time you aren't listening with an device that'll demonstrate a difference, if there is one. and 99% of that 99% you, the human, can't tell anyway.
birdhouse19 wrote:i was playing a club last night and had to play some rap, and i know ableton live isnt very good with rap without a sound card.
I'm pretty sure it does. And if it doesn't I've never managed to figure out the bitrate you need to use to stop it converting your stuff into a bit mess of sound.anamexis wrote:This is a good question - does anyone know if the myspace player transcodes all music?beats me wrote:My basic question is will an application that uses LAME encoding make my tracks sound less shitty on myspace's streaming player?
birdhouse19 wrote:i was playing a club last night and had to play some rap, and i know ableton live isnt very good with rap without a sound card.
The first link doesn't work and the second link - if you read it, the Lame encoder doesn't come first. So that's blown your Lame superiority argument out of the water.anamexis wrote:And regarding the superiority of LAME, here's one set of comparisons and here's another but there are quite a few out there. Not all MP3 encoders are equal. As free ones go, you can't get much better than LAME.
Lame comes in second place in the second link, second only to Fraunhofer - a very expensive, commercial-only solution (Fraunhofer are the ones who developed MP3.)jonny72 wrote: The first link doesn't work and the second link - if you read it, the Lame encoder doesn't come first. So that's blown your Lame superiority argument out of the water.
A lot depends on the bit rate you use, once you get to 256k MP3 you'll be hard pushed to find much of a difference between the different encoders or the CD original. So you're just arguing about differences that you only pick up if you lr them on expensive audio equipment.
Worth remembering as well that low quality mp3 and aac (especially) rule the audio world for a lot of people. iTunes used 128k aac for a long time and I don't recall hearing many users complaining about the quality, in fact I don't think I've ever read a single complaint.