Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MP3 & MP3Pro question

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • jbn
    Junior Member
    Junior Member
    • Feb 2005
    • 7

    MP3 & MP3Pro question

    I have Nero 7 & it has two main audio options for compressing CD audio tracks. The 1st option is the free 'powerpack lame mp3 encoder'. The 2nd option is an MP3Pro encoder. Is the Lame MP3 encoder capable of creating MP3Pro files? What is the best MP3Pro encoder that works with Nero?
  • anonymez
    Super Moderator
    • Mar 2004
    • 5525

    #2
    don't bother with mp3pro, stick with LAME, its easily the best
    "What were the things in Gremlins called?" - Karl Pilkington

    Comment

    • Chewy
      Super Moderator
      • Nov 2003
      • 18971

      #3
      mp3pro went over like a lead ballon

      Comment

      • anonymez
        Super Moderator
        • Mar 2004
        • 5525

        #4
        yeah mp3pro was a crappy attempt. lame has pretty much reached the limits of mp3, i had moved onto mp4 (he aac) long ago
        "What were the things in Gremlins called?" - Karl Pilkington

        Comment

        • celtic_druid
          Digital Video Expert
          Digital Video Expert
          • Dec 2005
          • 514

          #5
          mp3pro is mp3 + SBR (like he aac) so it goes past the limits of what is mp3 and no lame can't do mp3 pro, although I guess it could be modified to do so.

          Have to agree though, not much point in mp3 pro since not much supports it. At bitrates bellow 128k it should be able to beat lame though.

          Comment

          • drfsupercenter
            NOT an online superstore
            • Oct 2005
            • 4424

            #6
            Use LAME at 128kbps.
            CYA Later:

            d̃ŗf̉śŭp̣ễr̀çëǹt̉ếř
            Visit my website!!

            Cool Characters Make your text cool
            My DVD Collection

            Comment

            • anonymez
              Super Moderator
              • Mar 2004
              • 5525

              #7
              technically its better than 'standard' mp3. from my experience, it most definitely is not. i tried lame at 32kbps cbr & mp3pro (nero) at the same bitrate. they ended up same file size.

              it was a blind test. lame sounded better to my ears (similar results with other bitrates too)
              Last edited by anonymez; 24 Jan 2006, 02:06 PM.
              "What were the things in Gremlins called?" - Karl Pilkington

              Comment

              • celtic_druid
                Digital Video Expert
                Digital Video Expert
                • Dec 2005
                • 514

                #8
                Ok, so that means that whatever implimentation Nero is using is not a very good one. lame + SBR should be able to beat lame at say 96k and bellow.

                Doesn't matter anyway. If anyone wants a low bitrate codec, they can use vorbis or he aac. Plenty of vorbis hardware support currently. Most devices that support aac though (iPod, etc.) support lc aac only. Still compared to mp3pro. I am not aware of any hardware mp3 pro support. Even software playback is lacking.

                Comment

                • drfsupercenter
                  NOT an online superstore
                  • Oct 2005
                  • 4424

                  #9
                  I don't know why someone would want a low bitrate though, unless it was for a website intended at dialup users. 128k is good quality, and isn't too big of a size for most songs. Even Napster/Wal-Mart downloads use 128k (in WMA though, but ultimately the same size when converted)
                  CYA Later:

                  d̃ŗf̉śŭp̣ễr̀çëǹt̉ếř
                  Visit my website!!

                  Cool Characters Make your text cool
                  My DVD Collection

                  Comment

                  • celtic_druid
                    Digital Video Expert
                    Digital Video Expert
                    • Dec 2005
                    • 514

                    #10
                    Even Napster/Wal-Mart?

                    You think that they care about quality? Same goes for Sony selling 130k ATRAC3 or apple with DRM'ed mp4. If quality was their main concern they would have lossless files for download. Out of 128k WMA std, aac and atrac3 though, I would definatly go the aac.

                    The other thing is if it is CBR or VBR. Whilst recent listen tests might have proved that 128k vbr lame mp3 might be fine in most cases, I am sure the results wouldn't be the same for CBR.

                    Comment

                    • anonymez
                      Super Moderator
                      • Mar 2004
                      • 5525

                      #11
                      unfortunately quality isn't the general public's concern either. 128kbps is ridicoulous for the price
                      "What were the things in Gremlins called?" - Karl Pilkington

                      Comment

                      • drfsupercenter
                        NOT an online superstore
                        • Oct 2005
                        • 4424

                        #12
                        I do not see how you all say that 128k is bad quality... even iTunes uses 128kbps but it's AAC (eww). To see if you really hate 128k that much, browse around here: www.drfsupercenter.3lo.net/Music and play something. They are all 128k MP3. I proved someone wrong once before this way
                        CYA Later:

                        d̃ŗf̉śŭp̣ễr̀çëǹt̉ếř
                        Visit my website!!

                        Cool Characters Make your text cool
                        My DVD Collection

                        Comment

                        • anonymez
                          Super Moderator
                          • Mar 2004
                          • 5525

                          #13
                          drf, 128kbps is not enough, no mp3 anybody makes is going to change that for me. all a matter of tolerance/opinion/how spoiled you've become

                          aac is better than mp3
                          "What were the things in Gremlins called?" - Karl Pilkington

                          Comment

                          • celtic_druid
                            Digital Video Expert
                            Digital Video Expert
                            • Dec 2005
                            • 514

                            #14


                            As you can see 128k mp3 stacks up quite well. VBR though as I said.

                            Comment

                            • drfsupercenter
                              NOT an online superstore
                              • Oct 2005
                              • 4424

                              #15
                              Anyone have a problem with those files on my site? If you didn't look at the bitrate, could you really tell they were 128k? Seriously. Try it and see what happens. I may be wrong but 128k and 312k sound the same to me - why waste the space?
                              CYA Later:

                              d̃ŗf̉śŭp̣ễr̀çëǹt̉ếř
                              Visit my website!!

                              Cool Characters Make your text cool
                              My DVD Collection

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              😀
                              🥰
                              🤢
                              😎
                              😡
                              👍
                              👎