• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

File conversion problems

H

hungryhawk

Check this one out smart guys:

I've recorded a few news actualities on my portable Tascam digital thing. They sound good on the headset and also the DAW after I've dumped them in so I've sprinkled the recordings into my studio recorded voiceover performance (audition, mp3 pro settings at 44.1) THEN, when I convert the file to a linear PCM Wav (with my automation software) the actualities sound AWFUL! What gives here??
 
I'd be willing to bet that your automation software can't convert MP3 Pro. So it converts it as a standard MP3 with a sample rate of 22.050 KHz; losing half of your sound quality. Support for MP3 Pro has just about dried up. It's a dying format. If you can't mix it as an uncompressed WAV, I'd do standard MP3 at 256 kbps or 320 kbps when mixing down in Audition. You'll get CD-Quality and your automation software should have no problem with WAV or standard MP3.
 
Demo Dave: maybe you can help fill me in on the history and the status of mp3Pro. I have read several topics where people point out that it has problems. Then I began to wonder why Adobe, a company that seems to seek quality, would use a problem codec. The best I can learn is that mp3Prop was being developed by some company which I haven't learned the name of yet, which then got acquired by Thomson, the French company that owns RCA and a lot of other stuff. I gather they decided not to put any more money and effort into the development of mp3Pro. I assume Adobe adopted it for use in Audition back when the previous company was showing signs of making it into a first class codec.

The interesting this is, however, that some of the chatter scattered about the net says that the one group of software that is likely to decome mp3Pro rather well are those softwares (and hardware) used by broadcasters. It is some of the Net-streaming mechanisms that choke up and sputter bad output.

One article I read made it sound like Adobe was taking some liberties and improving the mp3Pro even though they could not get cooperation from Thomson to do it above board, or to take ownership.

All of this info is chatter on the Internet, and we all know that chatter on the Internet comes with no guarantee.

Hungry Hawk: When I need to make an mp3 and I don't want to take chances on bad decoding somewhere down the line, I save my work from Audition, then use another software as a front-end to call LAME and create a file that has a reputation of being more universally liked by decoding mechanisms.
 
Hey Cowboy,

You can find more info at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mp3PRO

The only real benefit of using MP3Pro is when you want to encode files at a bitrate that is less than 128 kbps. With disc storage and flash storage becoming so cheap, there is really no reason to encode files at such a low bitrate.

The other codec that has surpassed MP3Pro is AAC. There is lots of progress still happening with this codec, including the announcement of AAC-HD which can automatically go lossless depending on the material and bitrate chosen.

Now for sending out spots to clients and other stations, I still use MP3. 128 kbps bitrate for client approval; and 256 kbps for other stations for broadcast. I use dbPoweramp and the LAME encoder...and I never have a problem with compatibility.
 
I've never found much use for mp3 Pro...The standard FhG encoder in Audition is fine for me. In my experience, LAME does better with lower bitrates and FhG does better with higher bitrates. Based on what I've been able to figure out, LAME has a better masking model, but FhG uses bandpassing. At high bitrates, LAME masks accross the entire spectrum, while FhG low-passes above 16kHz or so, so there's less to mask and the meat of the audio (20-16,000Hz) is more true to the original.

Back to mp3 Pro...It was a nice idea, but it simply doesn't work very well and never became a standard. High-complexity AAC is fantastic and I wish it would become a standard. Standard AAC is better than mp3, but high-complexity AAC is much better yet. I also think we're nearing the point where we can go back to using wav for everything. 20mpbs downstream internet connections are becoming more common, but there are still a lot of places only using 1.5mbps. Once those higher downstream rates are more standard, there will be absolutely no reason not to use wav.

Emmett
 
Emmett said:
I've never found much use for mp3 Pro...The standard FhG encoder in Audition is fine for me.
Click to expand...

Grumble. Grumble. Grit teeth. Stop foot. Then say "dirty rotten ratsafrats!"

You do remember the Katzenjammer Kids, don't you????

I have Audition 2.0 and I didn't realize that it gave me a choice between mp3Pro and FhG. I was getting ready to send some flame your way and ask what version you had... but something said: "Self, you better go back and look closer."

Sure enough, buried at the top of the window that pops up when you click on options when trying to SAVE AS MP3 are two little radio buttons: mp3 and mp3Pro. I could have spent the rest of my life saving files and not noticed that feature if I hadn't read your message.

Thanks for the heads-up!
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom