Regarding Sorcerian

[haradan]

First, sorry to post it here, but I can't post in the New Uploads section (I'm still a "newbie"  )

Anyway, I just read Marten's comment on the faulty tracks, and I need to say that I encoded the Sorcerian tracks in a different way than the previous soundtracks. That's because I'm switching to Mac and most of Sorcerian was actually recorded/edited in my new Mac. I used Audacity for encoding with the latest Lame codec, but being an open-source program, I suppose it probably has some problems. I did check most tracks on my PC, but I did it with Winamp and thery seemed to be OK. Ah, so long for the "compatibility" you are supposed to have in new Macs!

I will re-encode the tracks using some of my old PC programs, which never gave me any trouble. Sorry about that.

[the_doctor]

If you didnt want to have to pull out a PC to do it, try encoding them with iTunes instead.  Strange that Audacity would create WMP-unhappy files.  I've used Audacity to edit TONS of stuff.

[Caliburn]

First, sorry to post it here, but I can't post in the New Uploads section (I'm still a "newbie"  )

Hmm, looking at the board settings, it appears that members imported from the phpBB board can post in New Uploads, and members listed as original to the current SMF board (though I think many of these are also from the phpBB board in reality) can't.  Not sure what the deal is with that, but I do think there's supposed to be some posting restrictions in that forum.  I'll check with Tom.

-Luke

[Tom]

I'm checking into this...I lifted the restrictions before, but there has always been some strange issues with the "imported phpBB" versus "SMF" members.

--- 

I've set both phpBB and SMF members with the same permissions across the board; let me know if you're still be denied posting privilidges....

[Marten]

That's odd.  The LAME codec hasn't been updated for some time - as far as I know, 3.97 is still the last version.  I've encoded lots and lots of mp3s with it, without issue.  But, that's been under 32-bit Windows.

But perhaps there is a bug when LAME is used on the 64-bit MacOS?

[Alistair]

I use Lame's 3.98 beta 5 release for SMC, because it has benefits over 3.97, and also over beta 6, which people don't like so much. Since the beta testing has stalled, I'm going to be using beta 5 until 3.98 final is released.

I wouldn't use any codec other than LAME 3.97 or beta 5 3.98.

- Alistair

[haradan]

If you didnt want to have to pull out a PC to do it, try encoding them with iTunes instead.  Strange that Audacity would create WMP-unhappy files.  I've used Audacity to edit TONS of stuff.

Lol! iTunes, why didn't I think of that? Probably because being a PC user for years, I've always disregarded Apple - until now, that is. I'm using Audacity 1.3.3 beta, and I have already found some problems, that's the reason I assumed the problem might be with Audacity.

[quote author=Tom link=topic=2601.msg26936#msg26936 date=1206807664
I've set both phpBB and SMF members with the same permissions across the board; let me know if you're still be denied posting privilidges....
[/quote]

Yep, I just tried it and I still don't have the option to "reply".

That's odd.  The LAME codec hasn't been updated for some time - as far as I know, 3.97 is still the last version.  I've encoded lots and lots of mp3s with it, without issue.  But, that's been under 32-bit Windows.

But perhaps there is a bug when LAME is used on the 64-bit MacOS?

Yes, I'm using LAME version 3.97, which is still the latest official release. I should have been more specific.

Maybe I'll try the 3.98 beta 5 release. Have you found any problems with it, Alistair?

[Alistair]

The reason I use the beta 5 version is that it's quicker, and they implemented improvements to the VBR methods (a bit over my head, but still).

Beta 5 is the unofficially considered 'best version', and will be for a while until proper tests are done, which I guess will confirm it.

There is a beta 6, and unfortunately people use the latest beta regardless, i always read the forums (Hydrogenaudio) to see whether to switch, first (I've used b3 and b4 previously).

There's problems with it, some regressions, so it's not worth using, yet.

You can't get b5 anymore, but I uploaded it to the SMC FTP, it's a nice drag and drop encoder:
http://smc.sq7.org/assorted/lamedropXPd.exe

Don't worry that it's an exe, it's not infected or anything (I use virus scanners regularly).

Settings-wise, I use (right-click the box and select encoding options):
A quality of 90 (but use whatever you like, of course)
VBR Mode: Standard
Encoding quality: High

And it has a useful tagging feature.


Hope it works and is useful for you.

Regards,
- Alistair

[MusicallyInspired]

Sweet! An MP3 Dropbox! I've been using Razorlame which is annoying because you have to actually push the Encode button. Hurray for laziness!

Thanks for that.

[Caliburn]

Yep, I just tried it and I still don't have the option to "reply".

Okay, you should now, otherwise something is really screwy.  I just tried it with my dummy member account.  Let us know that it works.

-Luke

[haradan]

Okay, you should now, otherwise something is really screwy.  I just tried it with my dummy member account.  Let us know that it works.

-Luke

It does now, thanks for all the work!

Thanks a lot Alistair, I will try it with Sorcerian itself. 

Hurray for laziness!

Hurray! 

[Alistair]

With me, it started with Ogg files. I could learn all kinds of crap or I could use OggDropXPd, and drag and drop. Duhh

I let these programs take care of themselves, instead of messing around with command-line utilities and encoding badly (most people have no idea what they're doing with command-line encoders, anyway- reading forums where people ask for advice with them is scary).

LameDropXpd, 3.98 beta 5 for MP3 and the optimised Lancer build (http://homepage3.nifty.com/blacksword/) of aotuv's OggDropXPd for Ogg are godsends for me(the current best MP3 and Ogg encoders).
(EDIT: A new aotuv encoder just came out yesterday, Lancer builds aren't available for it yet. When they are they'll be the best encoder for Ogg.)

- Alistair

[Marten]

What I could never figure out with mp3 is why there are two different kinds of stereo encoding, and what the difference is; should one be used in some circumstances, and the other in different situations?

Baffling.

I think the options are something like "stereo" vs "joint stereo".

[Alistair]

Look up the Wiki. Encoders like LameDrop have an automati setting ,so they'll do it. Another reason I don't hold with command-line encoders- people have to set all these options which they have no idea on the effect of on the sound.

- Alistair

[Marten]

What wiki?

[haradan]

Quote from one of my encoders (CDex):

Stereo: The encoder makes no use of potentially existing correlations between the two input channels. It can, however, negotiate the bit demand between both channels, i.e. give one channel more bits if the other contains silence.

Joint Stereo: The encoder will make use of a correlation between both channels. The signal will be matrixed into a sum (mid) and a difference (side) signal. For quasi-mono signals, this will give a significant gain in encoding quality. This mode does not destroy phase information like IS stereo.

Hope that makes it clearer.

[Alistair]

I googled "Joint stereo wiki" and the first page of Google results have all the info you need.

- Alistair

[Marten]

OK, this is a fabulous amount of fail.  I'm going to be blunt, I'm not going to try to be polite... I'm frustrated.

First, haradan's information is a bunch of technobabble to me.  It's utterly meaningless to someone who just wants to know which mode to use in which circumstances.  And if the answer is always to use one particular mode and never the other, it also fails to explain why the first mode is even present at all.  If it shouldn't be used, it shouldn't even be supported anymore.

Rule of thumb:  The average Joe is going to select the first option that looks like what he wants.  So if "stereo" is in the list before "joint stereo", guess which option Joe will pick?  Probably the wrong one, if the technology was written by some geek with no understanding of how normal people think.

And Alistair's response... where do I begin?  "The first page of Google results..."  AHEM.  No, I didn't ask for a page of links.  I said, "What wiki?"  Obviously you had a specific site in mind; if I get a page full of links from Google, that still does not tell me which one you meant!  And you took the time to make this post after allegedly using Google just to brag about how easy it is, and yet you could not copy and paste the one specific link that you meant into your post here?

[Alistair]

Man, you're grumpy in your young age, John

You've got it wrong, anyway. Admittedly, my terminology was bad, but when I say "look up the Wiki" I mean look up on Google and see what Wiki's say what. There's both Wikipedia and HydrogenAudio's Wiki databases, and both may say different things (general description and detailed).

Plus, I don't know about joint stereo, so there's no specific WIki I was thinking of.

I strongly recommend looking up what Tylenol is, though

However, I will agree with this statement:

If it shouldn't be used, it shouldn't even be supported anymore.

Dead on the money, way too may 'old' features are included in current encoders. Or just as bad, options can be made to make things fast but useless in terms of quality. Who cares if a MP3 is encoded 5 seconds quicker if it's less good?

- Alistair

[haradan]

OK, first let me just say I was trying to help. I've seen a lot of people in these forums who understands tech terms in incredible ways, which I don't by the way, and I don't exactly know who will understand my previous post and who won't.

If I quoted, that's because I can not explain it better, since I don't understand the difference as well. I just copied this info from my encoder, hoping you could understand something out of it. Trust me, I get dizzy when I read some of the tech posts around here.

Now, what I think of stereo vs joint stereo, is that you should always use stereo unless you are trying to improve a quasi-mono track, in which case joint stereo can give you better results. THIS IS JUST SPECULATION, and probably someone around here or somewhere else could tell better.

Features aren't usually an always/never use thing. They are there for people who knows pretty well what they are doing and know when to use it or not. For the rest of us, the better thing is to stay within "standards" and not try fancy things or strange options. Just my humble opinion.