Skip navigation
NedNiles
Currently Being Moderated

Best way to convert .wav to .mp3 with Adobe Audition

Jan 5, 2010 4:48 AM

Hi I'm just wondering if I can just use the built in mp3 converter in Audition or if it is better to use an external mp3 converter like musicmatch(free) or noteburner(which i would have to pay for).

 

Is there any difference?

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 5, 2010 11:06 AM   in reply to NedNiles

    Audition uses Fraunhofer's own libraries for MP3 compression, including the MP3Pro extensions, and produces very high quality mp3 files.  I would certainly recommend converting a few files in both Audition and MusicMatch, and maybe even iTunes if you have it installed, and compare the output size and quality, and see which you prefer.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 5, 2010 2:35 PM   in reply to _durin_

    well the forum wouldn't let me log back in so I had to create another account, thanks for the reply.

    So I've been experimenting and I have some confusion. I mixed down (exported) a 32-bit session directly to mp3 (128). Sounds fine for an mp3. I then remembered that I didn't dither it, because I didn't choose 16 bit, so I then mixed down the session to 16-bit .wav with dithering (using .2 triangular with C2 noise shaping) and then I saved that mixdown as an mp3 file after first mixing down to .wav

     

    results: the one I directly mixed down to mp3 sounds just a bit clearer to me on some parts, but they sound close, but I really think the mp3 mixdown sounds clearer, so is that how I should be doing it: Mixing down at 32-bit straight to mp3 with no dithering?

     

    I appreciate any advice or opinions from anyone, I would think there is a right and wrong way since you don't want extra processing unless necassary, but I don't know whether I need to dither it or not when going to mp3 while keeping it 32-bit during mixdown.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • SteveG(AudioMasters)
    5,602 posts
    Oct 26, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 5, 2010 2:45 PM   in reply to Ned_Niles

    Chances of any 128k MP3 sounding good are pretty remote, compared to the original mix file - that's a pretty low quality threshold. If it's music, then I would suggest that 192k is the minimum acceptable bit rate.

     

    Ned_Niles wrote:

     

    results: the one I directly mixed down to mp3 sounds just a bit clearer to me on some parts, but they sound close, but I really think the mp3 mixdown sounds clearer, so is that how I should be doing it: Mixing down at 32-bit straight to mp3 with no dithering?

     

    I appreciate any advice or opinions from anyone, I would think there is a right and wrong way since you don't want extra processing unless necassary, but I don't know whether I need to dither it or not when going to mp3 while keeping it 32-bit during mixdown.

     

    You are quite correct to wonder about this, and you've discovered the correct answer for yourself! When it comes to dithering, you have to bear in mind that all MP3s are extensively mask-coded, and that dither, as such, doesn't feature as an issue - this is all completely dealt with by the coder. Dither is only something you need to worry about with a linear coding method of creating 16-bit files, and MP3s as such simply don't qualify. So the correct way to create an MP3 is directly from the highest quality source you have - which is the mixed-down 32-bit master as a rule. And as such, it's an interesting point; not one that's made very often at all.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 5, 2010 3:21 PM   in reply to SteveG(AudioMasters)

    Thank you very much for the detailed response.

     

    The reason I used 128k is because I read that if you want to share it around the net, this is the most compatible with various types of mp3 uploaders or what have you.  Perhaps this is incorrect, I would certainly like to up the bit rate if it will still work when uploading to various destinations on the net, and yes it did not sound at all as good as the original session you are right, I meant for an mp3 it sounded decent especially for 128k, and it was indeed music, I would have to conclude that AA3 has a very good mp3 encoder and I see no need to use a seperate program to perform this function.

     

    Thanks again, I think I'll go register at AudioMasters on your advice as well.  But hmm, I'm curious as to how many people know that you aren't supposed to dither when going directly to mp3, as you said you don't hear that question addressed much, maybe I will pose the question asking what others do when creating an mp3 just to see the responses.

     

    But what with all the decrease in cost and increase of storage space on hd's you would think that the net would start being more friendly towards the sharing of wav files. I'd rather share music at a higher quality then mp3, so what if it takes some extra upload/dl time, perhaps the streaming would be slower as well though and not enough people have a fast enough computer at this point.  I'd also like to purchase music over the net in wav files rather then mp3's, I think it's ridiculous that noone sells music for download in a format better then mp3.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • SteveG(AudioMasters)
    5,602 posts
    Oct 26, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 5, 2010 4:00 PM   in reply to Ned_Niles

    Ned_Niles wrote:

     

    The reason I used 128k is because I read that if you want to share it around the net, this is the most compatible with various types of mp3 uploaders or what have you.  Perhaps this is incorrect, I would certainly like to up the bit rate if it will still work when uploading to various destinations on the net, and yes it did not sound at all as good as the original session you are right, I meant for an mp3 it sounded decent especially for 128k, and it was indeed music, I would have to conclude that AA3 has a very good mp3 encoder and I see no need to use a seperate program to perform this function.

     

    In order... I've never run into a problem with uploading MP3 files at all - it's a simple file transfer process. OTOH, there may well be sites that don't like you to do this - but I'd be a bit reluctant to use those anyway (if that was the sort of thing I was in to). As far as using Audition as an encoding platform is concerned, then since it will let you create the MP3 directly from the 32-bit mixdown, I can't see any reason at all for attempting to use anything else, quite frankly.

     

    I use 192k MP3 files for customer-checking purposes, and if I create these direct from the 32-bit master, there's very little quality drop at all - certainly they are good enough for discerning customers to question (often quite correctly!) small details in classical music - so I'd say that for all practical purposes, this is good enough. If you get up to about 256k, it's near enough to CD quality, even if you create it from a 16-bit file, so one way or another, using a slightly lower bitstream rate from a more detailed original probably amounts to about the same thing, certainly subjectively.

     

    But what with all the decrease in cost and increase of storage space on hd's you would think that the net would start being more friendly towards the sharing of wav files. I'd rather share music at a higher quality then mp3, so what if it takes some extra upload/dl time, perhaps the streaming would be slower as well though and not enough people have a fast enough computer at this point.  I'd also like to purchase music over the net in wav files rather then mp3's, I think it's ridiculous that noone sells music for download in a format better then mp3.

    There's a good chance that this has as much to do with a perceived piracy problem as anything. The moment you hand out anything that's good enough to use as a master for further copies without deterioration, then people tend to get a bit twitchy about it. The other thing that you have to bear in mind is that if you hand out wav files, we are still talking about files that are an order-of-magnitude-plus larger than the 128k MP3 equivalent (so you stick a nought on the end of the file sizes). Even with faster broadband, this still represents a streaming problem - not so much a download one as an uploading one; that's still the relatively expensive bandwidth.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 5, 2010 4:04 PM   in reply to Ned_Niles

    I believe that there are some specialist sites giving you .flac files which are losslessly compressed (sic) files about half the size of the .wav file. There are .flac filters for Audition.

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points