Editing Audio and MP3 Help

M

Mara

Member
Hello,

Although I've been collecting Disney music for a couple of years, I'm just now beginning to look into the editing/tagging/technical side of things. I'm not wanting to do anything too complicated - just basic editing. I have some questions that will probably seem basic and silly to more advanced users, but I'm hoping someone will be able to point me in the right direction.

1. What is a good program to use for tagging mp3s? Should I just use Windows Explorer to do this, or is it better to use other software?

2. What program is good for ripping CDs in a lossless format? Is flac the best format for this? Also, when ripping CDs as mp3s, is it better to rip at 320kbps or VBR? File size is not an isssue - I just want the best quality.

3. I would like to do some basic editing, such as edit all individual tracks together to resemble as closely as possible the various loops that play in the parks. From what I can tell, I will need software that's able to crossfade, fade in/fade out, cut the running time of some tracks down, remove vocals, etc. Is there a program that can do this that's easy for beginners to learn and also not break the bank? I don't mind paying for good software, but something for professionals will probably be out of my league in budget and with the steep learning curve.

My computer uses Windows 7, and most of my files are mp3s, so that's the format I would be working with for the most part. I looked at Audacity, but from what I can tell, it isn't able to edit mp3s without degrading the quality even further. Is there a program that's able to do everything I want and not degrade the quality?

I think that should do it for now, but I'm sure I'll have more questions down the road. Thanks for any help.
 
There was a test of this recently and all the hype about "lossless" is mostly crap (I need to dig that article up). Granted a low bitrate MP3 might have slight difference between that and flac, but then it still has to go through speakers (which you probably aren't using $20k Bang & Olfusen Natulus speakers) through the air, and into your ear where it's converted back to a digital format. To a computer the differences are greater, most of the hype is placebo more than anything else.

For the most basic of editing like that you can use the free program audaciy, it allows for fades, and weaving of multiple tracks. The only thing (at least I haven't tried) it can't do is remove the vocal layer, you might need to look it up and see if it's possible. If you are losing quality on audacity you might have the settings wrong (it saves to multiple formats and bitrates)
 
"Quality" is literally a personal standard because we don't have the same hearing abilities and sound perception from person to person.  Try encoding several samples of different types of music at various bitrates and see where *you* can tell the difference.

For me, classical music has to be at least 256 kbps or higher because I can hear the difference in the strings and woodwinds.  For other types of music, it can be 192 or 160 kbps.  If it's thumping club music, 128 kbps is fine ;D.

Some of my musically inclined friends that have the hearing of a bat or owl can indeed tell the difference between lossless and lossy formats.
 
Indeed, it is heavily subjective...

I guess there is also the important questions, such as what type of audio card do you use, the speakers used, the cables to the speakers, etc.?

Monster, for example, has made an industry off of immeausrable claims and covering up that their differences only mean a difference to the device taking the measurements.


Going back, Pixel, care to share with us why you have a house music collection? :D
 
Wizzard419 said:
Going back, Pixel, care to share with us why you have a house music collection? :D
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call it a collection ;D.  Some of my movie soundtrack CDs have some club tracks on them.
 
at my age and with my equipment, 192 is about as good as it needs to be but hearing higher rate stuff on good equipment I can tell the difference. I'm highly unlikely to ever own really good speakers.
One thing to consider is the future. Whilst it may be that most of us are happy with 128 with what we have now, lossless does mean that you can play the file if and when you do get around to the 20K speakers  ;)
It makes sense if you have access to a high quality recording and space and time isn't an issue to retain it. You can always convert down for day to day use after all (I've done that by converting flac to 128 mp3 for use on a portable player for reasons of space).
Of course, you have to have it lossless from the start - no benefit or point it converting a 64 file into flac.
I'd rip to flac and then convert them to mp3 and use that file whilst keeping the flac file as backup should something go wrong (or you damage the CD). For park music I'm happy with a low bitrate and prefer it sometimes as it sounds more like what you hear there (and it's usually mono as well). Sometimes a reconstruction just sounds too good. Disney hasn't invested in 20K speakers either  ;D
I'm useless at editing. I have promised some people that I would have a go at a loop reconstruction and I'm getting nowhere with it (sorry guys)  :'(
 
I use a program called WavePad for editing and Audacity as a back up for a few extra things that Wave Does not do. If you load an older version of WavePad, it is free, only the latest version has to be paid for, it costs about 75.00 dollars. - My secret for not losing sound quality after doing multiple edits is to save the files in "Wave" format, not MP3, once I am completely done with the editing process, I then, and only then, convert the file to an MP3 file using another program called BoncEnc Audio Encoder. This is also a free download. Other encoders seem to loose sound quality after the conversion, but BoncEnc seems flawless every time. No noticeable distortions at all. Wave Files take up a lot of space, so you can either save the original Wave file somewhere else, or just delete the file. But if you open the saved MP3 into WavePad to edit it, after already trashing the original Wave, as long as you re-save the newly edited version as a Wave first, then use BoncEnc to convert it, then it should be fine. Do not re-save a MP3 file as an MP3 directly from Wavepad, or you will definitely lose quality.
 
Seems as good a time as any to slip this question in. Chris, is that because saving an mp3 file as an mp3 file after editing causes  the software to recompresses it even further (rather than just an exact copy what's already there) whereas the wav remains lossless. Hope that makes senses.
 
Only speaking from my own experience, MP3 files lose quality every time you edit the file and re-save it as the same file or a new MP3 file. Wave files do loose quality, but it takes several re-saves before it is at all noticeable, and if you save it as the original file rather than creating a new one with the new edits, it seems to be an even more gradual loss. So...

MP3 opened - re-edited and saved as a brand new MP3  -BAD
MP3 opened - re-edited and saved as the same file - ie replacing the original - VERY BAD
MP3 opened - re-edited and saved as a Wave - PRETTY GOOD
Wave opened - re-edited and saved as a new Wave - EVEN BETTER
Wave opened - re-edited and saved as the original file - replacing to original - BEST

If you want the new Wave to be an MP3  - just convert it after editing using BoncEnc - I highly recommend BoncEnc - it is the very best from my experience. Other converters seem to loose quality.

I only know this from personal trial and error, and cannot prove or disprove this. I just find this to be my experience. Even wave files will become distorted if you save and re-save multiple times, like a dozen times re-saving it will become slightly noticeable.
 
I asked as, when splitting loops or splitting a particular track from a loop - say to try and ID it in isolation,  I found mp3 splitters tended to lose quality when saving the split files as mp3s so I went back to my CD-Wave program (used to be free and the free version works fine on Windows7) - convert to wav, work on them, convert back to mp3. Seems more or less the same as the original to my ears.
Really must try and get to terms with editing though. Just don't seem to be able to get my head around it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top