A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » Cdr
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

MP3s to CD: does "on-the-fly" burning give same audio quality as doing it in 2 steps?!..



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 10th 03, 10:43 PM
Anonymous Joe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default MP3s to CD: does "on-the-fly" burning give same audio quality as doing it in 2 steps?!..

wrote in message ...
Hi,

Could anyone please tell me which programs gives the best audio quality
when you want to burn an audio cd from mp3 files?! Nero does everything
in one step "on-the-fly" (from mp3 to audio cd), but how good is the
quality of the internal mp3 decoder of Nero?! Also, is it true that you
can get better audio quality if you use different programs to first
decode the mp3 files to wav (like with RazorLAME) and then use an audio
cd burning program to make the audio cd like Nero (or another program?),
instead of burning mp3s "on-the-fly" to cd with software like Nero, or
won't you hear much difference in quality?! Also, at which speed should
you burn for best audio quality or doesn't this make much difference if
you have a fast Pentium 4 with a good quality writer like Plextor?!..

Anybody has experimented with all this for creating audio cds with the
best audio quality? Which program or combination of programs, decoders
gives the best audio quality? Also, is it only usefull to use RazorLAME
as mp3 decoder if the mp3 files where encoded with LAME, which you don't
know when you download mp3s from all over the internet or is LAME always
the best decoder, irrespective of wich mp3 decoder was used to create
the mp3 files?!

Could anyone please tell me which software, etc.. will give me the best
audio quality and if I should do it in 2 steps or if I can do it in 1
step like in Nero?! And what about best burning speed and any other
things I should know? Can you use the LAME decoder in Nero by the way?

Thanks in advance for all good feedback!


AFAIK LAME is an encoder, so you wouldn't be using it to decode from MP3 to
WAV, just encoding from WAV to MP3.

If you want to find out, decode an MP3 file to a WAV, make a new audio cd
project, 1st track is from the MP3, 2nd track is from the WAV.

There's no reason why they should sound different....afaik there's only 1
possible sound the MP3 bits can make if arranged in that order, so as to
create your favorite tunes (ie, encoders can vary quality, but decoding
should remain dependent upon the initial quality set by the encoder).


  #2  
Old October 10th 03, 11:39 PM
XPG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Could anyone please tell me which programs gives the best audio quality
when you want to burn an audio cd from mp3 files?!


Almost any program will result in the same quality.
Most programs use a decoder based on Fraunhofer's.

Nero does everything
in one step "on-the-fly" (from mp3 to audio cd), but how good is the
quality of the internal mp3 decoder of Nero?!


Nero 5.0.x wasn't very good:
http://mp3decoders.mp3-tech.org/decoders_nero.html
But Nero 5.5.x probably uses a Fraunhoffer decoder.

Also, is it true that you
can get better audio quality if you use different programs to first
decode the mp3 files to wav (like with RazorLAME) and then use an audio
cd burning program to make the audio cd like Nero (or another program?),
instead of burning mp3s "on-the-fly" to cd with software like Nero, or


No.
It only depends on decoder.
The burning program might have a better decoder than a "special" decoder.
http://mp3decoders.mp3-tech.org/faq.html#cd


Also, at which speed should
you burn for best audio quality or doesn't this make much difference if
you have a fast Pentium 4 with a good quality writer like Plextor?!..


At the same speed as if you were burning WAV files (if your computer is fast
enough).

know when you download mp3s from all over the internet or is LAME always
the best decoder, irrespective of wich mp3 decoder was used to create
the mp3 files?!


LAME is not better decoder than others:
http://mp3decoders.mp3-tech.org/intro.html


Could anyone please tell me which software, etc.. will give me the best
audio quality and if I should do it in 2 steps or if I can do it in 1
step like in Nero?!


Do it in 1 step if you're happy with the decoder.

I recommend Feurio, because it's fast and the decoder has no quality problem
(decoder based on Fraunhoffer).

And if you burn MP3 files downloaded from internet, Feurio will detect if
the files are corrupt.
Nero doesn't show any warning about corrupt MP3 files, and then the disc
isn't complete or you have a disc with noises.



  #3  
Old October 16th 03, 09:31 PM
Isaac
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 21:43:37 GMT, Anonymous Joe wrote:

There's no reason why they should sound different....afaik there's only 1
possible sound the MP3 bits can make if arranged in that order, so as to
create your favorite tunes (ie, encoders can vary quality, but decoding
should remain dependent upon the initial quality set by the encoder).


I think you are mistaken. Some decoders are better than others if for
no other reason than that some decoders are not programmed correctly.

Isaac
  #4  
Old October 19th 03, 09:24 PM
Markeau
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"XPG" wrote in message

LAME is not better decoder than others:
http://mp3decoders.mp3-tech.org/intro.html


That data is almost 3 years old.
  #5  
Old October 24th 03, 07:13 PM
XPG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


That data is almost 3 years old.


But that doesn't mean that decoders can get better than a certain point:
http://mp3decoders.mp3-tech.org/intro.html

LAME can't get better than an already perfect decoder.



  #6  
Old October 24th 03, 11:16 PM
Markeau
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"XPG" wrote in message

That data is almost 3 years old.


But that doesn't mean that decoders can get better than a certain
point: http://mp3decoders.mp3-tech.org/intro.html


It's lame to think anything cannot be improved


LAME can't get better than an already perfect decoder.


But it HAS improved http://lame.sourceforge.net/
  #7  
Old October 25th 03, 06:41 AM
XPG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


LAME can't get better than an already perfect decoder.


But it HAS improved http://lame.sourceforge.net/


But we're talking about decoders, not encoders.
If LAME has improved, then it means that it wasn't good enough before.



  #8  
Old October 25th 03, 06:56 AM
Theo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"XPG" wrote in news:bnd2e9$100tro$1@ID-
85492.news.uni-berlin.de:

If LAME has improved, then it means that it wasn't good enough before.


So when the next Porche turbo comes out, that must mean todays model isnt
good enough?
  #9  
Old October 25th 03, 11:26 AM
XPG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


So when the next Porche turbo comes out, that must mean todays model isnt
good enough?


please, read with me:
"the MPEG standard sets out the requirement for a decoder exactly - a given
MPEG-1 layer 3 stream (typically an .mp3 file on a PC) should always decode
to a certain uncompressed digital audio signal (typically a .wav file on a
PC). "
"Every decoder should produce the same result."
http://mp3decoders.mp3-tech.org/intro.html

There's only one possible result if you want to say that LAME is a correct
decoder.
If the result is different, then it means that LAME wasn't correct before or
that LAME isn't correct now.
You can't improve it from a certain point.



  #10  
Old October 25th 03, 08:31 PM
Theo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"XPG" wrote in news:bndj4i$vvqga$1@ID-
85492.news.uni-berlin.de:

You can't improve it from a certain point.


and you get there by improving a product. But, that doesnt mean that a
current product isnt good enough... unless one is looking for mathematical
perfection. But then, mp3 wasnt made for that... only for what sounds
acceptable to the human ear. Of course that definition is as varied as
there are people on the planet. Nothing is perfect.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hard Drive with all my mp3s suddenly not working shawnharper Homebuilt PC's 7 October 5th 04 11:24 AM
Is my hard drive the source of my CD burning woes? Jonathan King General 4 March 19th 04 01:06 AM
Conflict between 2 CD/DVD burning software Rick General 2 January 3rd 04 12:09 AM
question about DVD burning Fredd and Flo Wright General 1 October 27th 03 09:34 AM
When burning with Windows 2000 server pc becomes unusable KJ Cdr 1 August 28th 03 02:27 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.