lame mp3 encoder 1.02 for mac

[rumble]

does anyone have this?

i'm running os 10.3.9 with dp 4.61 and the new version of lame currently available requires tiger

thanks

[jarok]

Hi

You can download it here:

http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/23898


jarok

[rumble]

Hi

You can download it here:

http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/23898


jarok

cool... thanks.

all the 1.02 versions were removed from the download sites by the author

[David Polich]

You may want to check into Switch for Mac. It works much better than the L.A.M.E. encoder.

The L.A.M.E. encoder creates mp3 files that are much larger than they would be using Switch. At least that's been my experience. To use Switch , you simply launch it, select the exported file you want to convert, and process it. Switch also batch processes, and converts a number of file formats - AIFF, WAV, and others.

L.A.M.E. does allow you to export files from DP as mp3, but it's just one extra step to do the conversion with Switch - simply export the audio file from DP to folder of your choice, then use Switch.

Get it here:

http://www.nch.com.au/switch/

[rumble]

You may want to check into Switch for Mac. It works much better than the L.A.M.E. encoder.

The L.A.M.E. encoder creates mp3 files that are much larger than they would be using Switch. At least that's been my experience. To use Switch , you simply launch it, select the exported file you want to convert, and process it. Switch also batch processes, and converts a number of file formats - AIFF, WAV, and others.

L.A.M.E. does allow you to export files from DP as mp3, but it's just one extra step to do the conversion with Switch - simply export the audio file from DP to folder of your choice, then use Switch.

Get it here:

http://www.nch.com.au/switch/

hi.. i thought it was the "quality" of lame that supposedly made it the best?
(at least that's what everyone was saying...)

[David Polich]

Quality from an mp3? That's a contradiction in terms.

MP3 is poor quality audio. No matter how you slice it and dice it. It's no better than a cassette without the hiss. Once you encode something as MP3, you have ruined your audio.

MP3 is all about file SIZE. It's what works when sending people stuff over the internet or posting on a website. That's all it is good for. The smaller the file size, the better.

[baanes]

I disagree. You definitely lose a lot going to mp3 but quality can be extremely variable. A higher bitrate mp3 (256kbps and up) made with a quality encoder can sound pretty good, even close to transparent on the average consumer sound system. LAME is known for creating a good quality file at a given bit rate. If you're trying to balance size and quality, mess with this setting; the "average" mp3 is 128kbps which is usually "good enough." LAME also has an algorithm quality option which I believe will increase the quality of the resulting file somewhat at the cost of taking longer to encode (but will not be larger). Try VBR options to squeeze better sound out of a lower bitrate as well.

[Splinter]

Quality from an mp3? That's a contradiction in terms.

MP3 is poor quality audio. No matter how you slice it and dice it. It's no better than a cassette without the hiss. Once you encode something as MP3, you have ruined your audio.

MP3 is all about file SIZE. It's what works when sending people stuff over the internet or posting on a website. That's all it is good for. The smaller the file size, the better.

I understand what you're saying Dave - mp3 is inferior to other formats. But, I don't think you have to throw quality out the window. Don't you want to retain as much quality of the orignial as possible in the encoding process? I sure do, so I look for the best encoding software possible. Even at lower bit rates the better the encode the less grainy and lossy the audio. I haven't done a lot of comparing to tell the difference, but iTune encodes really fast, which makes me think it's not the best quality compared to L.A.M.E. or some others.

[Shooshie]

When I first started using LAME, it wasn't used in DP yet, and not everyone knew about it. I researched the heck out of it, and LAME at that time (2001) was considered absolutely the best mp3 codec algorithm. Last I checked, there were one or two others that compete with it (Ogg Vorbis, for instance), but few use them because they require special drivers (correct me if I'm wrong). For MP3, LAME is still the tops, IMO.

The key is VBR. Variable Bit Rate. That will get the best sound and the smallest size, with LAME deciding at every instant which way to go: choose for more detail or more compression. The result is decent sound at filesizes that would normally require bit rates of 50 or 60: too low for comfort. Conversely, if you were to set LAME for a bit rate of 60, it would probably suck.

I think that Apple's AAC is extremely good. It takes gifted ears to distinguish the average AAC-encoded song from CD quality (though maybe not from analog), but LAME, IMO, produces equal results with slightly smaller file sizes. If you want to go with larger file sizes, LAME is practically unbeatable. I think it was definitely a major feature for DP.

Shooshie

[cuttime]

How would one compare the built-in iTunes encoding with other packages?

Just curious.

[TnMike]

I would like to know too...

[Dwetmaster]

I would like to know if LAME is UB?

[carrythebanner]

I would like to know if LAME is UB?

Yes it is; you can get it here.

[rumble]

i downloaded LameLib-Carbon-3.91

installed (on my g4 qs 933 os 10.3.9)

rebooted

launched dp and tried to export a tune as a lame mp3

dp told me that i needed to install lame and reboot.

this version of LameLib-Carbon-3.91 was supposed to be for 10.3 (before they went to the tiger version of lame)

anybody know about this? how to fix it/make it work?

[Dwetmaster]

Yes it is; you can get it here.

thanks I'll try this now