REAPER MP3 ENCODER OFFLINE

In the old days, I can imagine that there were different masters created for Vinyl, reel to reel, cassette, and later on CD, which if you listened to them critically did not sound exactly the same. It's like, MP3 needs its own separate mastering process, from the non-mastered audio file, so the same way I would approach a track and create a master for CD/WAV format, I also create a different master aimed at MP3. I however since learned from web sources that I need to give some headroom in the source wav file, and not attempt to convert a final master that had already been limited to -0.1 Db. Partially agree with you, but it depends on how you're approaching: when you blind test on a final user environment it's true, but if we are talking about mastering (and due to the forum where the thread was posted I assumed that) the difference in a proper room with proper monitoring is clearly audible.For the audio I converted to MP3, I could easily tell on my monitors which was which, it definitely sounded different, no matter which options I had chosen in the conversion to MP3 format.Īs I said earlier, some even sounded 'better' than the 24 bit wav version, which I interpret to most likely be - more distortion, more compression.

If I can easily hear the difference in my monitoring environment which costs less than $1000, how did most of the world buy this lie. How the music industry ever got the entire world to buy into the lie that High Quality MP3's are equivalent to the CD, beats me.

And I know a good many including seasoned musicians who happily buy the commercial mp3's exclusively, by default. I've always been suspect of the commercial mp3 equivalence with CD's and have never paid for an mp3 for this reason, never bought one - preferring to listen to the CD's.

Never knew MP3 conversion could add a bit of saturation! Even though I was well aware that this was not an authentic representation of the source. I dare to even use the W word - warmer - yes. Strangely - after a few listens I ended up preferring the MP3 version option I had settled on, via Razorlame, over the original wav file - that slight brightness was quite pleasing, and obviously some distortion - albeit pleasing had been added to the audio, giving a bit of what soldiers would call, from the terminology of polishing boots - a bit of spit and polish - a glossier version. I ended up preferring a set of options using Razorlame which did not take too much away from the low end, but maintained and did not overly exaggerate the brightness and dynamics. I 'developed' a few presets in Razorlame, which should cover most future needs. I tried it out and am definitely happier with the ease with which I can choose conversion options.Īll the options, tended to take away some of the bottom end, usually becoming overall brighter than the source wav file. Thanks also for your pointer on Razorlame.

wav track into Reaper, to ensure it nulls (I make the assumption that a phase reverse is applied to the rendered track after importing to achieve the null). If you are aware of which plugins do this then you may just have to use the type of rendering that works best for those.ĭomThanks - I love your idea about bring the.

REAPER MP3 ENCODER OFFLINE

I usually use offline for ITB only processing but always bring the rendered file back into the project and make sure it nulls with the track I rendered from (I can't remember it ever not nulling).

Reaper mp3 encoder