IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
30 Sec mp3 Clips
somasatellite
post Oct 2 2004, 15:11
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 60
Joined: 23-September 03
Member No.: 8961



I'm creating a website for my aunt to promote her first album that just recently came out. I'm looking for an easy way to put 30 second mp3 clips of the album on the site. The oggpreview component is great, but it's ogg and unfortunately, most people can only play mp3s. Is there a similar tool for mp3s?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post Oct 2 2004, 15:14
Post #2


Server Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 4886
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 13



The reason why oggpreview uses ogg and not mp3 is, among other things, that it allows passable quality at 48kbps. You will end up wasting a lot more diskspace and bandwidth with mp3.

*AND* you have to pay licensing fees to use MP3's in the way you propose.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
somasatellite
post Oct 2 2004, 20:04
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 60
Joined: 23-September 03
Member No.: 8961



Diskspace and bandwidth isn't the biggest concern, it's compatibility. Also, offering music online for free means you have to pay licensing fees? Most sites of bands and artists offer free mp3s. So are they skirting the law?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post Oct 2 2004, 20:28
Post #4


Server Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 4886
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 13



It depends. See mp3licensing.com:

http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/emd.html

She probably falls under the exceptions, given that you say it's her first album smile.gif

If it's really only 1 album, why not cut the songs manually? 5 minutes work...

This post has been edited by Garf: Oct 2 2004, 20:33
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
384kbps
post Oct 2 2004, 23:28
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 127
Joined: 19-April 03
Member No.: 6057



Yeah, cutting the files/clips manually would perhaps be the best thing to present the tracks in the optimal light.
However, check the web for 'mp3clip', a shareware tool that will maybe do just what you are looking for.
'mp3trim' pro also must have a clip-cutting support but i don't think it will additionally transcode the MP3 clips to a lower bitrate.

Once there was an other program called 'mp3clip' that had multiple functionalities, one was partial decoding. It works on command line, not very attractive for GUI users, but a interesting tool within batch processes.


By the way, what about MP3pro for encoding your clips...?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post Oct 2 2004, 23:42
Post #6


Server Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 4886
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 13



QUOTE (384kbps @ Oct 3 2004, 12:28 AM)
By the way, what about MP3pro for encoding your clips...?
*


I guess that would cause most of his listeners to hear the very shitty version of the album, which can't possibly have been the intention wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
analogy
post Oct 3 2004, 00:49
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 306
Joined: 18-April 04
Member No.: 13571



I use foobar2000's diskwriter for all my encoding needs... You could probably set up a MAREO script to send a file into Sox then into LAME.

As for MP3Pro, let me know when I can listen to the full MP3Pro on a non-proprietary media player... thanks.

This post has been edited by analogy: Oct 3 2004, 00:50
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
somasatellite
post Oct 3 2004, 03:08
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 60
Joined: 23-September 03
Member No.: 8961



Thanks for the link Garf, that's interesting. Also, thanks all for the suggestions. I never thought of just opening up audacity and cutting the tracks, so I shall do that.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
384kbps
post Oct 3 2004, 04:43
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 127
Joined: 19-April 03
Member No.: 6057



Enlighten me please. What's the problem on MP3pro? It's for demo clips mostly used on desktop PCs, not for portable use. Is the software player support for MP3pro still so bad on most common platforms like Win32, Mac or Linux? - I really thought it has grown the recent months/years...

Or will the SBR-generated sounds be so horrible at e.g. 48kbps? I mean Thomson/FhG like to establish this audio compression for such low bitrates and 'normal' MP3 is qualitatively belong my own experience no good choice.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Megaman
post Oct 3 2004, 05:26
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 148
Joined: 27-October 02
From: Buenos Aires
Member No.: 3626



QUOTE (384kbps @ Oct 3 2004, 12:43 AM)
Enlighten me please. What's the problem on MP3pro?


I think the problem is most people don´t have a player that supports mp3pro installed, or don´t have the plugins installed, etc. So that way 64kbps mp3pro is unlistenable (same for 80kbps, 96kbps).

The ideal solution for compatibility reasons would be LAME mp3s.
OTOH most modern software plays vorbis natively, so why not to use vorbis if you want to avoid mp3 licensing?. Obviously you could argue most people wouldn´t be able to play it on their portables, but if it´s just a preview...

There´s this little app called mp3DirectCut if you want to do it manually. It can cut without decoding to wav, does fades and some other stuff.


--------------------
No se porqué
imaginé
que estabamos unidos
y me sentí mejor
pero aquí estoy
tan solo en la vida
que mejor me voy
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SweMule
post Oct 3 2004, 05:29
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 26
Joined: 12-August 04
Member No.: 16222



MusicMatch Jukebox can do mp3 sound (song) clips very easily. It also has fade in / Fade out options. Very handy!. wink.gif


--------------------
[SweMule]
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SweMule
post Oct 3 2004, 05:33
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 26
Joined: 12-August 04
Member No.: 16222



QUOTE (Megaman @ Oct 3 2004, 05:26 AM)
QUOTE (384kbps @ Oct 3 2004, 12:43 AM)
Enlighten me please. What's the problem on MP3pro?


I think the problem is most people don´t have a player that supports mp3pro installed, or don´t have the plugins installed, etc. So that way 64kbps mp3pro is unlistenable (same for 80kbps, 96kbps).

The ideal solution for compatibility reasons would be LAME mp3s.
OTOH most modern software plays vorbis natively, so why not to use vorbis if you want to avoid mp3 licensing?. Obviously you could argue most people wouldn´t be able to play it on their portables, but if it´s just a preview...

There´s this little app called mp3DirectCut if you want to do it manually. It can cut without decoding to wav, does fades and some other stuff.
*



Yes mp3DirectCut is a brilliant tool. It's better than MMJB in that way that you can very easily choose the specific part of the song that you want to use. Recommended.


--------------------
[SweMule]
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post Oct 3 2004, 08:57
Post #13


Server Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 4886
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 13



QUOTE (384kbps @ Oct 3 2004, 05:43 AM)
Enlighten me please. What's the problem on MP3pro? It's for demo clips mostly used on desktop PCs, not for portable use. Is the software player support for MP3pro still so bad on most common platforms like Win32, Mac or Linux? - I really thought it has grown the recent months/years...


How can it grow when MP3Pro is not an open standard? The only way to use it is to use some libraries from Coding Technologies. That's not going to give you Mac or Linux support, and Win32 support will remain forever crippled, too.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
384kbps
post Oct 3 2004, 11:41
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 127
Joined: 19-April 03
Member No.: 6057



QUOTE (Garf @ Oct 3 2004, 08:57 AM)
That's not going to give you Mac or Linux support, and Win32 support will remain forever crippled, too.
*

Do you think it would be able to reach more people (by number) when encoding such music clips as (DRM-free) WMA?

Mac and Linux of course will require external libraries too and it's indead very probable the users will accept Microsoft involved stuff on their systems.
But generally Windows Media Player is avalable for Mac and in some newer Linux distribitions WMA is already supported since some Linux software developers got the licence to use it.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
NumLOCK
post Oct 3 2004, 12:08
Post #15


Neutrino G-RSA developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 852
Joined: 8-May 02
From: Geneva
Member No.: 2002



QUOTE (384kbps @ Oct 3 2004, 11:41 AM)
But generally Windows Media Player is avalable for Mac and in some newer Linux distribitions WMA is already supported since some Linux software developers got the licence to use it.
*

<off-topic>
Truth is, no linux user will switch to an otherwise worse distribution just because it has WMA support.
A standalone WMA package is needed, which can be installed on ~90% of modern distros (Red Hat/Fedora, Gentoo, Debian, SuSe). Then they can charge a few bucks and quite a few people will buy it.
</off-topic>

This post has been edited by NumLOCK: Oct 3 2004, 12:12


--------------------
Try Leeloo Chat at http://leeloo.webhop.net
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post Oct 3 2004, 12:50
Post #16


Server Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 4886
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 13



QUOTE (384kbps @ Oct 3 2004, 12:41 PM)
But generally Windows Media Player is avalable for Mac and in some newer Linux distribitions WMA is already supported since some Linux software developers got the licence to use it.
*


*cough* *cough* *cough*

WMA Standard is supported on some. And as far as I know, it's because it was reverse engineerd, not licensed.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
AstralStorm
post Oct 3 2004, 12:52
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 745
Joined: 22-April 03
From: /dev/null
Member No.: 6130



Standalone WMA package = win32 codecs for MPlayer (only it can play Windows Media AFAIK).
The package uses stripped down version of Winelib to execute them, so it's not native and probably x86 only...

DRM-free decoding has been reverse-engineered.
Sources: foobar2000 SDK for example.

This post has been edited by AstralStorm: Oct 3 2004, 13:08


--------------------
ruxvilti'a
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
analogy
post Oct 4 2004, 01:25
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 306
Joined: 18-April 04
Member No.: 13571



The biggest problem here is that nearly everybody uses Windows Media Player, but "nearly everybody" is still not "everybody."

You shouldn't use MP3Pro because it sounds like junk to the people who don't use a compatible player.

You shouldn't use Vorbis because the kind of people who will actually use Windows Media Player will probably just click away rather than download a simple directshow filter or alternative media player, regardless of the superiority of the codec or the alternative player. They're using WMP in the first place because they're too lazy and/or clueless/stupid to actually find something better to use.

You shouldn't use WMA because it's not playable to anyone who doesn't use WMP.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lyx
post Oct 4 2004, 02:23
Post #19





Group: Members
Posts: 3353
Joined: 6-July 03
From: Sachsen (DE)
Member No.: 7609



If bandwidth is your priority: use ogg-vorbis (way more players support it than you'd think)
If compatibility is your priority: use LAME in ABR or VBR-mode. But to achieve good quality, you need to go up in bitrate to at least 128kbit average bitrate.

WMA/RA is a bad choice because it will p*ss off many listeners, just alone because of its reputation.
MP3pro/AAC is a bad choice because the compatibility-situation is more worse than ogg-vorbis.

- Lyx


--------------------
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
384kbps
post Oct 4 2004, 12:48
Post #20





Group: Members
Posts: 127
Joined: 19-April 03
Member No.: 6057



Some nice aspects.

Respecting quality and bandwidth consumption i also would prefer Ogg Vorbis in meantime because with a newer encoder version it is possible to reach 'suitable' quality even below 50kbps (downsampling or downmixing may needed than). Moreover licening aspects will fully drop as far as i know.
But portability will really be a problem, no Windows Media Player support Ogg Vorbis by default - so i guess everybody who want to provide such files/clips over the web had to produce something to intercept and help wondering costumers.

Of course such files at 50 kbps rather have a recognizing-effect or give a rough impression about the music. Concerning the promotion effect a music provider would like to reach I doubt if it would really be a pleasure to listen to such clips for half a minute or longer.

MP3 files around/above 100kbps would be a good compromise but than it would be nice to know/estimate the maximum listeners - otherwise that will suck the bandwidth very quickly.
By the way, Amazon.com provides Mp3 (beside Wma) clips at 64kbps (cbr, unfadded) - not very well done i think.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lev
post Oct 4 2004, 13:19
Post #21





Group: Members
Posts: 524
Joined: 7-November 02
From: Gloucester, UK
Member No.: 3716



Lame --aps, then MP3DirectCut

30 seconds will not take up much space, even for 56k users..
And the 'packaging' of a product sticks out in consumers minds
a large amount, even in proportion to the product. In this case,
good packaging (i.e. decent quality) would do you well.


--------------------
http://www.megalev.co.uk
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 31st October 2014 - 11:04