Encoders are encoders.....we are talking digital audio. As long as the files are being decoded at the same frequency and bit rate there, theoretically, cannot be a difference.

cristofe wroteEncoders are encoders.....we are talking digital audio. As long as the files are being decoded at the same frequency and bit rate there, theoretically, cannot be a difference.

I appreciate the input!

I understand a reasonable amount about digital audio, but I believe theoretically there can be a significant difference when encoding includes lossy compression. Maybe I'm missing something.

Do you have any sources that document that they are all the same? (MP3 encoders specifically.)

Audio lossy compression is based on psychoacoustics, and that is mostly science with some art. To reduce file size by 90% or so, the software has to decide what can be thrown out and still stay someone close to the original intent. Someone is making decisions about what stays and what goes...

I would expect there to be a range of qualities in MP3 type compression schemes as the output audio doesn't match the input file. It's not straight digital conversion where I would expect the same input to always provide the same output.

I could be wrong, and maybe the MP3s have been around so long they have converged to a point where they are functionally equivalent or a spec has been formalized. I'm not exactly a signal processing expert so I'm looking for some references.

You could be right that S1 is using the same encoder as Audacity at a low level, or they may be based on different code bases and one is stronger than the other. I just want to be sure I know rather than make assumptions.

Again, All references welcomed.

As a follow up to the OP, here's what I found on Wikipedia:
(From this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3)

It implies there can be differences in encoding and says "Comparisons are widely available..." but I haven't been able to find any. If I'm reading it right, there can be encoder differences so I'm wondering how the PreSonus encoder compares with some others.

OR if over the years the MP3 encoders have converged to the point where there is little functional difference for 192 CBR encodings.

Here's what it says:

Encoding audio
The MPEG-1 standard does not include a precise specification for an MP3 encoder, but does provide example psychoacoustic models, rate loop, and the like in the non-normative part of the original standard.[43] At present, these suggested implementations are quite dated. Implementers of the standard were supposed to devise their own algorithms suitable for removing parts of the information from the audio input. As a result, there are many different MP3 encoders available, each producing files of differing quality. Comparisons are widely available, so it is easy for a prospective user of an encoder to research the best choice. An encoder that is proficient at encoding at higher bit rates (such as LAME) is not necessarily as good at lower bit rates.

During encoding, 576 time-domain samples are taken and are transformed to 576 frequency-domain samples.[clarification needed] If there is a transient, 192 samples are taken instead of 576. This is done to limit the temporal spread of quantization noise accompanying the transient. (See psychoacoustics.)

Decoding audio
Decoding, on the other hand, is carefully defined in the standard. Most decoders are "bitstream compliant", which means that the decompressed output that they produce from a given MP3 file will be the same, within a specified degree of rounding tolerance, as the output specified mathematically in the ISO/IEC high standard document (ISO/IEC 11172-3). Therefore, comparison of decoders is usually based on how computationally efficient they are (i.e., how much memory or CPU time they use in the decoding process).

There def are differences between encoders! I did a comparison many years ago and at that time the iTunes encoding was substantially inferior to LAME, I mean really obviously. But that was years ago.

But people say LAME has changed quite a bit over the years and some prefer this version over that and what not, but I'm far from an expert on this and just use LAME V0. Good enough for me.

But for more information, www.hydrogenaud.io/ is a good place to look into this.

Sorry for everyone for the necro here.

I've been trying to look this up, but haven't come up with anything useful.

I would like to know, what kind of mp3 encoder does S1 use?
Is it something custom coded or existing technology?

redpeakaudio wroteSorry for everyone for the necro here.

I've been trying to look this up, but haven't come up with anything useful.

I would like to know, what kind of mp3 encoder does S1 use?
Is it something custom coded or existing technology?

Sorry I can't answer your question specifically, but if for whatever reason you find something lacking with S1's built in mp3 encoder, Freeac (free audio converter) is excellent.

redpeakaudio wroteSorry for everyone for the necro here.

I've been trying to look this up, but haven't come up with anything useful.

I would like to know, what kind of mp3 encoder does S1 use?
Is it something custom coded or existing technology?

Like almost all DAWs, Studio One uses LAME 3.100 as of this message. VERY mature tech at this point.

(Freeac uses the same thing...)

You are reviving a thread that is 8 years old, at that time S1 didn't use LAME, but LAME wasn't as mature as it is now. The vast majority of DAWs and converters use LAME these days, since it's been around and was tweaked over many generations/years.

Fair enough, good to know!

Was that info in patch notes? Not that I don't believe you, I do, I just want to read something from Presonus on that.

I did tons of research when this post started 8 years ago. At that point, S1 Artist users needed to pay $10 each, and I had to justify that to my clients. When the encoder patents expired (4-6 years ago???) then PreSonus switched to LAME.

When MP3 is written, it writes a tag about the encoder too...

Tons of software can read that tag.
I just tested it myself. And I tested Freeac. Both use LAME 3.100.
When this thread was created 8 years ago, PreSonus used the official, licensed encoder from Fraunhofer, and there was a licensing fee, and a slight quality upgrade, so they had MP3 as a "paid for" option in Studio One Artist ($9.99 if I remember). (It's been free in S1 Artist for years now...)

Since MP3 encoding is no longer licensed, almost everybody is now using LAME.

Download MediaInfo yourself and test if you care.
https://mediaarea.net/en/MediaInfo

(Other software does the same thing, so you can cross-check it if you don't believe that software...)

MP3 is settled science at this point, and little use for anybody to find something better than LAME.

There is even better tech for encoding now that is NOT MP3, but MP3 will probably live on forever since it's strong enough and available on almost all players these days. (Why not, it's free to use... so everybody does...)

Read the tags yourself if you care. I don't remember PreSonus ever writing anything, but it may be in some docs someplace. Very few care anymore since the LAME quality is strong, and there is little incentive to do all the work to find something barely better when MP3 is so popular.

Unlikely to have noticeable quality upgrades with other MP3 encoders. End users are unlikely to pay more or hear any differences considering the headphones/speakerphones so widely used today in consumer devices.

I absolutely cared in the early days, but LAME upped their game over time and took over as the encoder of choice...

Maybe there is something better, let us know if you find it, and docs showing why it's better...

Thanks a lot kind sir, my mind is at peace in regard to this matter.

PS: If you care about quality, many of the tools in S1 have improved since 4.6 (shown in your AutoSig).

The Limiter, EQ and other tools have been upgraded, along with some amazing tube emulations for some compressors.

FAR bigger quality uplift compared to MP3 encoding.

It's possible your AutoSig is outdated, but getting to 6.x is a win for quality if you're into that stuff for you and/or your clients.

Nah, the signature is correct. I don't use much of the stock plugins anyway (for that reason), except for room reverb, both delays and fat channel. I'll probably be skipping 6 as well until 7 comes out. 4.6.0 is stable enough for me to stick around with it, even though there is a patch after it.

edit: there was actually one thing, that almost made me upgrade - the new dithering.

hehehe, that's geeky!

@subject and re-up: Man, I DO NOT miss those days! I still don't like streaming music much (soundcloud for example, er, everything sounds like it was mixed/mastered by the same person! ) But, it's still overall better. And at least convenient.

redpeakaudio wroteNah, the signature is correct. I don't use much of the stock plugins anyway (for that reason), except for room reverb, both delays and fat channel. I'll probably be skipping 6 as well until 7 comes out. 4.6.0 is stable enough for me to stick around with it, even though there is a patch after it.

edit: there was actually one thing, that almost made me upgrade - the new dithering.

No stress from me, but the stock plugins have been greatly upgraded since the 4.x days. Some excellent quality uplifts, and exporting is stronger too. (Now can mixdown to WAV and MP3 at the same time, plus the WAV files can now be 64 bit for those who have the hardware and care about that stuff...)

In 5.x they upgraded quite a few Effects, and did it again in 6.0.

You upgrade when it works for you.

redpeakaudio wroteNah, the signature is correct. I don't use much of the stock plugins anyway (for that reason), except for room reverb, both delays and fat channel. I'll probably be skipping 6 as well until 7 comes out. 4.6.0 is stable enough for me to stick around with it, even though there is a patch after it.

edit: there was actually one thing, that almost made me upgrade - the new dithering.

There's a lot to be said for knowing your rig inside and out.

Well, dithering is the only reason I upgraded..........ok, bad joke.

So much love in the last two updates. So many absolute time savers and "well duh" things.

I guarantee with no margin of error, if you/anyone demoed the newest and learned some of the killer WF improvements, you'd likely change your mind.

MisterE wrote

redpeakaudio wroteNah, the signature is correct. I don't use much of the stock plugins anyway (for that reason), except for room reverb, both delays and fat channel. I'll probably be skipping 6 as well until 7 comes out. 4.6.0 is stable enough for me to stick around with it, even though there is a patch after it.

edit: there was actually one thing, that almost made me upgrade - the new dithering.

There's a lot to be said for knowing your rig inside and out.

Not sure if you're sarcastic or not.

In all seriousness, one piece of gear, that gives me most headaches is my Virus TI. Was stable and did not crash the DAW in 2.6, but have crashed until 4.6.0 came out, and then it finally became stable again. I have no concrete data "why". A lot of stuff changed of course, but all I am saying is that I am at a comfortable state, where I would rather not change a thing.

Don't get me wrong - I am tempted to upgrade. Just right now, the practical side of things outweighs the joy of new stuff.

IIRC, they have put some love into external instruments in the last two versions. I don't have any, so I can't say firsthand.