I have an older version of Magix MP3 Maker. It comes with a preset
number of mp3's you can rip before you have to buy the unlimited
version.

However, I ran into a flaw with their software, in that if I tried to
resample something from 44100 to 22050, it cut the play back rate in
half, i.e. plays twice as slow, one octave lower, etc.

When I sent in an email to get the unlimited version, thinking it was
free, they wanted 15 Euros for it. I asked if it worked correctly, as
what was in their application did not.

Following is the back and forth between me and their support personnel.
Instead of just owning up that their software doesn't work correctly
for that situation, they instead kept trying to convince me that I
shouldn't be using it like that.

Sort of like a carpenter building a house, the floor collapses in the
middle of the living room, and the carpenter's solution is to tell the
customer not to walk there, and everything will be ok.

================================================== =============

Ok, I just converted a file from 44100/256Kbps
Stereo
to 44100/56Kbps/Mono. I compared this to one
converted to 22050/24Kbps Mono and the difference in
size was 1102KB vs 473KB.

I'd say that was a significant saving in size.

I'm not going to argue the difference in sound
quality
because that is not the issue. That is a matter of
preference.

The issue is that your product does not work
correctly. You have yet to address that.




--- Magix Support System wrote:

Hello cz fanatic,

Thank you for your message.

The MP3 you sent me is "Stereo 44100 KHZ at 128
kbps
which should be played back at 44100 KHZ it makes
no
sence to convert the file
from 44100 to 22050 KHZ this will just make the
sound quality very poor just
for the sake of trying to save a very very small
bit
of space on your hard drive.
it would be better to retain the quality and leave
it as an MP3 which already
compressed.





--
Best regards,
Sean Smith





I've been converting files like this to 24Kbps,
22050
Hz, MONO to compress as much as I can without
affecting sound quality to an unworkable degree,
given
the less than optimal quality of the original
recording.


--- Magix Support System wrote:

Hello CZ ,

Thank you for your message.

please send me a sample of one of your songs
so
we
can test it and help you a
little more.

Many thanks.

--
Best regards,
Sean Smith






I know 22050 is lower quality, but for my
purpose,
it
works. Except your program changes the play
back
rate, which is wrong, and anothter program I
have
retains the original playback rate, which is
correct.

My main objective is to give a reasonable
quality
of
the song while optimizing size for limited
storage
area.

The playback rate should NOT be changing.


--- Magix Support System
wrote:





Thank you for your message.

Using 22050 KHZ is a very poor quality!
I would like to ask you a couple of
questions

1. what is the sample rate of the original
material
before you encoded it to
MP3 was it 44100 KHZ or 22050 KHZ ??

If the material was recorded at 44100 KHZ
then
you
should use 44100 KHZ to
play it back, if you use a lower sample
rate
such as
22050 KHZ then the song
will playback at a slower speed!

To check your playback settings, open your
software
and press the "P" button
on your computer keyboard and make sure
the
sample
rate is set at 44100 and
not 22050 KHZ!


I have attached a screenshot to show you
what i
mean.





Many thanks.

By the way, this thing reads backwards in time, from now to earlier, as
the person responding kept top posting.

In article .com,
duh wrote:

I have an older version of Magix MP3 Maker. It comes with a preset
number of mp3's you can rip before you have to buy the unlimited
version.

You don't want to use LAME because you believe so strongly in law and
order than even the grayest gray area scares you? You're working in
Euros which means you live somewhere the Fraunhofer patent doesn't apply
anyway. There are good mpeg encoders out there.

I've switched to OGG and FLAC for all my own stuff.

I'm in the US. Euros is what they asked for. I've read reviews on
Amazon that roundly trashes these guys, so I guess the info is out
there for people to find. It wasn't when I bought the package.