MuvAudio 1 Released

Dampier

MuvAudio v1.0 has completed beta testing and is now available. It technically can support conversion of up to five files concurrently, but for most of us, four has been a safer bet. The program costs $18.99, primarily because it couples another program Virtual Audio Cable with it in order to give you a true digital conversion. It's well worth the cost.

The author of the software has been very involved in its development and is very fast to release fixes and other adjustments to make it a great product. It's very highly recommended as the best interim solution for those with iPods who are frustrated by not being able to get subscriptions to "all you can download and take on the go" music services as well as those without the newest generation of MP3 players that support protected wma files.

This is not software for those who just want to steal. You must maintain a subscription to a music service in order to play the original wma files. This is software that is a win-win for everyone - artists get paid and you have flexibility when playing the songs back using whatever device you want.

I was a beta tester and can say the program far surpasses Tunebite.

www.muvaudio.com

benraines

Well, I must say.... I just installed this for the first time and am pretty impressed.. According to the settings I should be able to do 3 instances.. Probably could do more... But I have a few things open...

I love being able to do upto 5 at a time....
The Front end GUI looks nice


Not sure what settings are best to use...

I am using Napster and their files are 128kBPS..

So Im assuming
MP3
128kBPS 48kHz Stereo
VBR Preset.. Not really sure what to set this too.. Or if I even need to set it....

Don't think you need to worry about having the volume turned up, like you do in Tunebite... Or it looks like it is automatically set to high, under settings.


One feature that would be awesome and I am not sure if it has it:

If you could pick a few directories and as it processed each file. You could have the recording in the same directory as the original....

But so far it looks great...

Probably be making a purchase soon...


So does anyone have more reasons of why MuvAudio is better than tunebite..

Hopefully the Version 1.0 release will have no Bugs.. but I'm sure so one will have a problem or two..


Thanks

Dave

ranzi

I installed it and my PC crashes

Why should I download the Microsoft framework as add on to my PC? The .net framework is larger than 20 MB. I am not a technical specialist but for me it is difficult to understand to download more than 20 MB to run a movaudio-software that is 2 MB large

Use Tunebite. For the "stupid" ones - like me - it does the job very well. I run Tunebite overnight and by the way: it is cheaper

Hansy

If I may, the Microsoft Framework download package is 10,2 Mb, but this is not the point

The point is that appart from speeding up the converting process, MuvAudio is not better than Tunebite, and in my opinion, and I must agree with Ranzi, for the average user, Tunebite is a better option.

quadcrap1

How is TuneBite better? Things only MuvAudio offers:

1) Direct digital conversion. This means you don't have to set the volume. This is more important than you think. When you do the digital-analogue-digital conversion that crummier programs like TuneBite use, you have to try and guess the best volume level. Guess too low, and you are reducing the dynamic range/resolution of the music permanently. Guess too high, and you get lots of clipping. Guess exactly right? Never happen. Well, unless you do direct digital conversion.

2) MuvAudio allows multiple streams at once--up to 4 or 5 depending on your cpu. Also, it isolates the conversion from any other sounds on your PC...No need to turn off every sound on your PC while converting.

3) MuvAudio offers a huge array of encoding options, and lots of good suboptions under, say, MP3/Lame. TuneBite, er, kind of bites in this respect.

4) MuvAudio, in my experience, gets the beginning and ends of songs correct every time. TuneBite: Not so good...

If you don't really care about sound quality, and don't care about speed, and don't care about being precise with beginning and end of songs and don't really care about encoding options, then I agree that TuneBite is just about almost as good.

Hansy

OK...some things about Tunebite:

1. If you set the volume to maximum in Windows Media Player, then you guessed the best volume level and you won't get any clipings, where did you get this idea of clipings

2. I must give to MuvAudio for the VAC capability, very nice way to speed up the process, but about the isolation of the recording, what other sounds did you record while using Tunebite ? It's a singular process, that can't be afected by other sounds on your computer.

3. Tunebite offers the most popular encoding formats with VBR and CBR for those formats.

4. Tunebite gets the beginings and ends of the song right, too. This problem was fixed quite a while ago. Use the latest version of Tunebite and you won't get clipings or missing seconds.

So in my opinion I don't see why one should be rushing into buying a new software, just because it has nicer gadgets, that will be probably never used, at least for the average user.
And for the average user Muvaudio is far more complicated then Tunebite.

quadcrap1

Yup, you are confused if you think this is going to work properly. It can't. Either TuneBite internally sets the volume low enough that A) it won't clip but B) it also won't be making full use of the resolution of the music, or else TuneBite will result in clipping. Can't have it both ways, and because of the way TuneBite records it can't be using the "correct" volume for each song as it records.

In this important respect, TuneBite, true to its name, bites.

Really? So you are saying that other sounds on your PC that go through your sound card while Tunebite is recording won't wind up on your songs?

Wrong.

TuneBite offers a small number of formats and doesn't offer, for example the VERY IMPORTANT pre-compiled settings for the Lame mp3 encoder. Sorry, but again TuneBite BITES compared to MuvAudio in this respect.

Can't argue this one. If that's true, then that's one thing TuneBite fixed properly.

I see your point: No need to use new software that makes better quality recordings, allows more and better options for how to compress those recordings, and allows those recordings to be preformed in 1/4-1/5 the time.

Nope, no reason at all to use MuvAudio.

Oh, and don't forget to mention that TuneBite runs great on your Windows 3.1 system! No need to upgrade from 3.1 to those other operating systems just because they have nicer gadgets that will probably never be used at least for the average user.

Hansy

In my opinion, you either have not tested Tunebite or you have no ideea about how it works.
It's true that I was wrong about recording the other sounds of the computer, if they appear while converting a song, but that's because Tunebite records everything that goes out from the sound card compared to MuvAudio, which creates a virtual device through which it isolates the recording process, but honestly, how many times did it happen to record other sounds too? I never had such a case.

But let's clear some things here, before you spread false information.

The volume level:

At first run of Tunebite, a wizard detects your soundcard and optimizes the sound level. This works in the following way: the wizard plays a very loud sound considering the volume level of the media player to be at 100% and reduces the sound level to an optimum level so that you won't get any clippings. And you should make a difference in understanding the recording of music: Sound level is measured in decibels which sets how loud the output file is and your so called "resolution", which actually is the frequency at which the sounds in a song are played, is measured in Hertz or Mega-Hertz, is not touched at all by the sound level. You can only take the sound volume (the decibels) to a smaller value not to a higher one.

The presets of lame encoder:

Tunebite offers a simple way to choose from the various formats that the lame encoder offers. Those VERY IMPORTANT pre-compiled settings are just some normal formats that lame has, but have also received a name tag, to be able to choose easier from the wide range of settings that lame has.
So I'm sorry if you are not able to decide what setting is best for you and you need a name tag for that.

And about the quality of music, you must be a real audiophile with extrem hearing capabilities if you can hear the difference between the pure digital conversion and digital-analog-digital conversion. In theory, yes, you are are right, digital is better quality. But experience has taught us different.

The only major difference is that MuvAudio makes the whole process faster, up to 5 times.

And with a line like this:
"No need to upgrade from 3.1 to those other operating systems just because they have nicer gadgets that will probably never be used at least for the average user."
you are missing the point totally. If you haven't realised by now, there is a huge difference between a simple tool and an operating system

All said and done, in the future do some research work before posting such opinions.

P.S. Don't take it personally, I just wanted to make some things clear in this competition between Tunebite and MuvAudio

justcallmebob

I've got both programs and will continue to use both. But when I've got several songs to convert I'll probably go with MuvAudio just for the fact that I can convert 4 at once.