 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (2)Hyperflake recycle ...and 133 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614354 Today 0 Topics 127559 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Until today i`ve always used Audiograbber for creating mp3`s. now i`ve just tested EAC, www.exactaudiocopy.de, and can only say its one of the best. every sector on the cd is read 2 times, so no errors can appear, compression itself is made by Lame, creates perfect high quality vbr files. the results are great and best is, its Free :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i don't like vbr cbr is better |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
cbr ? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
There's only one thing CBRis better at - if you're streaming music and want a predictable bitrate. Otherwise VBR sounds much better at the same file size as CBR. VBR implementations years ago were flawed, but now they are very good. It's time to update your perceptions of it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
.ape compression is much better than any, if you've got the hard drive space. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yeah I have EAC and it's great. Highly recommended. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i use it for scratched cd's, it may take a while but it can rip cds that won't play in any stereo |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
vbr better than cbr ? but vbr has less amount on information or not ? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Let me educate you, sadist. Constant BitRate CBR - you set the needed bitrate (amount of information) and it encodes every little frame of the song with it. So, no differences if there is a silence or an orchestral rush. Average BitRate ABR - you set the needed bitrate (it can be the same one), but it finds frames for which the bitrate can be smaller, and uses the savings for more complicated pieces, and the bitrate (amount of information) remains the same. Variable BitRate VBR - you set the quality (-V x) and it decides the needed bitrate for each frame, being as indulgent as you want it to be. So, if you set the X equal 0, then it's virtually perfect, as it will encode with minimal losses, but without wasting space on excess information. It's scientifically the best mode. THE BEST QUALITY AND REASONABLE LAME SETTING: -q 0 -v -V 0 -b 112 q 0: sets the precision of psycho-acoustic model calculation. The 'quality/encoding speed' proportion, does not affect size. 0 is best, 9 is worst. v: turns on VBR (see above) V 0: sets the VBR quality, or how fairly it decides the needed bitrate for each frame. 0 is the best, 9 makes low-bitrate. -b 112: limits the lower bitrate to 112kbps. Not really needed for modern versions of LAME, for their psychoacoustic model is updated, so the too-low-bitrate-chosen-on-some-sounds problems will not normally appear. So, if you encode with LAME and the named settings, you get virtually the best MP3 compression possible. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It's even simpler if you're using LAME 3.90.2 or 3.92 (and you should be!) "LAME --alt-preset insane" will give you the highest quality mp3 possible at the moment. This is a tweaked 320 Kbps CBR setting. "LAME --alt-preset extreme" is a VBR setting that should average about 256 Kbps. It is good for difficult to encode music like electronic music. Quality should be very close to "--alt-preset insane" with a smaller filesize. "LAME --alt-preset standard" is a VBR setting that should average about 192 Kbps. Most people probably can't tell the difference between this setting and a CD. If you can, use one of the higher settings. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
thanks for this, I've been looking for an alternative to audiograbber and this looks great |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
do the altpresets include -q0? it's relevant |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
No, here is an why, from one of the LAME developers: Q: Why is -q 2 (-h) used instead of -q 0? I know that -q2 is recommended as it is faster and that -q0 doesn't yield significantly better results, but doesn't -q0 results in better quality (which is what we're after here)? Does -q0 cause certain problems by trying to find the 'best' type of noise shaping etc.? A: No, -q0 does not result in better quality, only slower encoding. All of the areas for increases in quality which would be "obvious" such as using command line switches, I've already examined and made use of where appropriate. -q0 also defaults Takehiro's new noise shaping which may allow for more room for error in added noise and the speed hit is around 40% with a bit savings of around 2kbps. There is no audible difference or increase in quality, and the hit in speed and more room for error are, IMO, unacceptable at this time. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
wait.... I've read this before but thought he was referring to q2 :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
but it's still better. ABSOLUTISTIC mOoz0Oh!!! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I won't seriously discuss the merits of one mp3 encoding setting over another with anyone until they can prove that they've ABX'd one better than other with a blind listening test. There are too many variables involved. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That sounded kind of fucking snobby, but all I'm saying is that everyone's ears, equipment and musical tastes are different. If it sounds good to you go with it! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
of course it doesn't matter in real life and all :) use APE... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
