Is this a good plan for making an MP3 collection?

[MazerRackham]

Hey MichaelD, I played around with this stuff last night for a bit, and I think there is a definite difference between the presets for the LAME encoder.

I used both "--r3mix" and "--alt-preset standard", even though I couldn't really tell any difference in sound quality, the encoding of tracks using "--alt-preset standard" took twice as much time as "--r3mix". File sizes were essentially the same, and all other things being equal I would rather use the preset that spends more time on the encoding (under the assumption that it's doing a better job). I assume on some albums/tracks the difference would be more noticable than with others...

Using a preset is really easy, since all you have to do is put in the command in either the EAC LAME settings or RazorLame's LAME settings, whichever you prefer to use.

After using EAC to go from CD direct to MP3 using LAME and the "--alt-preset standard" preset, I think I will now do what nord1899 suggested and rip a bunch of CDs to .wav, and then batch encode the .wav files to MP3 while I'm sleeping.

On my P3 @ 866, the best LAME can do using "--alt-preset standard" is roughly 2x, which is pretty slow! Using "--r3mix" I was getting around 4.2x.

As an FYI to others reading this thread, encoding your MP3s using LAME with "--alt-preset standard" results in much better sound quality than MusciMatch Jukebox at 160Kbps, which is what my CDs were encoded with before.

Give it a try and hear for yourselves 🙂

 

[MichaelD]

Originally posted by: MazerRackham
Hey MichaelD, I played around with this stuff last night for a bit, and I think there is a definite difference between the presets for the LAME encoder.

I used both "--r3mix" and "--alt-preset standard", even though I couldn't really tell any difference in sound quality, the encoding of tracks using "--alt-preset standard" took twice as much time as "--r3mix". File sizes were essentially the same, and all other things being equal I would rather use the preset that spends more time on the encoding (under the assumption that it's doing a better job). I assume on some albums/tracks the difference would be more noticable than with others...

Using a preset is really easy, since all you have to do is put in the command in either the EAC LAME settings or RazorLame's LAME settings, whichever you prefer to use.

After using EAC to go from CD direct to MP3 using LAME and the "--alt-preset standard" preset, I think I will now do what nord1899 suggested and rip a bunch of CDs to .wav, and then batch encode the .wav files to MP3 while I'm sleeping.

On my P3 @ 866, the best LAME can do using "--alt-preset standard" is roughly 2x, which is pretty slow! Using "--r3mix" I was getting around 4.2x.

As an FYI to others reading this thread, encoding your MP3s using LAME with "--alt-preset standard" results in much better sound quality than MusciMatch Jukebox at 160Kbps, which is what my CDs were encoded with before.

Give it a try and hear for yourselves 🙂

Hey there, thanks for the info/update🙂 I found this other FAQ on MP3s here. It's very good. Especially for a newbie like me. I can honestly say I know wth I'm talking about now. 😀

I didn't like using the automatic EAC/Lame combo either; took a very long time to do one CD and the files were all intermixed (but that's prolly user error.)

It may take longer, but this is what I did do.

1. Created a folder called MP3 on my HD.
2. Inside that folder, I installed Razor/Lame and EAC.
3. Created two folders inside the MP3 folder called "Ripped to .wav" and Encoded to MP3.

Using EAC, I have it extract the .wav files using the Windows PCM codec at 44.1KHz/16-bit stereo to the folder called "Ripped to .wav."

After EAC has ripped the whole the whole CD, I open Razor. I select the tracks to be enoded (one at a time, which is the one shortcoming I've found in Razor so far) from my "Ripped to .wav" folder.

I click "encode" and let it do it's thing. I have it set to dump the encoded MP3's to the folder "Encoded to MP3" and "delete source .wav file when done.

I encode at 256kb/s, high-quality. Sounds CD-quality to me.

There must be a way to actually run a "batch encode" without having to manually click "Select Track to Encode" then scrolling thru the folder, clicking the file and repeating an average of 10-times per CD. Can anyone help me with that?

Some may say that I'm taking too many steps with the separate rip/encode process, but to me it sounds better this way, and I get the satisfaction of knowing it's done right.

So far, I've got about half a dozen (6) CDs up on my FTP. Have at it! Sorry about the piddly upload speed *shrugs* you got $150 a month for me to get business class DSL? Me either. 😛

 

[LastStop]

Has anybody ever used AudioGrabber? I've been using it to rip my cd's lately and it is simple and it can use the Lame encoder as well as a bunch of other codecs.

 

[SludgeFactory]

Originally posted by: MichaelD
Also, does the setting you convert to .wav at have anything to do w/the quality of the MP3?

I.E., I rip to .wav at 44.1KHz, 16-bit stereo. Would my MP3 turn out not as good if I used 22KHz 8-bit stereo? What's the diff?

Yes, the wav matters. You should always use 44.1, 16-bit for ripping. 44.1 KHz and 16-bit is the standard for CD audio, and that's what you should rip at if you want to extract all of the data from the CD and be able to generate mp3's that sound comparable to the source CD. You could rip at 22Khz 8-bit and get much smaller files, but it will sound horrible -- it would be more appropriate for audio books or talk radio than music. It's sort of like AM vs FM sound quality.

Everything you ever wanted to know about encoding presets and audio compression in general:
r3mix.net and hydrogen audio

They both have stickies in their forums dedicated to LAME settings.

 

[MichaelD]

Originally posted by: SludgeFactory

Originally posted by: MichaelD
Also, does the setting you convert to .wav at have anything to do w/the quality of the MP3?

I.E., I rip to .wav at 44.1KHz, 16-bit stereo. Would my MP3 turn out not as good if I used 22KHz 8-bit stereo? What's the diff?

Yes, the wav matters. You should always use 44.1, 16-bit for ripping. 44.1 KHz and 16-bit is the standard for CD audio, and that's what you should rip at if you want to extract all of the data from the CD and be able to generate mp3's that sound comparable to the source CD. You could rip at 22Khz 8-bit and get much smaller files, but it will sound horrible -- it would be more appropriate for audio books or talk radio than music. It's sort of like AM vs FM sound quality.

Everything you ever wanted to know about encoding presets and audio compression in general:
r3mix.net and hydrogen audio

They both have stickies in their forums dedicated to LAME settings.

Nice!! Thanks buddy. 😎

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: Electric Amish
You should be able to rip directly from the CD to MP3.

CDex allows that, anyway.

amish

Total Recorder also lets you do that. I haven't done it but I know it does. So far I've used it to create MP3s from live radio off my receiver.