ikke
I'm searching a new ripping program at the moment, to rip new CD's. I used RealJukebox, and then I downloaded RealOne, and that really sucks (I think) :( so I've got to search another one. It should support rips at 128 kbps and CDDB.
Which programs do you guys use?
Thanks a lot, ikke
Which programs do you guys use?
Thanks a lot, ikke
Posted Wed 17 Apr 02 @ 6:30 pm
DJ Rick
I used audio catalyst for years... However on a recent computer upgrade, I couldn't get it ot work properly. Since then I've been using and actually been pretty happy with MusicMatch.
Good luck... if you find one that's great, let us all know.
Good luck... if you find one that's great, let us all know.
Posted Wed 17 Apr 02 @ 7:56 pm
i've been using audiocatalyst as well. it works really good on my system with xp. really fast.
Posted Wed 17 Apr 02 @ 8:52 pm
Exact Audio Copy ... www.eac.de (I think...)
Posted Wed 17 Apr 02 @ 9:06 pm
check out CDex on download.com. gives you a wide range of encoders and high bitrates [128k is really horrible, you should consider going up to 160k atleast.] it does CDDB
music match is okay, but tops out at 160k bitrate. i prefer 192k currently...
music match is okay, but tops out at 160k bitrate. i prefer 192k currently...
Posted Wed 17 Apr 02 @ 10:50 pm
DJtalon
128min-256max VBR sounds really good to me.
Posted Wed 17 Apr 02 @ 11:49 pm
Grimm
Exact Audio Copy
http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/
Lame dll
http://www.mp3dev.org/mp3/
Exact Audio copy can access CDDB and use the lame.dll file. I suggest setting lame encode options to "-b 192 -m j --lowpass 19.5 -q 0"
128 is really not a good setting. Its no where near "cd quality". And if space is a concern, $100US will buy a nice 60gig hard drive (http://www.pricewatch.com).
Personally, I dont encode at anything less then 320.
http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/
Lame dll
http://www.mp3dev.org/mp3/
Exact Audio copy can access CDDB and use the lame.dll file. I suggest setting lame encode options to "-b 192 -m j --lowpass 19.5 -q 0"
128 is really not a good setting. Its no where near "cd quality". And if space is a concern, $100US will buy a nice 60gig hard drive (http://www.pricewatch.com).
Personally, I dont encode at anything less then 320.
Posted Thu 18 Apr 02 @ 1:15 am
trip_likeido
We have had this discussion about bitrates a MILLION times. I have come to the conclusion that the bitrate you select depends on the quality of your speakers/headphones. I don't have the greatest headphones/speakers .. so I can't tell a difference between 128 and 192. If you play your MP3's at clubs or use it in the recording studio ..... It is HIGHTLY recommend you use 192 or even 256 kbps.
I use CDEX too ! It's a great simple program with a nice layout ... not too jazzy. You can set bitrates and VBR's easily.
GRIMM: I tried using EAC .. but there are too many options to select when encoding !!!!
I use CDEX too ! It's a great simple program with a nice layout ... not too jazzy. You can set bitrates and VBR's easily.
GRIMM: I tried using EAC .. but there are too many options to select when encoding !!!!
Posted Thu 18 Apr 02 @ 1:32 am
cd2mp3 is the best.small size, quick,easy, no bull shit
Posted Thu 18 Apr 02 @ 7:35 am
Tommy_2Tall
I usually use Audio Catalyst with the "enhanced Fraunhofer encoder" (which can make MP3's in pretty much ANY bitrate/frequency combination and it's fast too).
Lately I've tried a program called EZ Mp3, an MP3(or WAV)-recording and editing program I found on download.com which also works pretty well if you haven't got a CD to rip but maybe a live line-in input you'd like to save as MP3-files...
That proggie uses the Fraunhofer encoder (the one that's been "enhanced by Reaktor" or whatever) as well sobitrate ain't a problem there either.
As for what bitrate to go with: since I started playing around with crossfaders and such a month or so ago I've stopped downloading 128kbps-MP3's as they never have been more that "radio-quality" in my ears.
Lately I've tried a program called EZ Mp3, an MP3(or WAV)-recording and editing program I found on download.com which also works pretty well if you haven't got a CD to rip but maybe a live line-in input you'd like to save as MP3-files...
That proggie uses the Fraunhofer encoder (the one that's been "enhanced by Reaktor" or whatever) as well sobitrate ain't a problem there either.
As for what bitrate to go with: since I started playing around with crossfaders and such a month or so ago I've stopped downloading 128kbps-MP3's as they never have been more that "radio-quality" in my ears.
Posted Thu 18 Apr 02 @ 7:56 am
about 128kbit ... it IS cd quality when it's ripped directly from cd with Fraunhofer codec ... and not a rip from a rip from a rip and so on ...
Posted Thu 18 Apr 02 @ 8:32 am
Grimm
128kbps is *NOT* CD quality, no matter how you encode it.
192kps is *NEAR* CD quality, with the audio pratically undistinguishable from the original CD except to the trained ear with audiophile equipment. No, SoundBlasters and the cheesy computer speakers many have are NOT high end audio equipment.
320kbps is *NEAR* archival quality, since mp3 *IS* a lossy audio encoder. There will ALWAYS be some audio information lost, even at 320kbps.
Ogg Vorbis will give a better quality compared to mp3 at the same bitrate, but until Atomix supports Ogg Vorbis, then use at least 192kbps for quality sake.
Avoid any ripper/encoder that uses the Xing mp3 encoder. It has a frequency cutoff around 16kHz, which is a big loss of highs. I've downloaded a few songs encoded with Xing and thier worthless, no matter how high the bit rate used.
The Fraunhofer is ok, as long as you avoid VBR. It doesn't encode in VBR the same way as Lame does and tend to destroy any stereo/surround sound imaging the song may have had. I have a couple of examples of that too.
Lame is currently the best mp3 encoder with the most options available. Even when I encode DivX file, I encode the audio with Lame seperately instead of using the Radium/Fraunhofer codec. Adds a couple of steps, but makes a difference in the audio to me.
Grimm
192kps is *NEAR* CD quality, with the audio pratically undistinguishable from the original CD except to the trained ear with audiophile equipment. No, SoundBlasters and the cheesy computer speakers many have are NOT high end audio equipment.
320kbps is *NEAR* archival quality, since mp3 *IS* a lossy audio encoder. There will ALWAYS be some audio information lost, even at 320kbps.
Ogg Vorbis will give a better quality compared to mp3 at the same bitrate, but until Atomix supports Ogg Vorbis, then use at least 192kbps for quality sake.
Avoid any ripper/encoder that uses the Xing mp3 encoder. It has a frequency cutoff around 16kHz, which is a big loss of highs. I've downloaded a few songs encoded with Xing and thier worthless, no matter how high the bit rate used.
The Fraunhofer is ok, as long as you avoid VBR. It doesn't encode in VBR the same way as Lame does and tend to destroy any stereo/surround sound imaging the song may have had. I have a couple of examples of that too.
Lame is currently the best mp3 encoder with the most options available. Even when I encode DivX file, I encode the audio with Lame seperately instead of using the Radium/Fraunhofer codec. Adds a couple of steps, but makes a difference in the audio to me.
Grimm
Posted Thu 18 Apr 02 @ 11:11 am
Grimm
trip_likeido: Yeah EAC does have alot of options, but the default sould work fine. I only change about 2 items myself (disable CDDB, since it never finds the CD I'm ripping :/ ) and 1 or 2 other. You really dont need to play around with the settings unless you'r having problems properly ripping with your drive.
EAC is really the best program to use. It may be slow, but thats because its precise how it rips the audio. Burst copy modes, which is what all the other cd ripping programs use, doesn't attempt to read the cd bit for bit. So it can't tell if a particular sector is bad or not.
EAC however, will tell you where it had problems and if it couldn't correct it. On a brand new cd, it sould have 0 errors. On a old, slightly scratched cd, it will show some errors, and may or may not be able to correct it. If it can't correct it, EAC will tell you where the "problem" is so you can use whatever program you like to fix the problem.
A regular cd ripper will only error if it can't read the data correctly for too long. If it comes across a sector thats only parcially bad, it will "read" it and continue ripping with no errors what-so-ever. You may think its fine till you go to hear it and discover some pops,cracks or jumps in the audio.
My .02 cent + tax
Grimm
EAC is really the best program to use. It may be slow, but thats because its precise how it rips the audio. Burst copy modes, which is what all the other cd ripping programs use, doesn't attempt to read the cd bit for bit. So it can't tell if a particular sector is bad or not.
EAC however, will tell you where it had problems and if it couldn't correct it. On a brand new cd, it sould have 0 errors. On a old, slightly scratched cd, it will show some errors, and may or may not be able to correct it. If it can't correct it, EAC will tell you where the "problem" is so you can use whatever program you like to fix the problem.
A regular cd ripper will only error if it can't read the data correctly for too long. If it comes across a sector thats only parcially bad, it will "read" it and continue ripping with no errors what-so-ever. You may think its fine till you go to hear it and discover some pops,cracks or jumps in the audio.
My .02 cent + tax
Grimm
Posted Thu 18 Apr 02 @ 11:39 am
DJ Rick
I've said it before, I'll say it again. I've been in this business for about 13 years or so. I started using MP3's last year. Not totally sold on the idea, I was encoding at a 192 bitrate. A friend who has been in the busness even longer transfered some files to me that were 128 bit. I was skeptical, but the next time out, in a club with a decent sound system, I purposely mixed several of the 128's back to back with the 192's. I wandered around the club, and listened hard, I could hear no audible drop in quality. Well, that wasn't good enough so I pulled out some CD's too, and mised some of the 128's back to back with some CD tracks, and wandered around. Guess what, I could again notice no audible difference. Since then all of my encoding has been done at 128 bit. Now, I'm not saying there's no difference, but the difference is negligible, and that slight difference is either worth the drive space to you, or it's not.
There's really no conclusion here. Those that have in their brains that they can hear the difference, will continue to believe that. That's cool with me. Listen to some 128 files, and listen to some 192's... then make your personal choice.
There's really no conclusion here. Those that have in their brains that they can hear the difference, will continue to believe that. That's cool with me. Listen to some 128 files, and listen to some 192's... then make your personal choice.
Posted Thu 18 Apr 02 @ 8:50 pm
bproctor
EAC with "--r3mix VBR" option IMHO is the best way to go
www.r3mix.net
Brad
www.r3mix.net
Brad
Posted Fri 19 Apr 02 @ 5:40 am
trip_likeido
I thought it was a bad idea to use VBR ? I was told that atomix cannot read files which are at a VBR ?!?
Clarification ?
Clarification ?
Posted Fri 19 Apr 02 @ 6:10 am
ikke
Posted Fri 19 Apr 02 @ 6:51 am
Grimm
You may want to have your hearing checked Impressionsdj. Seriously though, I'm not trying to be smart or flame you, but if you've been DJ'ing at clubs for that long, without any hearing protection, I wouldn't be surprised if your hearing is at 16kHz or even lower.
I'm big on protecting my hearing, and I wear ear protection all the time at work (noisy environment), when I'm working with my power tools, and riding my motorcycle. At age 25, my hearing is still around 18.5kHz. Not bad for my age, but not as good as I'd want it to be. But even at that level, I can still hear clearly the differences that bit rates makes on my mp3's. Most of the audio anomylies happen in the upper range of the audio, such as warble and tin-ny sounds. To me, a poorly encoded mp3 would sound like crap with all of that. But to someone with bad hearing, it would sound fine to them since the anomolies are happening outside of thier hearing range.
Also, a club really isn't the place to compare bit rate qualities. In that kind of environment with the loud volume, natural room echos, reverberation, talking, yelling, feet hitting the dance floor, etc, etc, even 96kbps mp3s would more then likely sound fine.
But those same 96kbps mp3 that sound fine in a club environment, will sound like crap in a home environment at normal/moderate volumes.
I say, if you plan on sharing your mp3's, then please use a high bit rate. Just because you cant hear a difference, doesn't mean that others can't.
But if you'r strictly encoding mp3 for yourself only, then encode them at 32kbps with a low pass of 8kHz for all I care. ;)
I'm big on protecting my hearing, and I wear ear protection all the time at work (noisy environment), when I'm working with my power tools, and riding my motorcycle. At age 25, my hearing is still around 18.5kHz. Not bad for my age, but not as good as I'd want it to be. But even at that level, I can still hear clearly the differences that bit rates makes on my mp3's. Most of the audio anomylies happen in the upper range of the audio, such as warble and tin-ny sounds. To me, a poorly encoded mp3 would sound like crap with all of that. But to someone with bad hearing, it would sound fine to them since the anomolies are happening outside of thier hearing range.
Also, a club really isn't the place to compare bit rate qualities. In that kind of environment with the loud volume, natural room echos, reverberation, talking, yelling, feet hitting the dance floor, etc, etc, even 96kbps mp3s would more then likely sound fine.
But those same 96kbps mp3 that sound fine in a club environment, will sound like crap in a home environment at normal/moderate volumes.
I say, if you plan on sharing your mp3's, then please use a high bit rate. Just because you cant hear a difference, doesn't mean that others can't.
But if you'r strictly encoding mp3 for yourself only, then encode them at 32kbps with a low pass of 8kHz for all I care. ;)
Posted Fri 19 Apr 02 @ 10:46 am
Grimm .. you're taking this whole bitrate thing so seriously !!!
Now I feel like an idiot encoding MP3's @ 192 ?!?!?!?!!? because of you !!
Now I feel like an idiot encoding MP3's @ 192 ?!?!?!?!!? because of you !!
Posted Sat 20 Apr 02 @ 12:56 am
bproctor
AtomixMP3 can handle VBR ok, it's only problem is the track length is usually a little goofy.
Brad
Brad
Posted Mon 22 Apr 02 @ 12:23 am