Text 10357, 114 rader
Skriven 2006-03-26 19:16:58 av Glenn Meadows (1:379/45)
  Kommentar till text 10329 av Gary Britt (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Questions Re: Audio Ripping
=======================================
From: "Glenn Meadows" <gmeadow@comcast.net>

I just took what came with WinLame.  Simple package, simple install, had Lame
with it.  Never looked any further.  It's a lossy format, like AAC, WMA and all
the others.  If you start from that premise, you're not disappointed when it
doesn't sound "perfect" <LOL>.


--

Glenn M.
"Gary Britt" <email@from_Gary_Britt.org> wrote in message news:44264138@w3....
> Thanks Glenn, I was hoping you would jump in on this.  Which is your
> preferred source for the basic LAME binary files?  Choices abound and they
> might not all be compiled the same way?  Have you ever tried the open
> source
> wave/MP3/WMA editor Audacity?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gary
>
> "Glenn Meadows" <gmeadow@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:4425aa73$1@w3....
>> WinLame is a good wrapper around the basic encoder, I use it all the time
> to
>> make MP3's we ship to radio.  320kb/sec fixed rate.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Glenn M.
>> "Mike '/m'" <mike@barkto.com> wrote in message
>> news:nhj622t9l6scnsbdedebl0pfea8gcfqf3v@4ax.com...
>> >
>> > LAME is reputed to be very good for lossy ripping at the higher
>> > bitrates, some say the best.
>> >
>> > http://lame.sourceforge.net/
>> >
>> >  /m
>> >
>> > On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 23:22:38 -0500, "Gary Britt"
>> > <email@from_Gary_Britt.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >>How up to date is the LAME encoder?  I've got a Creative PlayCenter 2
>> >>software encoder from a 3 year old Sound Blaster Live card in one of my
>> >>machines, Windows Media Player 10 in my new XP laptop, and also what
> Nero
>> >>6
>> >>and 7 come with.  How does LAME compare to these?
>> >>
>> >>Anybody have any thoughts on if it makes much difference what software
>> >>encoder is used to do the ripping?
>> >>
>> >>Thanks,
>> >>
>> >>Gary
>> >>
>> >>"Mike '/m'" <mike@barkto.com> wrote in message
>> >>news:1lq3229dcmdkcruidcnk24tnqjmjqrslki@4ax.com...
>> >>>
>> >>> I ripped at 320kbps constant bitrate, joint stereo, using the LAME
>> >>> encoder.  I would have ripped lossless if I had enough disk space.
>> >>>
>> >>> I use CDex for ripping, and I set the error detection and correction
> to
>> >>> its maximum ("Paranoia, Full").  CDex tells you, on a per-track
>> >>> basis,
>> >>> how many errors it could not correct.   Out of about 2,000 CDs
> (26,000+
>> >>> songs) I ripped, I'd say there were about 50 tracks that had
>> >>> uncorrectable errors, usually 1 or 2 per track.
>> >>>
>> >>> I had 4 CD drives running the ripping.  Two on my main PC (dual-CPU,
>> >>> 500MHz Pentium 2 or 3), 515MB RAM.  Another on my notebook (500MHZ
>> >>> CPU
>> >>> (Pentium 2, 512MB), and another on a junker (probably a 400MHz
>> >>> Pentium
>> >>> something or other, with 256 MB memory).   All were running Windows
>> >>> 2000.
>> >>>
>> >>>   /m
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:12:53 -0500, "Gary Britt"
>> >>> <email@from_Gary_Britt.org> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> >When ripping an audio CD to MP3 file format is it better to use
>> >>> >constant
>> >>bitrate or variable bitrate?  What about if you are ripping to WMA file
>> >>format.  Is it better to use constant bitrate or variable bitrate?
>> >>> >
>> >>> >When doing the ripping the CD ripper I set up auto configured for
>> >>> >digital
>> >>extraction and NO error correction.  Question:  Should I turn error
>> >>correction on for audio CD ripping?  Does error correction make much
>> >>difference during ripping to MP3/WMA files?
>> >>> >
>> >>> >What if I'm doing the audio CD ripping on a 500mhz Pentium III with
> 640
>> >>megs of ram and Win2K, would that knowledge change any of your answers
>> >>above?
>> >>> >
>> >>> >Thanks,
>> >>> >
>> >>> >Gary
>> >>
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
 * Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)