CDEX Users, riddle me this!

Blanchfort

Blanchfort

Member
Every so often, when I convert to mp3 with CDEX, either directly from the CD, or from .wav's already ripped, I get nothing but a loud screeching noise, instead of the proper audio. Anybody else seen (or heard) this. Latest version of CDEX, and latest LAME .dll. TIA!
Specs in signature.....
 
F

FrightfoO

Member
It's may be copy protection. Do the CDs indicate that they've got any form of protection on them? Do they have EMI labelling?
 
Last edited:
F

FrightfoO

Member
Do all the WAVs play correctly while on the HD?

It could be the LAME .dll/version perhaps, as scarecrow said, or maybe CDex. Have ya tried reinstalling and/or going back to a previous version of LAME?

Perhaps try asking about it at the CDex Software Support forum.

I did see it mentioned somewhere that somebody was creating a Riff-WAV which in the end had sound problems. They changed to version 1.4 which corrected it, but that was a while ago.

I haven't tried CDex before, but have used EAC and with LAME version 3.90.2 because quality-wise it's great.
 
Blanchfort

Blanchfort

Member
Hey, it;s fixed!

I tried the version scarecrow suggested, as I had tried several others, but no go. FrightfoO the .wav files played fine, so I didn't think copy protection was the issue. I just started messing with the settings, and damn, normalize was ticked, and causing the problem. Thanks very much for all the input. Now if anybody knows why normalize is broken.............
 
S

scarecrow

1
Blanchfort said:
Now if anybody knows why normalize is broken.............
Click to expand...
Probably because you use Cdex 1.50 or lower:
------------------------------------------------------------
CDex 1.51 has been released
See download page for more details
Changes since CDex 1.50 Release:

* Fixed normalization problem
* Fixed play digital CD function
* Fixed filename generation when % character was in trackname
* Better support of USB drives when using Native NT SCSI library option
* Various small bug fixes
------------------------------------------------------------
 
C

chronicking

Member
FrightfoO said:
Do all the WAVs play correctly while on the HD?

It could be the LAME .dll/version perhaps, as scarecrow said, or maybe CDex. Have ya tried reinstalling and/or going back to a previous version of LAME?

Perhaps try asking about it at the CDex Software Support forum.

I did see it mentioned somewhere that somebody was creating a Riff-WAV which in the end had sound problems. They changed to version 1.4 which corrected it, but that was a while ago.

I haven't tried CDex before, but have used EAC and with LAME version 3.90.2 because quality-wise it's great.
Click to expand...

im using the new CDEX(at least i thinx it's new, pretty sure) and it has the LAME encoder installed. i thinx it's version 1.3 , 3.92 MMX. is this a faulty encoder? is the older Lame .dll better than this one?
 
F

FrightfoO

Member
Yip. Lame 3.90.2 is definitely a better version of Lame than the very latest builds.

I'm not sure how Lame 3.90.2 or indeed 2.90.3 is integrated into CDex, but for EAC you can download the file from here and install/put it in the EAC folder etc to set it up. This is LAME 3.90.3 (by Dibrom).
 
S

scarecrow

1
Since Dibrom's 3.90.3 (and the former 3.90.2) .dll builds support the --alt-preset switches, they are the recommended choice. The .dll encoders are not so flexible as the commandline ones, but they are much faster.
 
C

chronicking

Member
LAME encoders

scarecrow said:
Since Dibrom's 3.90.3 (and the former 3.90.2) .dll builds support the --alt-preset switches, they are the recommended choice. The .dll encoders are not so flexible as the commandline ones, but they are much faster.
Click to expand...

ok.........so all i need to do is download Dibrom's 3.90.3 lame.dll and replace the one already in the CDEX software(via Program Files/CDEX). one more question.
will i still be able to adjust CDEX to my needs like it is now. i don't use the presets. iknow iknow, everyone does, but i actually get better quality(for my needs) by setting it up the way i like it.

-quality
-VBR method
-Bit rate (minimum & maximum)
-VBR quality
-mp3 on the fly
-Stereo,, Joint Stereo

you know, all these wonderful settings to get in trouble with. will they still be available after switching to an older lame encoder?
just wondering here, but what makes these older encoders any better than this new one that comes with CDEX (3.92 MMX)? it really makes some good mp3's from what i can tell. much better than MMJB with the FHG encoder.
 
zver

zver

1
Lame

I would really recomend to use lame3.90.3 dll if you already have that..as its really recomended at ha forum......Still if you wanna make it your way..and youre not good with command line(like me)do this........for best quality....Use eac and put lame.exe in eac folder.....or browse for it.....and open a razorlame app.......There you make all kind of choices....like 44.1khz or 48..js or stereo..lowpass..highpass......vbr quality...all those and much more......for every option it will write a line.....finally...copy and paste in eac the command line from razorlame...enjoy..its the easiest way...
 
C

chronicking

Member
3.90 lame

zver said:
I would really recomend to use lame3.90.3 dll if you already have that..as its really recomended at ha forum......Still if you wanna make it your way..and youre not good with command line(like me)do this........for best quality....Use eac and put lame.exe in eac folder.....or browse for it.....and open a razorlame app.......There you make all kind of choices....like 44.1khz or 48..js or stereo..lowpass..highpass......vbr quality...all those and much more......for every option it will write a line.....finally...copy and paste in eac the command line from razorlame...enjoy..its the easiest way...
Click to expand...
ok man ive got the 3.90.? version installed in my CDEX software(1.51)
i cant' tell the difference as far as appearance goes. the settings are all the same. i haven't ripped anything yet. i d/led the .dll and not the .exe and just replaced the existing lame.dll in CDEX program folder. im holding on to the 3.92MMX version just in case.
what's the big diff in these two?
 
S

scarecrow

1
You will barely hear a difference on el cheapo computer speakers, but 3.90.3 is more tested than 3.92 or 3.93.1 (which are both good enough). The initial 3.93 is certainly not recommended- too buggy.
 
zver

zver

1
Just to add....always use lame after3.88b-couse erlier then that versions had some gpsycho problem--or something like that(dont ask me to explain--as i never bothered to read--go on ha and do the search..if you`re interested...)..Just do as Scarecrow suggested--as its my choice too..
 
C

chronicking

Member
thanx!

scarecrow said:
You will barely hear a difference on el cheapo computer speakers, but 3.90.3 is more tested than 3.92 or 3.93.1 (which are both good enough). The initial 3.93 is certainly not recommended- too buggy.
Click to expand...

yeah i couldn't tell the diff., but im running the 3.90 version anywayz. just do to the reviews ive heard about it.
i like CDEX and it worx great, but i did notice one thing about it. i encoded a few files with the joint stereo enabled then rencoded the files with stereo enabled (trying to switch them back from joint stereo[don't ask why]) and the resulting files ended up with a high pitch kinda whining squealing noise during the hi freq.'s. i dunno it may be my processor or something, but as far as straight ripping , CDEX worx fine.
 
Wedge

Wedge

1
Just adding my $.02

I have had really good results with EAC and the Lame 3.92 executable.

Command line = --alt-preset extreme %s %d

I think this sets a variable bitrate of high at 256 and low at 192.

Also, I'm still using EAC 0.9 beta 4 (I'm curious if it is worth upgrading to beta 5?).
 
Wedge

Wedge

1
Hi Duracell :)

I thought my absence had gone unnoticed. I'm discharged, but on parole :D

EDIT/ Whoa, I just saw that flashy badge you are wearing under your name. I promise I'll be nice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top