EAC, Cdex, and burnatonce question concerning mp3 --> wav
- Thread starter Wedge
- Start date
Wedge
1
well, I don't know if I'm making my question clear: For EAC and for burnatonce I downoaded LAME.exe for the mp3 encoding. Are there separate decoders to download in order to make them into wavs? Or does LAME.exe do the decoding to wav? I'm new to this so forgive me if I ask what seems to be a stupid question.
AFAIK, LAME includes a version of MPG123 for decoding, so anthing using LAME is actually using that!
h**p://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~djmrob/mp3decoders/objective.html
This is not being maintained or updated, so may show a degree of link rot, but is one of the best comparisons.
h**p://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~djmrob/mp3decoders/overall.html
Another part, showing extreme capabilities - though dropping ONE sample will fail the "complete file" test - and a few do have a tendency to lose the tiniest pice from head or tail.
MAD is a 24 bit decoder, that can dither to 16 bit, where 16 bit decoders must round up or down.
h**p://winlame.sourceforge.net/
Is a convenient way to use MAD
h**p://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~djmrob/mp3decoders/objective.html
This is not being maintained or updated, so may show a degree of link rot, but is one of the best comparisons.
h**p://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~djmrob/mp3decoders/overall.html
Another part, showing extreme capabilities - though dropping ONE sample will fail the "complete file" test - and a few do have a tendency to lose the tiniest pice from head or tail.
MAD is a 24 bit decoder, that can dither to 16 bit, where 16 bit decoders must round up or down.
h**p://winlame.sourceforge.net/
Is a convenient way to use MAD
Well, in that review, it scores 6'es - with 1 bit variance from the reference (FraunHofer)
h**p://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~djmrob/mp3decoders/decoders_lame.html
Pretty good, and it seems that all the programs you specify may be using it, either as command line (EXE) or DLL version.
It's possible that one may be using the Windows Fraunhofer codec, but they basically differ only in 1 bit for variances in rounding - and alternative compiles of LAME can be found which also vary in rounding.
The bad ones are REALLY BAD - with significant vices ... but there's not much to choose between the others.
h**p://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~djmrob/mp3decoders/decoders_lame.html
Pretty good, and it seems that all the programs you specify may be using it, either as command line (EXE) or DLL version.
It's possible that one may be using the Windows Fraunhofer codec, but they basically differ only in 1 bit for variances in rounding - and alternative compiles of LAME can be found which also vary in rounding.
The bad ones are REALLY BAD - with significant vices ... but there's not much to choose between the others.
noman68
1
yup...
CDex: user input.. lame.. or mad..
EAC: think it`s using fhg by default.. but can be changed to
lame..
(personaly.. i think CDex are better than EAC...
the EAC rules coz. of the c2 correction...
but the standalone c2/Deglitch.exe..
are better than the one buildt in EAC..)
BurnatOnce: 0.82 had the lame.. as input mp3dec..
but when 0.83.. hits the streets.. the mp3dec..
is changed to mad..+++++ lot`s of other goodies..
>why< lame is superior to any mp3 encoder...
so.. when it comes to decoding.. mad do the same
on "ordenary stuff".. but is better on "trouble tracks"
as they both are based on the mpg123lib..
"all audio prosessors should bee able to do an reversing
of the prosess.. they are built for..
so the main diffrence.. is that lame is built for encoding..
and the mad for decoding.."
go here for info. on BAO:
h**p://www.perdedor.net/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=8&t=45&hl=
Wedge said:
CDex: user input.. lame.. or mad..
EAC: think it`s using fhg by default.. but can be changed to
lame..
(personaly.. i think CDex are better than EAC...
the EAC rules coz. of the c2 correction...
but the standalone c2/Deglitch.exe..
are better than the one buildt in EAC..)
BurnatOnce: 0.82 had the lame.. as input mp3dec..
but when 0.83.. hits the streets.. the mp3dec..
is changed to mad..+++++ lot`s of other goodies..
>why< lame is superior to any mp3 encoder...
so.. when it comes to decoding.. mad do the same
on "ordenary stuff".. but is better on "trouble tracks"
as they both are based on the mpg123lib..
"all audio prosessors should bee able to do an reversing
of the prosess.. they are built for..
so the main diffrence.. is that lame is built for encoding..
and the mad for decoding.."
go here for info. on BAO:
h**p://www.perdedor.net/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=8&t=45&hl=
Last edited:
Wedge
1
Re: Re: EAC, Cdex, and burnatonce question concerning mp3 --> wav
Also, are you saying that the C2 correction in EAC is an advantage that CDex doesn't have?
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here noman. Are you saying that you think CDex is a better decoder than EAC? The standalone c2/Deglitch.exe is in CDex and is better than the one in EAC?noman68 said:
Also, are you saying that the C2 correction in EAC is an advantage that CDex doesn't have?
I have a small *.vbs file, which uses the lame engine to decode mp3s to wav. simply put it somewhere on your harddisc, open it with a text editor, edit the path to lame.exe, put a link to the file into the sendto folder. now everytime you want to decode an mp3 file, rightclick on it and sent it to the vbs file. the vbs file will contact lame and lame will decode it and put the wav file into the same directory. very comfortable.
but: one serious problem remains: if an mp3 file is corrupted, many decoders have problems with decoding. e.g., I downloaded an audio book which consisted of 29 mp3 files. I don't know, who encoded them, but they were in really bad shape: some of them couldn't be even played, and most of the programmes, incl. the lame.exe couldn't decode them. I managed to decode most of them using sound forge 6. but even sound forge failed with some of them. then I went to the web and searched for some other converters. I found acoustica mp3 decoder, which successfully decoded those mp3 files, which sound forge, winlame, lame, razor lame and realjuke box 2 failed to decode. so you see, there's no perfect solution. you have to have several programmes, and try all of them, because if an mp3 file wasn't encoded properly, most decoders will have a problem with them
but: one serious problem remains: if an mp3 file is corrupted, many decoders have problems with decoding. e.g., I downloaded an audio book which consisted of 29 mp3 files. I don't know, who encoded them, but they were in really bad shape: some of them couldn't be even played, and most of the programmes, incl. the lame.exe couldn't decode them. I managed to decode most of them using sound forge 6. but even sound forge failed with some of them. then I went to the web and searched for some other converters. I found acoustica mp3 decoder, which successfully decoded those mp3 files, which sound forge, winlame, lame, razor lame and realjuke box 2 failed to decode. so you see, there's no perfect solution. you have to have several programmes, and try all of them, because if an mp3 file wasn't encoded properly, most decoders will have a problem with them
noman68
1
Re: Re: Re: EAC, Cdex, and burnatonce question concerning mp3 --> wav
yup...
a. CDex are just a ripper... EAC is a combined ripper and burner..
b. Deglitch.. is a commandline utility.. to do error correction.(c2)
c. in the ripping departement:
most ppl. consider EAC to be the best option.. mainly coz.
of the error correction.(c2) a other feature is the read and write
of offset..
but then.. CDex do also r/w offset.. but uses a different aproach..
it have no c2 function.. (as of now..)
D. i prefer CDex.. as a ripper. it have a better engine for ripping.
are easyer to set upp.. to get a perfect resoult..
have better syncronisation with decoder plugins.
and then i ex. use deglitch.. afterwards
to correct.. the standalone c2.. util. is better than the one
you find in EAC.. works much in depth.. and uses less memory..
hope this makes it a bit clearer..
yup...
Wedge said:
a. CDex are just a ripper... EAC is a combined ripper and burner..
b. Deglitch.. is a commandline utility.. to do error correction.(c2)
c. in the ripping departement:
most ppl. consider EAC to be the best option.. mainly coz.
of the error correction.(c2) a other feature is the read and write
of offset..
but then.. CDex do also r/w offset.. but uses a different aproach..
it have no c2 function.. (as of now..)
D. i prefer CDex.. as a ripper. it have a better engine for ripping.
are easyer to set upp.. to get a perfect resoult..
have better syncronisation with decoder plugins.
and then i ex. use deglitch.. afterwards
to correct.. the standalone c2.. util. is better than the one
you find in EAC.. works much in depth.. and uses less memory..
hope this makes it a bit clearer..
Wedge
1
Thanks nomam, much clearer.
In your opinion, why do you think CDex is better at ripping than EAC?
I have used both and I like both, thus far.
I am undecided about which one I like the most. Last night I had a scratched Bush cd that CDex ripped quite well but I did catch a glitch in a song (and there may be more, haven't listened to all ripped songs yet). Then I tried ripping the same cd using EAC and I had to abort because it was taking way too long due to all the re-reading of scratched tracks; whereas CDex ripped in good time, but with (at least one) glitch or "pop".
Then I tried to de-glitch the track using EAC's wav editor but it was unable to fix it. This kind of makes me think that EAC's wav editor is a bit under par.
So, based off this limited info, I am thinking that maybe EAC would have delivered an almost glitch-free rip if I had enough patience to let it run for quite a while. Then on the other hand, CDex ripped in normal time but might need an external de-glitcher, just like you said. Thanks for mentioning Deglitch as I think I will give it a try.
In your opinion, why do you think CDex is better at ripping than EAC?
I have used both and I like both, thus far.
I am undecided about which one I like the most. Last night I had a scratched Bush cd that CDex ripped quite well but I did catch a glitch in a song (and there may be more, haven't listened to all ripped songs yet). Then I tried ripping the same cd using EAC and I had to abort because it was taking way too long due to all the re-reading of scratched tracks; whereas CDex ripped in good time, but with (at least one) glitch or "pop".
Then I tried to de-glitch the track using EAC's wav editor but it was unable to fix it. This kind of makes me think that EAC's wav editor is a bit under par.
So, based off this limited info, I am thinking that maybe EAC would have delivered an almost glitch-free rip if I had enough patience to let it run for quite a while. Then on the other hand, CDex ripped in normal time but might need an external de-glitcher, just like you said. Thanks for mentioning Deglitch as I think I will give it a try.
Last edited:
