Need Help Ripping and Encoding

C

Congee

1
Hi Folks,

Finally got myself a new computer after two years and I want to turn my entire CD collection into MP3's. I did some ripping and encoding two years ago using AudioCatalyst and it was awesome. Quality was great and song titles were downloaded from CDDB database off the Internet.

Is there anything better out there now and easy to use? I would like my encoding to be as simple as possible while also retaining the high quality encoding. what does everybody encode at? 128 or 192 bitrate? What's the suggested? Can you really hear any difference?

Thanks for you inputs.

Also, I currently use winamp to play MP3's but if I'm going to be encoding thousands of MP3's, I need something to manage and play it. Any suggestions as well? TIA.
 
P

poboz

1
I like to use either EAC, Cdex, or Ezcdda Extractor for ripping. I like to use Ezcdda Extractor's File Converter for encoding. It uses the latest Lame codec (3.91).

A few years ago, I only encoded at 128 to save space, but now I strictly go for 192. Not too big, but excellent quality. I also do not like to use VBR...it is ok...but I like to use Constant instead of Variable...just my preference.

I enjoy Sonique v1.95, but Winamp is a much more simple player and you can slide the progress bar to wherever you want in each song during editing.

Make sure when you are ripping, that you normalize all the tracks first or as they are ripping so that you have the volume just right.

Make sure your CD drive is a fairly fast one and not really old and almost worn out. Old drives tend to cause some problems if they are worn out or dirty.

If some of your CD's are scratched up really bad, you might not be able to rip all the songs from every CD. Most good rippers will skip that track once this happens and continue. They used to just abort the whole session.

Good luck.

For converting the mp3's back to Wav (Decoding), I prefer to use Acoustica's mp3towave program. Works great for large batch's.
 
zver

zver

1
For encoding i would go with Roadworker idea,but for normalizing be with carefull,unless you know what you are doing.Better go with mymp3pro which will scan all songs,and giveit same volume,its a great jubox too!!!:)
 
C

Congee

1
Thanks for your inputs. I decided to go for EAC and LAME but having a problem finding the latest version of LAME. Can someone point me to where I can find it?

Also, when I encode, does it create the ID3V2 tags for me?

What other MP3 file management softwares do people recommend? I plan on having about 40 or 50 gigs worth of MP3's and I need a easy way to manage all of them while still being able to play them at high quality.
 
zver

zver

1
Go with mymp3pro---will do everything you need and more--from organizing,ripping,encoding--use lame too,normalizing the volume,editing mp3................................Thereis no better at this time,NO MATTER WHAT PEOPLE saying--There is NO allternative!!!
 
zver

zver

1
Np bud,if you have ftp app(something likesmart ftp,or cuteftp pro or not.....) you can get it wright now.This is a procedure;Its a private ftp,just download that and erase the address.First extract all files,run setup...As soon is setup finished,run update file mymp3_30exe update it,and reboot...First thing when you open it disable cddb(thats what i did---always when i queryed cds,couldnt started it again(ripper part--do not know,maybe its something wrong on my pc too,for me thats not biggy since i use eac anyway:) )Anyway,if you want it,pm me and will give you adress:)
 
G

Grey

1
LAME is an excellet choice for the encoder. AudioCatalyst uses the Xing encoder which is the worst of all that are available. The www.r3mix.net (not .com) link that somebody else posted has all of the details on that subject.

If you liked AudioCatalyst, then try AudioGrabber. It's pretty much the same thing, but you can choose which encoder you'd like to use with it.

If you have the disk space, encode your files at 320kbps. I have about 1,500 mp3s on my drive and they take up about 15GB of space. When file-size isn't an issue, I say go with the best sound quality possible. There IS a noticable difference between the different bitrates.


Grey
 
zver

zver

1
There IS a noticable difference

Depends on ears too;I encode my on 224,cutting all above 17khz,and cant hear difference:) :) :cool: ;)
 
G

Grey

1
Re: There IS a noticable difference

zver said:
Depends on ears too
Click to expand...
I agree. It also depends on the type of music you're encoding. Softer music can be encoded at lower bitrates without a real noticable difference in quality.

I prefer hard rock, and I often listen with headphones. That's why I go with 320kbps.


Grey
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top