Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Audio Grabber vs EAC vs Command line (Read 6011 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Audio Grabber vs EAC vs Command line

Now that LAME 3.97B is released, I will start converting some 1,000+  CDs to MP3.  For optimum quality [with no concern for file size], I will rip and encode all tracks at 320 CBR STEREO. My plan is to use Audiograbber.

- Will EAC or command line options produce better quality MP3s at 320 CBR than Audiograbber?

JB

Audio Grabber vs EAC vs Command line

Reply #1 –
Quote
Now that LAME 3.97B is released, I will start converting some 1,000+  CDs to MP3.  For optimum quality [with no concern for file size], I will rip and encode all tracks at 320 CBR STEREO. My plan is to use Audiograbber.

- Will EAC or command line options produce better quality MP3s at 320 CBR than Audiograbber?

JB
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=327654"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


You should review the recommended settings threads. Your settings go against
the purpose for using mp3 & LAME. (ie.. Joint Stereo over Stereo, VBR over CBR)
Otherwise why not encode to lossless?

The difference between Audiograbber and EAC is not in the encoding
(if using the same one) but in the quality/accuracy of the rip that it will encode.

Audio Grabber vs EAC vs Command line

Reply #2 –
Quote
You should review the recommended settings threads. Your settings go against
the purpose for using mp3 & LAME. (ie.. Joint Stereo over Stereo, VBR over CBR)
Otherwise why not encode to lossless?

The difference between Audiograbber and EAC is not in the encoding
(if using the same one) but in the quality/accuracy of the rip that it will encode.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=327655"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I read those threads and concluded that 320 CBR is what I need for my application. 

- I tried DUAL [edit] Stereo. It sounds like "wide stereo" and not like the original recording.  Should this be?

- I don't understand lossless. Can lossles file be played in a MP3 player?

- Where can I get info on lossless encoding?


I know the policy is to read and search the threads, but most times the answers are hard to locate.
JB

Audio Grabber vs EAC vs Command line

Reply #3 –
Quote
- I tried Joint Stereo. It sounds like "wide stereo" and not like the original recording.  Should this be?

Many, many, many tests and theory as well, prove you wrong on this.
If u don't want to be flamed and reminded of TOS#8 of this community, you'll have to provide evidence of such kind of statements...

Quote
- I don't understand lossless. Can lossles file be played in a MP3 player?
- Where can I get info on lossless encoding?

If you're going to rip 1500 CDs, do yourself and favour and understand what lossless is all about before starting. Take a look here, to start.

Personally I found my ripping Holy Graal in EAC+WavePack.

Keep in mind that you can always encode from lossless (say WavPack) to lossy (say MP3, LAME). And when a new, better lossy encoder appears, you can quickly re-encode with that new encoder/format for your portable player.

Quote
I know the policy is to read and search the threads, but most times the answers are hard to locate.

Quite a good policy!   
By searching, you'll reduce this forum clutter and, most important, you'll learn a lot of interesting things!

Cheers!
Sergio
M-Audio Delta AP + Revox B150 + (JBL 4301B | Sennheiser Amperior | Sennheiser HD598)

Audio Grabber vs EAC vs Command line

Reply #4 –
Quote
Quote
- I tried Joint Stereo. It sounds like "wide stereo" and not like the original recording.  Should this be?

Many, many, many tests and theory as well, prove you wrong on this.
If u don't want to be flamed and reminded of TOS#8 of this community, you'll have to provide evidence of such kind of statements...


I stand corrected. I was thinking about DUAL stereo.

Audio Grabber vs EAC vs Command line

Reply #5 –
Quote
I read those threads and concluded that 320 CBR is what I need for my application.
Would you care to share your reasoning?

Quote
- I tried Joint Stereo. It sounds like "wide stereo" and not like the original recording.  Should this be?
You are probably fooling yourself with placebo effect. Have you tried to identify the difference between stereo and joint stereo in a blind test?

Joint stereo is probably the best tested and most reliable part of Lame. The math that makes it work is lossless -- you don't (can't) lose any stereo information. When Lame detects a section of audio that would not work well with joint stereo it automatically switches to regular stereo for that portion.

Quote
- I don't understand lossless. Can lossles file be played in a MP3 player?
Sometimes, but not often. The Rio Karma can play FLAC lossless natively. The iRiver H120 / H140 players can play FLAC when using the Rockbox OS firmware. Both of those players are discontinued.

If you're going for portable use, mp3 is probably best.

Quote
- Where can I get info on lossless encoding?
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lossless

Quote
I know the policy is to read and search the threads, but most times the answers are hard to locate.
JB

The HA wiki collects a lot of the most important information. You can find a lot of the frequent questions and the reasoning behind the answers there.

Audio Grabber vs EAC vs Command line

Reply #6 –
Quote
Quote
I read those threads and concluded that 320 CBR is what I need for my application.
Would you care to share your reasoning?

Quote
- I tried Joint Stereo. It sounds like "wide stereo" and not like the original recording.  Should this be?
You are probably fooling yourself with placebo effect. Have you tried to identify the difference between stereo and joint stereo in a blind test?

Joint stereo is probably the best tested and most reliable part of Lame. The math that makes it work is lossless -- you don't (can't) lose any stereo information. When Lame detects a section of audio that would not work well with joint stereo it automatically switches to regular stereo for that portion.


File size is NOT an important factor; however, quality can not be compromised. 320 CBR is the BEST quality MP3 lame produce.  I encoded a 6-minute song using CBR and VBR. The 320 CBR file is 14.3M and the 320 VBR file is 11.0M. There is not enough difference for concern.  I'd continue to use 320 CBR even if the VBR file size was half that of the CBR.

I stated in my previous post that I meant to write DUAL STEREO instead of JOINT STEREO.  IMO it is the DUAL DTEREO option that has the spacial effect.  I'll contnue to use STEREO mode so that no switching is required.

Audio Grabber vs EAC vs Command line

Reply #7 –
Quote
I stated in my previous post that I meant to write DUAL STEREO instead of JOINT STEREO.  IMO it is the DUAL DTEREO option that has the spacial effect.  I'll contnue to use STEREO mode so that no switching is required.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=327690"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


If quality can't be compromised (as you said) you must use not CBR 320 but preset 'insane' which uses JOINT STEREO. If you are not lucky with JOINT STEREO you MUST provide examples where joint stereo makes flaws. Otherwise you are violating TOS #8 and setting bad example for newbies.
Ogg Vorbis for music and speech [q-2.0 - q6.0]
FLAC for recordings to be edited
Speex for speech

Audio Grabber vs EAC vs Command line

Reply #8 –
I am beginning to think that this issue will never be settled in mp3. I've downloaded yet another stereo album:

lame_version = LAME3.93
lame_profile =
lame_profile_index = 0
enc_delay = 576
enc_padding = 1452
mp3_accurate_length = yes
bitrate = 192
codec = MP3
channels = 2
samplerate = 44100
mp3_stereo_mode = stereo

The best part is the comment field:

192KB/s True Stereo {AR}

Audio Grabber vs EAC vs Command line

Reply #9 –
This thread should be closed, and OP warned for trolling, TOS#8 violation and posting redundant threads.

jbrown003 clearly hasn't done ANY research, hasn't got the foggiest understanding of how MP3 and J/S in particular works, and further more seems reluctant to follow advice given to him.

Audio Grabber vs EAC vs Command line

Reply #10 –
Quote
This thread should be closed, and OP warned for trolling, TOS#8 violation and posting redundant threads.

jbrown003 clearly hasn't done ANY research, hasn't got the foggiest understanding of how MP3 and J/S in particular works, and further more seems reluctant to follow advice given to him.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=327721"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I can understand when:people are registering to this forum, they are bored to read the full bunch of rules. But I think any person registering in HA.org MUST be forced to read TOS #8 separately and sign it. And there must be notion that this forum is organized by one of the participants of LAME project and others are here too. May be this will stop some men from posting such stubborn posts and replies.
Ogg Vorbis for music and speech [q-2.0 - q6.0]
FLAC for recordings to be edited
Speex for speech

Audio Grabber vs EAC vs Command line

Reply #11 –
Quote
Quote
This thread should be closed, and OP warned for trolling, TOS#8 violation and posting redundant threads.

jbrown003 clearly hasn't done ANY research, hasn't got the foggiest understanding of how MP3 and J/S in particular works, and further more seems reluctant to follow advice given to him.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=327721"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I understand when people are registering to this forum, they are bored to read the full bunch of rules. But I think any person registering in HA.org MUST be forced to read TOS #8 separately and sign it. And there must be notion that this forum is organized by one of the participants of LAME projects and others are here too. May be this will stop some people from posting such stubborn posts and replies.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=327727"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I know what TOS #8 is as I've seen it quoted a few times, but (pardon my ignorance), where's the official thread with it please?
WavPack 5.8.1 -b384hx6cmv / qaac64 2.84 -V 100

Audio Grabber vs EAC vs Command line

Reply #12 –
Terms of Service (just below HA logo at top of page)
I'm on a horse.

Audio Grabber vs EAC vs Command line

Reply #13 –
Quote
Terms of Service (just below HA logo at top of page)
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=327756"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ops... ... that's why I couldn't spot it... Thanks.
WavPack 5.8.1 -b384hx6cmv / qaac64 2.84 -V 100

Audio Grabber vs EAC vs Command line

Reply #14 –
Quote
This thread should be closed, and OP warned for trolling, TOS#8 violation and posting redundant threads.

jbrown003 clearly hasn't done ANY research, hasn't got the foggiest understanding of how MP3 and J/S in particular works, and further more seems reluctant to follow advice given to him.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=327721"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


You obviously aren't a reader yourself.  I edited my post and corrected my statement to read "DUAL" stereo vs joint stereo long before your post. 

Have a good day.

Audio Grabber vs EAC vs Command line

Reply #15 –
Quote
You obviously aren't a reader yourself.  I edited my post and corrected my statement to read "DUAL" stereo vs joint stereo long before your post.[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

People aren't supposed to check the posts for edits all the time. You would have been better off adding a new post altogether, to make sure people would read it.

As for the "dual channels" mode in LAME: according to the [a href="http://lame.sourceforge.net/doc/html/switchs.html#m]documentation[/url]:
Quote
In this mode, the 2 channels will be totally indenpendently encoded. Each channel will have exactly half of the bitrate. This mode is designed for applications like dual languages encoding (ex: English in one channel and French in the other). Using this encoding mode for regular stereo files will result in a lower quality encoding.

So it has obviously nothing to do with pseudo-surround processing or whatever.

Still according to the documentation:
Quote
--preset insane: This preset will usually be overkill for most people and most situations, but if you must have the absolute highest quality with no regard to filesize, this is the way to go. This preset is the highest preset quality available.

So that's what you want to use. For your information, it uses joint stereo.

Of course since you said disk space isn't an issue, I'd definitely go lossless...

Audio Grabber vs EAC vs Command line

Reply #16 –
Quote
...People aren't supposed to check the posts for edits all the time. You would have been better off adding a new post altogether, to make sure people would read it...So it has obviously nothing to do with pseudo-surround processing or whatever...So that's what you want to use. For your information, it uses joint stereo...Of course since you said disk space isn't an issue, I'd definitely go lossless...


- Chearleaders. Gotta' luv 'em.   

- I'll definately go with MP3 for now. I have much RESEARCH to do on lossless
before switching formats. And besides...LAME rocks!