• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

What Music Encoder Do You Use?

S

StarWarsHater

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 21, 2002
Messages
152
I usually backup all my CD's to computer for easier playlists and that (I DO buy CD's here and there when money permits).

Anywho, I just got some more CD's and was wondering if I should stick to good old MP3 format (r3mix / extreme presets, kinda mixed) or another format like Ogg, FLAC, Monkey's, etc.

So, what do you use and why?
 
EAC, Lame. --alt-preset extreme
Reason: compatibility with my portable MP3 player
 
EAC, Lame. --alt-preset extreme
Reasons: can't tell a difference with higher mp3, works with iPod, smaller files to stream over network than WAVs
 
Same as the above two. Ive got a 40 gig iPod and I only put stuff on there I feel like hearing. The other 42 gigs of music stays on the comp.
 
if you want a back-up of the audio on your computer, use FLAC, its lossless, and still has good compression, compared to WAV files. But if you dont have a portable MP3 player, (or one that supports OGG), by all means, encode in ogg format. I still prefer to over LAME, and I do think it gives even more quality, for less bitrate then LAME. But oh well, MP3 still seems to be the powerhouse in lossy audio
 
I use Winamp pro's MP4 (ACC) encoder on the highest bitrate. Great sound, medium file size.
 
I use Vorbis (.ogg) Quality setting 5.0 (160 Kb/s true VBR) for my music CD's.

Reason: I like the sound/space ratio, and I truly have trouble telling the difference betwen the CD's and the encoded files(but only when played from the computer, I can tell the differnce when the CD's are played in my CD-player).

Anyways, just let your ears guide you - it's you who has to listen to it :)
 
Whatever encoder you use, you should be using Exact Audio Copy to extract. If you care about reliably excellent sound quality, it is without peer.
 
laz said:
if you want a back-up of the audio on your computer, use FLAC, its lossless, and still has good compression, compared to WAV files. But if you dont have a portable MP3 player, (or one that supports OGG), by all means, encode in ogg format. I still prefer to over LAME, and I do think it gives even more quality, for less bitrate then LAME. But oh well, MP3 still seems to be the powerhouse in lossy audio
Click to expand...

FLAC will net you some compression, but certainly don't pay attention to the info they present on their website about compression ratios. I've ripped 139 albums so far into FLAC, and only 2 of those have a compression ratio of less than 50% [NiN's "And All That Could Have Been (CD 2)" and the Hexen soundtrack]. On the other hand, I've got about 100 with a ratio over 66%, and eight above 75%.

Just be prepared, you'll fill up your HDD's fast =]

Edit: And yes, use EAC, it's the best.
 
Excellent. Thanks for all the info/replies.

Yes, I do use EAC for ripping.

Ya, 300MB for album in FLAC is kinda a bit much IMO (Leftfield - Rythmn and Stealth, WAV size = 534MB). Gonna try OGG in a bit (I don't have a portable music player, well rather one I don't really care too much about :p )
 
General consensus on most audio forums is that Vorbis is superior for low-bitrate encoding while LAME MP3 wins out at the higher bitrates. I use LAME APS for most of my albums -- APX for some that push the limits of MP3 compression -- and Monkey's Audio (.ape) for the few that I demand only the best quality for.
 
LAME APS definitely is a great route to go also. I went lossless, because I'll never have to re-rip a CD if I change my mind about things later. I've ripped some CD's up to four times now! [audiograbber/xing VBR, then LAME r3mix, then LAME 256kbit/320kbit, and now FLAC/Matroska single file-per-album] With lossless files, I can always transcode to something else, such as LAME APS if I want to burn an MP3CD for my portable MP3CD player. As you buy more audio equipment, or simply decide you want better rips, it pays off to rip the finest quality that you can get. On the other hand, if you are happy with the detritus that you can find on Kazaa, so be it =]

BO(V)BZ
 
Well I encode my music to flac format.

I use EAC + flac to do all my music ripping, sometimes I use Grip + Flac if I am on linux.

Nice thing about flac is I never have to worry about having to re-rip my cds to encode into another format. Since flac is lossless transcoding to another format does not introduce generation loss.

In fact I just wrote a simple perl script to trancode all my flac into mp3 format for my portable.

If in a few years a better lossless format comes along that has better compression, no worries just whip up a quick script.

With lossly formats transcoding is never a good thing.
 
m1abram said:
Well I encode my music to flac format.

I use EAC + flac to do all my music ripping, sometimes I use Grip + Flac if I am on linux.

Nice thing about flac is I never have to worry about having to re-rip my cds to encode into another format. Since flac is lossless transcoding to another format does not introduce generation loss.

In fact I just wrote a simple perl script to trancode all my flac into mp3 format for my portable.

If in a few years a better lossless format comes along that has better compression, no worries just whip up a quick script.

With lossly formats transcoding is never a good thing.
Click to expand...

True.dat

However, I wouldn't keep your hopes up for a better codec, as even the best today [LA] is only a couple percent better than FLAC and APE. There's only so much that you can do to squeeze things down.

Also, anyone w/ an Ipod can use foobar2000 to transcode Vorbis/FLAC/Ape on the fly during a sync command. That, and you can use foobar2k w/out installing any crappy Apple software. Loathe as I am to owning anything Apple, I think I'm going to get an Ipod because of this =]

Lastly, you can also use foobar to transcode things, which works really well, and doesn't require an additional program, or any real programming skills. All foobar needs to add is a good CD ripper, then it'll be able to do every last audio-related thing you could want.

BO(V)BZ
 
True about FLAC and transcoding, which is why I would like to do my music in FLAC, but hard drive space is limited. Any good comparisons/reviews out there?
 
StarWarsHater said:
True about FLAC and transcoding, which is why I would like to do my music in FLAC, but hard drive space is limited. Any good comparisons/reviews out there?
Click to expand...

Comparisons against what? If you go to www.hydrogenaudio.org , you can check out their tests for transparency with several different encoders. They routinely compare codecs over there, but mostly at low bitrates. In case you aren't familiar, the term 'transparency' refers to the point at which you can no longer differentiate between a lossy copy, like MP3, Ogg, etc, and the actual .wav or CD. FLAC, being lossless, is going to be always transparent, because you can ensure that if you want to convert it to a .wav file, you'll end up with the original, bit-perfect wave back, just like you started with.

Honestly, I'm not totally sure that I can hear a difference between a well-encoded MP3 and a lossless FLAC, despite the fact that I have some pretty nice equipment to listen to them with. However, HDD space is so cheap these days, it doesn't bother me to eat up 50GB for roughly 1200 lossless files.

If you want comparisons to different lossless codecs, look here:

http://flac.sourceforge.net/comparison.html

Note that the winning codec, LA, is symmetrical, meaning that if it takes you 30min to encode an album, it'll take you the same to decode it. The only two codecs that I'd bother even considering are FLAC and APE, but FLAC is the better choice due to actual hardware support in several new portable players, and devices like the Squeezebox and Roku Soundbridge.

Happy hunting...

BO(V)BZ
 
BO(V)BZ said:
True.dat

However, I wouldn't keep your hopes up for a better codec, as even the best today [LA] is only a couple percent better than FLAC and APE. There's only so much that you can do to squeeze things down.

Also, anyone w/ an Ipod can use foobar2000 to transcode Vorbis/FLAC/Ape on the fly during a sync command. That, and you can use foobar2k w/out installing any crappy Apple software. Loathe as I am to owning anything Apple, I think I'm going to get an Ipod because of this =]

Lastly, you can also use foobar to transcode things, which works really well, and doesn't require an additional program, or any real programming skills. All foobar needs to add is a good CD ripper, then it'll be able to do every last audio-related thing you could want.

BO(V)BZ
Click to expand...

Yeah I made the statement as a coverall, and you really do not know what is down the pipe in a few years. FLAC though is a very nice codec, mainly cause it is so light on the decoding HW.

As for using foobar, that is a great program for exactly what you say. However if you are a coder, making your own scripts to manage your collection is so nice. Mine goes beyond just transcoding to mp3, it bucketizes the files in to folders of no more than 4.7GB (for easy backup to DVD), then creates a sym link tree of an organization of GENRE->ARTIST->ALBUM. Course cause they are just sym links I also have GENRE->ALBUM order. If I want a different tree, boom rerun the script. I also grab the coverart from amazon in the script. So basically all this happens once the compress files are dropped in a directory by EAC or Grip. So simple ;)

Course foobar is a great program and I have played with.
 
GodsMadClown said:
Care to share your scripts with us?
Click to expand...

sure however they may not make much sense to most people and I really am not a support guy ;)

But I glady will post links that you can download them from in a little while when I can get to them.
edit:

Ok here are some links for you to get them:
http://www.thetank.org/scripts/GetFlacTag.pm
http://www.thetank.org/scripts/amazon-create
http://www.thetank.org/scripts/amazon-get-asin
http://www.thetank.org/scripts/amazon-get-cover
http://www.thetank.org/scripts/amazon-get-info-from-asin
http://www.thetank.org/scripts/mktree.pl
http://www.thetank.org/scripts/topod.pl
http://www.thetank.org/scripts/flac2mp3.pl

Ok the GetFlacTag.pm should go into your site_perl directory. The rest can go anywhere you want to execute them. They are all perl scripts and written and tested only on linux running Perl5. The amazon ones were actually written by a buddy of mine and I modified them a bit to work with FLAC, he only uses mp3.

The mktree and topod scripts I actually got the idea from a Linux mag article, started with the code they had but really did not like most of it and it did not work with flac again. So I modifed most of that myself.

You will most likely need to install various perl modules to use these, and I am not sure which ones you have. Check the includes to see which ones you need.

You can create a "master" script that takes all these scripts in chorus to make everything happen with a single command. this is what I did, works rather well. Note the mktree and topod scripts have many commanline options documented in the -h option.

Have fun let me know if the links above are broken, and I am not supportting any of the scripts ;)
 
Lossless is the undisputed king of quality, but in truth you're not going to hear any difference between a ~160-256 kbps lossy VBR file and a 900 bkps lossless one. That leaves two important issues: player support, and format support. If your portable can't play the files, or if the files are too big for it, you've got a problem. Likewise, if you encode something today, you should still be able to decode it 5-10 years from now; you can only do that with formats you know will be around that long.

For best compatibility, MP3 is king and LAME can produce reasonably transparent files around 200 kbps VBR.

For best performance, Musepack (MPC), Ogg Vorbis and AAC take center stage. At the moment, MPC and Ogg (with aoTuV) seem to be the best. However, MPC's future is questionable, and Ogg is still very much a developing codec.

AAC is promising, as it already provides better-than-mp3 sound quality, and may become a next-gen industry standard, guaranteeing a good lifespan.
 
DrT said:
Lossless is the undisputed king of quality, but in truth you're not going to hear any difference between a ~160-256 kbps lossy VBR file and a 900 bkps lossless one. That leaves two important issues: player support, and format support. If your portable can't play the files, or if the files are too big for it, you've got a problem. Likewise, if you encode something today, you should still be able to decode it 5-10 years from now; you can only do that with formats you know will be around that long.
Click to expand...

True you will not probably hear a difference between a good quality lossy encoding versus a lossless encoded file. But that is not the main point for going lossless as many of us have stated. The main reason is flexiblity. With your library in a lossless format you can make it any other format very easily without any added loss. This is not true for ANY lossy format, and you WILL be able to hear a difference in that output no matter how careful you are.

With lossless formats you do not need to worry if the codec is still being supportted in 5 years because if it is not then you can transcode it to the latest and greatest. And contrary to what you might think having things in lossless is the most compatible format since it is just a single command line away from ANY format.
 
Let's break this down. Here's my opinion:

Lots of HD space, Windows use: APE
Lots of HD space, multiplatform: FLAC
Less HD space, HQ, multiplatform: Vorbis
Less HD space, multiplatform, stupid users/old software: MP3 (LAME)

I use Vorbis q6 with lowpass set to 20kHz, personally.
 
Lossless is just a nice guarantee, IMO. All the various encoders hit 'problem samples' where it's easy to ABX a difference, but no lossless encoder will ever have that problem.

HDD space is so damn cheap these days, I hardly see how that's a factor for anybody no longer in grade school. Shit, I've got 2 spare 100GB drives sitting out cause I'm too lazy to even put them in my comp, to complement the other 4 already in there, along with the other 100GB disk in a USB2 enclosure. The last HDD I bought was a 120GB 8MB Cache 7200RPM Seagate for 70$, which isn't even a great deal these days.

Vorbis, I'm not too sold on. I want something that is universally compatible, which MP3 is. If you never plan on giving any of those to your non-techy friends, or playing them on a portable [I realize that some portables will play those, but it really limits your choices to try to find support for Ogg], then Vorbis would be fine.

BTW, what sort of average bitrate do you get w/ q6, anyways?
 
I have HD space too, but it's taken up by things other than music. As far as Vorbis support, Winamp has come with it from 2.7x if I remember correctly. I don't care about people that use WMP to play music (unless, say, it's not their computer and they CAN'T put Winamp on it)

Vorbis Q0: 64Kbps nominal, Q1: 80Kbps nominal, Q2: 96Kbps nominal, Q3: 112Kbps nominal, Q4: 128Kbps nominal, Q5: 160Kbps nominal, Q6: 192Kbps nominal, and so on
 
BO(V)BZ said:
Vorbis, I'm not too sold on. I want something that is universally compatible, which MP3 is. If you never plan on giving any of those to your non-techy friends, or playing them on a portable [I realize that some portables will play those, but it really limits your choices to try to find support for Ogg], then Vorbis would be fine.
Click to expand...

i'd agree with bo(V)bz... if you use mp3s, you have universal support. all of the cds that i rip on to my computer, i either own or burn a copy of if it's that important to me. (and most music is) so if i ever want to go to another format in the future, if there is ever a format that will make me want to do this so bad, i'll have to re-rip all of my cds. it'll take me a while, but it's not impossible. i ripped my earlier mp3s in >256Kbs, and now i rip in the higest quality VBR there is. even when i listen to my comptuer through my receiver, and then switch over to the same CD, i cannot tell the diffrence between the two. (and i _hate_ the sound of crappy mp3s). i'll deffinatly have to agree with Torquemada XP, and say that Easy CD-DA Extractor kicks butt. it's reasonlably fast on my 2.5GHz P4, and i can tweak the filenames any which-way i want. mp3s will always be around, IMO, or at least they will always be supported. maybe i'll go with something else better in the future, but for now i like the MP3 encoded with Easy CD-DA Extractor. of course this is an oppinion question, so you're always going to have people who like diffrient things. i guess it all just comes down to how much time you want to put into somehting, and how picky you are when you listen to your music.
 
DatHak512 said:
i'd agree with bo(V)bz... if you use mp3s, you have universal support. all of the cds that i rip on to my computer, i either own or burn a copy of if it's that important to me. (and most music is) so if i ever want to go to another format in the future, if there is ever a format that will make me want to do this so bad, i'll have to re-rip all of my cds. it'll take me a while, but it's not impossible. i ripped my earlier mp3s in >256Kbs, and now i rip in the higest quality VBR there is. even when i listen to my comptuer through my receiver, and then switch over to the same CD, i cannot tell the diffrence between the two. (and i _hate_ the sound of crappy mp3s). i'll deffinatly have to agree with Torquemada XP, and say that Easy CD-DA Extractor kicks butt. it's reasonlably fast on my 2.5GHz P4, and i can tweak the filenames any which-way i want. mp3s will always be around, IMO, or at least they will always be supported. maybe i'll go with something else better in the future, but for now i like the MP3 encoded with Easy CD-DA Extractor. of course this is an oppinion question, so you're always going to have people who like diffrient things. i guess it all just comes down to how much time you want to put into somehting, and how picky you are when you listen to your music.
Click to expand...


Heh..

If you want something you can tweak, go play with foobar2000! I've put in probably 3 hours getting the program to do the things I want, but it's totally worth it =] It's got features that no other audio program I've seen has, or any other three put together:

Global hotkeys [so I can start and stop my music by hitting whichever keys I want]
Tabbed playlists
automatic playlist generation [want to make a playlist of all songs played more than three times, were recorded in 1995, and are in the genre Industrial? No problem!]
built-in replaygain [so all songs have uniform volume]
resampler [if your card supports higher than 44.1Khz, why not use it?]
freeDB support [saves lots of time for naming poorly-tagged MP3z]
powerful renaming functions [better than any other renamer I've seen, even Tag&Rename, my previous fav]
Several interesting, and fully cutomizable 'looks' [foobar uses essentially a stripped-down programming language to create playlists, but it's not too hard to figure out]
Very fast searching through files [important when you have about 25000 songs]
Good memory usage [for me, with all 25000 files in the database, and 8 playlists, it takes up about 30MB]
Can play any file type, other than MIDI [I with it would play those tho:( ]

anyways, if you want the ultimate nerd-music-player, foobar2000 fits the bill.
 
I use CDex or EAC for ripping and I encode to FLAC & MPC. I transcode from FLAC to mp3 for portable use.

[if your card supports higher than 44.1Khz, why not use it?]
Click to expand...
Because it's largely worthless.

The resampling in foobar2000 is to help SoundBlaster owners circumvent the resampling their sound cards do by doing it first, and doing a better job of it.
Resampling to higher rates doesn't increase perceived "sound quality", only avoids issues with certain types of sound hardware
Click to expand...

Otherwise, upsampling is creating data points out of thin air which may or may not be somewhat accurate to the source tape but absolutely did not exist on the CD. If you like it, fine, but I prefer dithering + ATH noise shaping for adding "analogueyness". :)
 
Leukotriene,

I've seen that quote too over at HA.org . Can't say I've done any ABX'ing, but there might be a difference available, especially after some noise shaping.

Though I'm sure a lot of psychoacoustics come into play, some people like it, and for some, having a high-quality resampler built-in might be appreciated.
 
The quote is actually from the resampling option tab in foobar because that's what the developer wrote there ;) For some reason I doubt upsampling would be more obvious after dithering and noise shaping break up the "stair-step" shape of 44.1 sampled content, but I'm not theacoustician.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top