EAC/LAME - what settings are you using? (1 Viewer)

[Holadem]

Hi,

I am new to this whole ripping/encoding business, and do not wish to spend hours fine-tunning and finding the best possible settings, when this package has been used for years and there is probably some optimal settings floating around.

Surely, most users must adhere to some kind of standard?

Thanks.

--
H

 

[Linda Thompson]

http://users.pandora.be/satcp/tutorials.htm

More than you EVER wanted to know...

 

[Holadem]

That's the problem Linda . The purpose of this thread is to avoid reinvinting the wheel and all the pain involved. Getting bogged down in computer matters just isn't as fun as it used to be.

Thanks for the link.

--
H

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Holadem,

I use the standards developed by the fine folks at www.ubernet.org .

Here is the UberStandard in detail.

Here is the UberGuide with pre-made CFG files, which saves you the trouble of making all the necessary settings manually.

I have been pleased with the results (have done all my rips in the last 2 years to these standards) and have no reason to change.

I hope this helps!!!

 

[Scott Merryfield]

I have not tried them yet, but newer versions of LAME support simplified switches. You can find more information here. The old switch settings still work -- at least with version 3.96 that I am using.

 

[Peter Kim]

I'm still using the setup as detailed by Chris Myden at BestMP3Guide.com .

As far as the compression settings are concerned, I started out with "--alt-preset extreme" and moved to "--alt-preset insane" once I upgraded to my 60 gb iPod video. Figured I have enough space to indulge in any fledgling audiophile aspirations.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Just for reference, here are the switch settings I'm using for 192K vbr encoding via LAME 3.96:

--alt-preset standard --add-id3v2 --pad-id3v2 --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" %s %d

I copied them from one of the sites referenced in this thread, but I cannot remember which one (it's been over a year).

 

[Holadem]

Thanks folk, that is EXACTLY what I was looking for.

I used the Uberguide as well, --alt-preset-standard. But I am now wondering if --alt-preset-extreme isn't better, so I am encoding the latest CD with that .

Size is less of a concern to me than battery life - higer bitrates are more power consuming, correct?

--
H

 

[Holadem]

Hi, tis me again

This is my first time encoding my own mp3, and I frankly didn't know they could sound so good. Thanks for the suggestions .

Is the stuff acquired through legit means like iTunes and Napster, of comparable quality?

--
H

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Anything downloaded from the iTunes music store (aka iTMS) will be encoded at 128K AAC. Whether that sounds as good as a higher encoded MP3 file will depend on your playback system and ears. Personally, I find the items I've downloaded from iTMS to sound rather flat and dull in comparison to CD's I've encoded myself via EAC w/ LAME. I found the same thing when I tried encoding my own CD's via iTunes at 128K AAC, too. I've only downloaded about 25 of the "free weekly downloads" from iTMS -- I prefer to have original CD's and DVD's so I can control the quality myself.

I've never used Napster, so I cannot offer any comparisons there.

FYI, I'm listening on an iPod with upgraded Shure E3C earphones.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

This thread motivated me to try out LAME version 3.97 (I was using 3.96) along with the newer switch settings. I used the following:

-V 1 --vbr-new --add-id3v2 --pad-id3v2 --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" %s %d

Even with the bitrate set to 192K within EAC, I still got bitrates of around 224K, so the new LAME parameters seem to override any bitrate setting. Also, the newer settings improved encoding time dramatically -- probably by half or more. Since EAC is pretty slow in ripping CD's, though, this will not improve overall CD -> MP3 conversion time.

 

[Holadem]

Yeah, EAC certainly is slow, it takes on average 15-20 minutes for a CD without error.

Also, it chocked on 2 CDs out of 5, so I am a bit worried there. Well, 2 tracks on 2 CD actually that it was unable to rip. CDs in question are a couple of years old with minimal scratches, if any. Weird.

--
H

 

[Jamie.G]

What about Flac? With flac settings don't really matter because the end result is always the same.

 

[Holadem]

Are there any legit sites that sell WAV files?

--
H

 

[Scott Merryfield]

While I have not gone looking for any, I do know that you could buy a FLAC (or some other lossless compression format) version of Sarah McLachlan's "Afterglow Live" concert via her website.

 

[Peter Kim]

I believe I can distinguish between 128 kbps encoded mp3 vs. 196 + kbps. However, any improvement from 196 to higher is lost on me.

Are there those who believe they can differentiate between 196 + kbps and lossless? Additionally, when left uncompressed, wouldn't the subsequent file size be enormous?

As a result, would the lossless file exceed 25 mbs (or the size of iPod's buffer) and result in a greater propensity for skipping?

Hence, to me it seems not only that lossless is overkill to the human ear, but also becomes more unstable based on the limitation of the iPod.