IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Final Settings Prior To Encoding Collection, [moved from CD Hardware/Software]
spoon
post Sep 12 2013, 15:11
Post #26


dBpowerAMP developer


Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 2741
Joined: 24-March 02
Member No.: 1615



There is also the [multi-encoder] encoder which allows to rip to any number of formats in a single go.


--------------------
Spoon http://www.dbpoweramp.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Sep 12 2013, 16:11
Post #27





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



QUOTE (spoon @ Sep 12 2013, 14:49) *
Here is a typical reply we give about its virtues:

http://forum.dbpoweramp.com/showthread.php...ll=1#post136096

QUOTE
Some people are sure they can hear a difference, others are sure they cannot. Lossless is lossless, that is all the modes decode to the exact same audio, however the difference is the amount of CPU time required for each, depending on player (such as modern PC) it could be very little cpu for both, or more significant for embedded players.

Some people think lots of things. A lot of them are wrong. I feel you give too much credence to the idea that anyone can hear a difference with losslessly compressed audio decoded by a computer thatís not hopelessly broken. Your choice of phrasing, perhaps unintentionally, is nonetheless open to people reading it to mean that CPU time consumed might induce differences in quality, something thatís false for all such computers. But maybe you donít want to state anything so conclusive about quality and thus alienate the particular proportion of your paying userbase who believe such myths.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Wombat
post Sep 12 2013, 16:31
Post #28





Group: Members
Posts: 977
Joined: 7-October 01
Member No.: 235



This is business. In that case it is good service for the ones that believe. This reminds me of people reporting endless sound changes with resamplers. I wonder how often Alexey Lukin lays laughing under the table when he reads reports about it.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
spoon
post Sep 12 2013, 16:38
Post #29


dBpowerAMP developer


Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 2741
Joined: 24-March 02
Member No.: 1615



I not talk about normal computers, rather networked based players, they might have SoC processors running at 200MHz, and if the CPU is involved pulling audio from a network link, or involved in pulling audio from USB, then most of the CPU time can be used by those tasks (I remember working on DSP shark CPUs where a 66MHz CPU would struggle to run USB at v1 speed, the high speed mode). The RF is measurable from a chip under different loads.

This is why I keep an open mind.

This post has been edited by spoon: Sep 12 2013, 16:40


--------------------
Spoon http://www.dbpoweramp.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
essentialjpm
post Sep 12 2013, 18:22
Post #30





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 12-July 13
Member No.: 109083



QUOTE (eahm @ Sep 11 2013, 22:06) *
FLAC -0 in uncompressed. Again, why won't you consider ALAC/AAC?


I don't have a good answer. I wasn't very familiar with uncompressed audio to begin with, FLAC just seems like the standard and is more widely accepted. Also, after googling the biggest benefit to ALAC seems to be it works in iTunes, otherwise they seem to be the same, which makes no real difference to me. FLAC seems to work almost everywhere else, where ALAC doesn't always. iTunes is bloatware for the most part, I only use it to sync my phone. The uncompressed files will never be on my portable devices, they are just for storage/backup, and listening on the desktop itself.

QUOTE (rick.hughes @ Sep 12 2013, 10:03) *
Don't rip twice. Just rip to lossless (FLAC or ALAC) and then batch encode those to lossy (MP3 or AAC).


Good call, this makes much more sense. Thanks.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Sep 12 2013, 18:31
Post #31





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



Please don't confuse uncompressed with lossless.

FLAC is lossless. In only fringe cases is it uncompressed.

FWIW I support you on your decision to use FLAC and MP3, though AAC (MP4/M4A) will likely get you the same quality in smaller files, though it is not as universally compatible as MP3, though support for AAC is becoming highly ubiquitous.

Regarding the setting in dBpoweramp, I don't begrudge spoon for making the option available for people who may wish to use it, regardless of their reasons for doing so.

This post has been edited by greynol: Sep 12 2013, 20:09


--------------------
YOUR EYES CANNOT HEAR!!!!!!!!!!!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JJZolx
post Sep 12 2013, 18:55
Post #32





Group: Members
Posts: 394
Joined: 26-November 04
Member No.: 18345



I also keep both FLAC and MP3 copies of everything. I rip to FLAC and then later transcode the files to MP3 copies, but if dbpoweramp can encode to multiple formats at the time you rip the CD, then this may be easier for you.

If you're ripping to FLAC and keeping MP3 versions primarily for portable devices, then you probably want to rethink the MP3 VBR quality level that you use. You may be able to go much lower than -V0, which will result in smaller files and enable you to put more music on portable devices with limited storage space. This is where doing some listening tests can be valuable. My guess is that you'd likely hear little or no difference at the -V3 or -V4 level, possibly lower.

And with a FLAC copy of every file, you're not married to the MP3 encoding quality level that you choose. If at a later date you decide that you'd like the whole thing at -V2 or -V5 or whatever, then you can just do a batch transcoding of the FLAC files and recreate the whole MP3 library.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Sep 12 2013, 18:59
Post #33





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



...or a lossy library in a different format (vorbis, opus, aac, etc.).


--------------------
YOUR EYES CANNOT HEAR!!!!!!!!!!!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
eahm
post Sep 12 2013, 19:22
Post #34





Group: Members
Posts: 1028
Joined: 11-February 12
Member No.: 97076



Please read here http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=844581 and the next post as well, I confused -0 with uncompressed. -0 IS NOT uncompressed, I was just stating that you can use FLAC in uncompressed mode, no need to though.

This post has been edited by eahm: Sep 12 2013, 19:23
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
phofman
post Sep 12 2013, 20:39
Post #35





Group: Members
Posts: 283
Joined: 14-February 12
Member No.: 97162



For those using linux e.g. on their NAS - the great mp3fs http://khenriks.github.io/mp3fs/#introduction provides always up-to-date version of your FLAC library in MP3, whenever you need it.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mach-X
post Sep 13 2013, 00:13
Post #36





Group: Members
Posts: 269
Joined: 29-July 12
From: Windsor, On, Ca
Member No.: 101859



I support the mp3 choice as well because if you decide you want to throw some files onto a device other than your idevice, you are guaranteed the files will play. You don't always have that guarantee with any other lossy codec. AAC doesn't play in a sansa clip, for example, with original firmware. I have a fairly large hard drive and a quad core cpu so I just export into every common format to suit my needs/devices. smile.gif

This post has been edited by Mach-X: Sep 13 2013, 00:14
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Alexey Lukin
post Sep 13 2013, 21:58
Post #37





Group: Members
Posts: 191
Joined: 31-July 08
Member No.: 56508



Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Wombat
post Sep 13 2013, 22:10
Post #38





Group: Members
Posts: 977
Joined: 7-October 01
Member No.: 235



WoW! 64bit! laugh.gif
I hope you didn't got me wrong but looking at that cool pic i don't think so.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mach-X
post Sep 14 2013, 04:43
Post #39





Group: Members
Posts: 269
Joined: 29-July 12
From: Windsor, On, Ca
Member No.: 101859



Correction for my "no such thing as uncompressed flac" statement, as I don't use dbpoweramp and this is sort of an undocumented feature. What it amounts to is a wave file with tags, which yes, could be useful in some fringe low powered embedded streaming device. But for your purpose, unless you are running a 486 as a streaming audio server, its a waste of space. No matter which flac setting you choose, the result will always be a lossless version of your source. What lossy encoding you choose for your devices depends on your device, storage space, and transparency threshold. For "set it and forget it" lames standard -V2 setting will give you transparent results, decent file size, and compatibility with a radio shack keychain player bought in the 90s. Once you have your flac backup you can always encode later for specialized purposes. For example, if you as are an idevice die hard, consider aac. If you switch to android, consider vorbis. If you have an old zune lying around, WMA pro is best. If you just want it "to work" its lame mp3 all the way.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
themanintheshado...
post Sep 14 2013, 05:28
Post #40





Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 31-October 12
Member No.: 104212



QUOTE (db1989 @ Jul 12 2013, 21:16) *
QUOTE (essentialjpm @ Jul 12 2013, 20:09) *
Also, it seems like LAME 3.98.4 is highly recommended, is there a different version I should be using?
You could start by not using a version thatís over 3 years old! Iím not aware of any good reason to use anything but the latest version, 3.99.5. I generally presume the developers know what theyíre doing and therefore that later versions are better. Otherwise they wouldnít release them.


LAME 3.99.5 is "better" than LAME 3.98.4? Really? Not when it comes to 128 kbps files. Their quality has taken a downgrade with the latest version. Until they fix the problem that's causing it, I, myself, am sticking with the previous verison. It's still the best, all around MP3 encoder, unlike the latest, "Yeah, but..." version.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mach-X
post Sep 14 2013, 05:35
Post #41





Group: Members
Posts: 269
Joined: 29-July 12
From: Windsor, On, Ca
Member No.: 101859



QUOTE (themanintheshadows_2451 @ Sep 14 2013, 00:28) *
QUOTE (db1989 @ Jul 12 2013, 21:16) *
QUOTE (essentialjpm @ Jul 12 2013, 20:09) *
Also, it seems like LAME 3.98.4 is highly recommended, is there a different version I should be using?
You could start by not using a version thatís over 3 years old! Iím not aware of any good reason to use anything but the latest version, 3.99.5. I generally presume the developers know what theyíre doing and therefore that later versions are better. Otherwise they wouldnít release them.


LAME 3.99.5 is "better" than LAME 3.98.4? Really? Not when it comes to 128 kbps files. Their quality has taken a downgrade with the latest version. Until they fix the problem that's causing it, I, myself, am sticking with the previous verison. It's still the best, all around MP3 encoder, unlike the latest, "Yeah, but..." version.

Do you have anything that backs up this claim?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JJZolx
post Sep 14 2013, 08:40
Post #42





Group: Members
Posts: 394
Joined: 26-November 04
Member No.: 18345



There may be more than just the following thread. It doesn't mention 128 kbps, specifically, but VBR at -V5, which gives bitrates in that ballpark.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=96681
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Sep 14 2013, 15:46
Post #43





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



FWIW, I chose not to upgrade to 3.99.5 because 3.98.4 works great for me at my chosen setting without the increase in file size.

Maybe my assumption is wrong and I'm sure it's a gross oversimplification at the very least, but this idea to bloat the bit rate "just in case" goes against the reason for lossy compression. If it meant that one could safely lower the quality value then that would be great. I wasn't given the impression that this was the case, so 3.98.4 it is.

If I should ever encounter a problematic track I will consider 3.99.5 or 3.100x and pick whichever one gives me acceptable results using the least number of bits.

This post has been edited by greynol: Sep 14 2013, 16:36


--------------------
YOUR EYES CANNOT HEAR!!!!!!!!!!!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
essentialjpm
post Sep 20 2013, 21:28
Post #44





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 12-July 13
Member No.: 109083



I've been happy with dbpoweramp, (v0 and FLAC encodes) however I'd like to do a few test encodes between the lame 3.99.5 that comes with dbpoweramp and lame 3.98.4, but I can't seem to find a 3.98.4 exe download.

Rarewares only lists a "LAME 3.98.4 for OSX 64 bits (Snow Leopard)" download. I've done some Google searches and found downloads (one even results with a thread from these forums but from a member with 9 posts) but nothing from what seems to be an official/reliable site. Can someone point me in the direction of a lame 3.98.4 final/stable download (exe - I believe this is what I need for dbpoweramp)?

Secondary question, in dbpoweramp, I know I need to replace the "lame.exe" in the "encoder/mp3 (Lame)" folder, but are there any other files that need changing (I'm also aware I'd need to manually change the "versions/compression/mp3 (Lame).txt" file to show 3.98.4 after I change.

Thanks.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
spoon
post Sep 20 2013, 21:36
Post #45


dBpowerAMP developer


Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 2741
Joined: 24-March 02
Member No.: 1615



If you install dBpoweramp R14.2 (archive.org looking at dbpoweramp.com from 2 years ago will give the link) you will be able to extract the lame.exe from that, nothing else is needed.


--------------------
Spoon http://www.dbpoweramp.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
essentialjpm
post Sep 21 2013, 02:29
Post #46





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 12-July 13
Member No.: 109083



QUOTE (spoon @ Sep 20 2013, 16:36) *
If you install dBpoweramp R14.2 (archive.org looking at dbpoweramp.com from 2 years ago will give the link) you will be able to extract the lame.exe from that, nothing else is needed.


Thank you!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd July 2014 - 03:00