IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

> Hydrogenaudio Forum Rules

- No Warez. This includes warez links, cracks and/or requests for help in getting illegal software or copyrighted music tracks!
- No Spamming or Trolling on the boards, this includes useless posts, trying to only increase post count or trying to deliberately create a flame war.
- No Hateful or Disrespectful posts. This includes: bashing, name-calling or insults directed at a board member.
- Click here for complete Hydrogenaudio Terms of Service

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
[TOS #8] From: New member questions about Ripping CD to MP3, From Topic ID: 89233
bsmooth
post Jun 24 2011, 17:38
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 20-June 11
Member No.: 91678



You'll have to excuse all my questions, but I'm just getting started using this program, and yes I did read the Tutorial suggested earlier. I'm not quite sure how to set to read in burst mode(EAC certainly has many options!) As far as the command line, it was more or less already there when I looked at the program for the first time. I actually wanted to set the bit rate at 256, because I thought a set rate would be better.My files come out at about 6 -12 MB per song.right now before I even rip anything to my hard drive I literally go in and set up a folder for the artist under which I have another folder for the particular album I'm ripping. I tried putting in commands in the command line before and I couldn't get it to recognize anything, and it wouldn't work. So at this point I was just happy it worked at all. The command line is very confusing to me, at least until I understand it better.
So is the variable rate or set rate better. Also since most of you suggested it, what is the best way to rip lossless rate, Flac or Wav or something else? I did try ripping a few WAV files and they were huge at 50-70 MB, at least compared to MP3's anyway.
Please don't get upset, but when I listen to the same files on the EAC player vs Media Player, everything on the EAC player sounds much better:crisper, better well defined bass, its a bit of a letdown trying to get it sounding the same with media player.
Btw I really like Jethro Tull, especially there earlier material, but even the remastered version of Stand UP sounds terrible. I looked at the file in Audacity and its really one dull lifeless waveform, with no highs or lows. What happened?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pdq
post Jun 24 2011, 18:22
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 3407
Joined: 1-September 05
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 24233



Don't rip to wav, you will lose all of your tags.

In theory a VBR encoding could have higher quality than 256 CBR because it can make use of 320 frames whenever needed, and it will probably be smaller than the 256 CBR file. In practice the CBR file also allows some variability, though not as much, so the difference is generally moot.

I would say that the only reason to use CBR where VBR would work for you, is if you are encoding to 320 CBR, which could theoretically be higher quality than VBR (note I said theoretically).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mixminus1
post Jun 24 2011, 18:30
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 688
Joined: 23-February 05
Member No.: 20097



QUOTE (bsmooth @ Jun 24 2011, 09:38) *
I'm not quite sure how to set to read in burst mode

F10, then select "Burst mode" down near the bottom of the window.

QUOTE
I actually wanted to set the bit rate at 256, because I thought a set rate would be better.

These days, it is extremely rare to find a media playback device/software that can't properly play VBR MP3s. About the only advantage CBR has is with seeking in very long files (>10 min. or so). There is no easy way to seek accurately in a VBR file, so most players just guesstimate when they need to jump to a specific location.

QUOTE
right now before I even rip anything to my hard drive I literally go in and set up a folder for the artist under which I have another folder for the particular album I'm ripping. I tried putting in commands in the command line before and I couldn't get it to recognize anything, and it wouldn't work.

The command line is for encoding options only - it has nothing to do with file naming. That happens in the dialog box posted by Maggi (F9 -> Filename tab).

All the naming options are listed, so you just type in how you want your file names and folder structure to be, with a \ wherever you want to create another folder (see the examples Maggi and I posted previously).

QUOTE
Also since most of you suggested it, what is the best way to rip lossless rate, Flac or Wav or something else?

FLAC is the most common recommendation for lossless encoding as it is very widely supported, although it can't be played back in iTunes or WMP without additional software.

It (along with most other lossless compression formats) has the distinct advantage over WAV of having a standardized, well-supported tagging format. WAVs can technically be tagged, but it's quite rare to find two pieces of software that agree on how it should be done...and, of course, FLAC file sizes are, on average, about half that of WAV.

QUOTE
Please don't get upset, but when I listen to the same files on the EAC player vs Media Player, everything on the EAC player sounds much better:crisper, better well defined bass, its a bit of a letdown trying to get it sounding the same with media player.

If that really is the case, then something is set wrong in WMP. It could be as simple as the volume being lower, or it could be that the EQ or one of the other various "enhancements" are activated. There should be no audible difference among any properly-functioning playback software on a PC.

QUOTE
Btw I really like Jethro Tull, especially there earlier material, but even the remastered version of Stand UP sounds terrible. I looked at the file in Audacity and its really one dull lifeless waveform, with no highs or lows. What happened?

Welcome to the world of remastering, more appropriately spelled "re-marketing". wink.gif Remastered versions of albums can sound better than previous releases, or they can sound worse - there's really no way to know until you buy it and listen to it, or hopefully, find some reviews on the Internet before you buy.


--------------------
"Not sure what the question is, but the answer is probably no."
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Jun 24 2011, 18:55
Post #4





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



QUOTE (bsmooth @ Jun 24 2011, 09:38) *
I looked at the file in Audacity and its really one dull lifeless waveform, with no highs or lows.

We listen with our ears, not with our eyes!


--------------------
I should publish a list of forum idiots.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

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: 21st September 2014 - 13:44