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: Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ? (Read 51155 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #75 –
Quote
Monkey's Audio is somewhat slow on decoding, not very pleasant when seeking or decoding on <2GHz CPU. I use WavPack 4.2 -hx3, which is rather good at decoding and still has good compression ratio campared to FLAC.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


False.
See [a href="http://web.inter.nl.net/users/hvdh/lossless/lossless.htm]here[/url].
I have a 1.53GHz AMD CPU and it seeks almost instantly.
Regarding decoding, Monkey's extra high is slower than Wavpack 4.2 (the command line version at least, because foobar's wavpack plugin is similar speedwise), but it encodes faster than wavpack at -hx3.

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #76 –
Quote
If you used FLAC you would need FLAC, LAME, EAC and FlacAttack to create your lossless (FLAC) archive and lossy (MP3) files.

You use EAC to rip from CD. EAC calls FlacAttack. FlacAttack calls FLAC and LAME.

EAC > FlackAttack > FLAC + LAME

Some alternatives are:

EAC > WACK > Monkey's Audio + LAME
EAC > WACK > WavPack + LAME
EAC > MAREO > Monkey's Audio + LAME
EAC > MAREO > WavPack + LAME

ponchorage has generously provided this in WACK - utilising the knowledge he gained by developing and maintaining FlackAttack to create a more universal tool, that will work (in essence) with any codec, in both image and track format simultaneously.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=302827"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


ok so based on all this great feedback I should use EAC with WACK (since it is more flexible) and LAME 3.96.1 (since it understands --ignore-tag-errors).

Now would you recomend Monkey's Audio or Wav Pack.

The reason I dont use google to try to understnd this is because google threw up so much information at me I was overloaded. I am still very new to Mp3 (and would not have even gotten into it if my nephew had not given me that Ipod Shuffle).

thanks.

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #77 –
Quote
Now would you recomend Monkey's Audio or Wav Pack.

I would recommend that you make your own decision based on the information in the wiki.

Any other information you get will most likely be subjective, irrelevant or just confusing.  You've just seen a small example with Mo0zOoH and beto's posts (who do you believe?), and believe me it can get as heated as the LAME debate in this thread.

In my opinion your decision should be made between FLAC, Monkey's Audio, and WavPack.  I would like to see you make a decision from there though.

Then I'll berate you and convince you otherwise.
I'm on a horse.

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #78 –
Quote
Quote
Now would you recomend Monkey's Audio or Wav Pack.

I would recommend that you make your own decision based on the information in the wiki.

Any other information you get will most likely be subjective, irrelevant or just confusing.  You've just seen a small example with Mo0zOoH and beto's posts (who do you believe?), and believe me it can get as heated as the LAME debate in this thread.

In my opinion your decision should be made between FLAC, Monkey's Audio, and WavPack.  I would like to see you make a decision from there though.

Then I'll berate you and convince you otherwise.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=303061"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


ok. i'll tkae wavpak. convince me otherwise :-)

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #79 –
Synthetic Soul is correct.
With lossless codecs there's no issue about quality, cos it's lossless.  You'll have to make your own mind up about which one to go for, and again Synthetic Soul is right in saying that the top 3  lossless codecs (based on the HA.org Lossless Comparison Table at the moment are FLAC, WavPack & Monkey's. 

I personally use FLAC, and am very happy with it and have found no probs.  But it's likely for every person who says they use FLAC the same numbers will say they use WavPack or Monkey's (on this board anyway).

[span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%']EDIT: don't you just hate that when you get beaten to a reply  [/span]

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #80 –
Quote
Quote
I would like to see you make a decision from there though.

Then I'll berate you and convince you otherwise.

ok. i'll tkae wavpak. convince me otherwise :-)

Damn, you called my bluff! 

I think WavePack is a good choice.  I use Monkey's Audio, but have considered moving to WavPack.  WavPack provides better compression than FLAC, although not quite as good as Monkey's Audio.  I have some concerns about the future development of Monkey's Audio, while WavPack is actively being developed.  The author, David Bryant ('bryant' on this forum) is very responsive to users' questions (as is the author of FLAC, Josh Coalson) and also implementing requirements.  WavePack is also feature-rich.

The boy done good.
I'm on a horse.

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #81 –
Quote
The boy done good.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=303071"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


thanks for both complements esp. since I was born in 1953.

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #82 –
Quote
Quote
The boy done good.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=303071"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


thanks for both complements esp. since I was born in 1953.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=303078"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


i assume i only have to download the wav pack win32 (I use win XP) binaries.

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #83 –
ok so i now got
EAC 95b1 > WACK 0.30 > wav pak 4.2 + lam 3.96.1

is there anything else.

BTW we cant find a 400GB harddisk in Bombay (india). Still looking though.

MY PC is a P 2.4 MHz and  has 256MB of RAM. will all of this work?

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #84 –
Quote
ok so i now got
EAC 95b1 > WACK 0.30 > wav pak 4.2 + lam 3.96.1

is there anything else.

BTW we cant find a 400GB harddisk in Bombay (india). Still looking though.

MY PC is a P 2.4 MHz and  has 256MB of RAM. will all of this work?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


[a href="http://www.lacie.com/asia/products/range.htm?id=10033]LaCie (Asia)[/url] - here are some 400GB+ hard drives that you should be able to get in Bombay.

I'm sure that your computer hardware is more than up to the task.

I have had a great experience with WavPack; I don't think you will be disappointed by the results of all this hard work (reading and learning and downloading...). Good luck with your encoding.

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #85 –
Quote
EAC > WACK > WavPack + LAME
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=302827"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Stupid questions.

what do I do with the wave split file that came with WACK?

also in the encoders.ini file of WACK i removed the ";" only from [MP3-ID3] and [wavpack] see below

[MP3-ID3]
EXEPATH=E:\EAC3.96.1\lame.exe
ARGUMENTS=--preset extreme --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" %s %d
FILEPATH=D:\test\mp3-id3\%a - %g\%n - %a - %t
EXTENSION=.mp3
FILETYPE=1
APPLYREPLAYGAIN=false ;;;;;;;;;; mp3gain stores it's information in APEv2 tags.
REPLAYGAINEXEPATH=    ;;;;;;;;;; Using mp3gain with ID3 tags will cause the tags
REPLAYGAINARGUMENTS=  ;;;;;;;;;; to disappear on some players (ie, Foobar).

[WAVPACK]
EXEPATH=E:\Wapet\wapet.exe
ARGUMENTS=%d -t "Artist=%a" -t "Title=%t" -t "Album=%g" -t "Year=%y" -t "Track=%n" -t "Genre=%m" "C:\EAC\wavpack.exe" -h %s %d
FILEPATH=F:\test\wavpack\%a - %g\%n - %a - %t
EXTENSION=.wv
FILETYPE=1
APPLYREPLAYGAIN=false
REPLAYGAINEXEPATH=
REPLAYGAINARGUMENTS=

do I need wavegain?

since EAC is using wack and the parameters are in wack i do not need to use the additional command line options in EAC's External Compression menu. right?

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #86 –
c drive is my main drive with XP and all the non MP3 stuff. I had this before my nephew came.

then i have a 250GB drive that is broken into D and E each of 125GB. E drive is where i download all my programs and freedb database (and store my digital cam pics) etc... and D drive is where i intend to store my MP3s. I have still to get a 400GB drive for the WAVPACK files (I will call this F:).

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #87 –
Quote
LaCie (Asia) - here are some 400GB+ hard drives that you should be able to get in Bombay.

I'm sure that your computer hardware is more than up to the task.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=303108"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I dont know about my hardware. should i upgrade my RAM?

I found a hitachi drive 400GB for about $400 in Bombay. expensive.

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #88 –
OK, let's open another bag of worms...

How do you wish to store your lossless archive?  As a single image file with cuesheet, or as separate track files?  Yet another contentious subject.  I archive to an image file with cuesheet.  If this WavPack file is simply for archiving I would suggest you do also.  Others will vehemently disagree.

Now you are archiving to lossless, do you really need your MP3s to be "extreme"?  I forget how much testing you've done on this subject (that's not sarcasm) but I would have thought "standard" would be perfectly adequate, if not "medium".

The WavPack command looks a little dated to me.  You no longer need WAPET (a separate APEv2 tagging app) to tag the file, you can do it through WAVPACK.EXE.  I know that's not your doing.  We can help you with that later... (once we know the answer to my first question)

WaveGain could be used to scale the encoded MP3 files.  By using WaveGain to pass a scale value to LAME you can ensure that all the albums you encode are of a similar album volume - i.e.: the peak volume of each album will be approximately the same.  This is another large and well-debated topic and covers such areas as ReplayGain, MP3Gain, clipping, etc.  Everyone is going to have a different opinion on this.  I don't currently do it but am considering it.  I will put my neck on the line and say "go for it".  As you have your WavPack archive you can always mass-transcode at some later point if you feel I/we've mislead you.
I'm on a horse.

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #89 –
Quote
OK, let's open another bag of worms...

How do you wish to store your lossless archive?  As a single image file with cuesheet, or as separate track files? 

Now you are archiving to lossless, do you really need your MP3s to be "extreme"?

The WavPack command looks a little dated to me.  You no longer need WAPET (a separate APEv2 tagging app) to tag the file, you can do it through WAVPACK.EXE.  I know that's not your doing.  We can help you with that later... (once we know the answer to my first question)

WaveGain could be used to scale the encoded MP3 files.  By using WaveGain to pass a scale value to LAME you can ensure that all the albums you encode are of a similar album volume
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=303119"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



THANKS!!!!!!!!!! You have been MOST helpful! If you are ever in Mumbai (used to be Bombay) please let me buy you a drink and some good food. I cant see any other way to repay you guys!

1. I would prefer to store my lossless files as seperate track files. One reason for storing lossless files is that some day when PCs are connected to Stereo systems I can run lossless audio through my stereo and make play lists etc... and all sorts of tech fun. Drive my old woman nuts (this is BTW the 2nd reason for this project). :-) ha ha ha I can just see her face now.

2. I dont need extreme. lets say we are doing this to humour an old man (my wife says I am 50 going on 80). Now you know why senior citizens buy cadillacs. They want to be safe.

3.  As far as WavPack  is concerned I am your able and gentle hands. WHere do you find the time to chaperone foggies like me.?

4. I would love to wave gain my Mp3s but no need to wave gain the lossless stuff. From what i understand Wave gain is akin to Dynamic Range Compression or Signal Limiting.

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #90 –
BTW I cant believe I have made 46 posts and not yet started ripping. you boys have been MOST patient.

Once I get this Wave gain and Wav pack stuff done and Synthetic Soul does not open a new can of worms  I promise I will stop this harrassment.

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #91 –
OK, you will need to download WaveGain v1.2.4 and put it in the same folder as WACK.

This is my suggested encoders.ini (considering your previous posts and requirements):

[span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'][MP3]
EXEPATH=<path to lame.exe>\lame.exe
ARGUMENTS=--preset extreme --id3v2-only --pad-id3v2 --ignore-tag-errors --scale %x --ta "%a" --tl "%g" --tn "%n" --tt "%t" --ty "%y" --tg "%m" %s %d
FILEPATH=<path to mp3 files>\%a\%g\%n - %t
EXTENSION=.mp3
FILETYPE=1
APPLYREPLAYGAIN=false
REPLAYGAINEXEPATH=
REPLAYGAINARGUMENTS=

[WAVPACK]
EXEPATH=<path to wavpack.exe>\wavpack.exe
ARGUMENTS=-hm -w "Artist=%a" -w "Album=%g" -w "Track=%n" -w "Title=%t" -w "Year=%y" -w "Genre=%m" %s %d
FILEPATH=<path to wavepack files>\%a\%g\%n - %t
EXTENSION=.wv
FILETYPE=1
APPLYREPLAYGAIN=false
REPLAYGAINEXEPATH=
REPLAYGAINARGUMENTS=[/span]

Follow the instructions on the WACK site to set up WACK with EAC.

If the files aren't being stored as you would like we can adapt the settings, or just use your noggin to create a path using the placeholders (e.g.: %a = Artist) as you see fit.  My suggested path will create "\<artist>\<album>\<tacknumber> - <title>" - which makes most sense to me.

Hmmm... considering that you are ripping to track files only I'm not sure WACK is the best tool for the job now!  If we weren't using --scale I would say MAREO may be more suited.  WACK is going to rip to an image file and then split to track files, which is really an unnecessary step - the only benefit being that we can get the album scale value. I assumed you'd go for an image archive in which case WACK would be perfect...

I would do a couple of albums to test first and see how you get on - especially using scale on the MP3s.  Load them onto your iPod shuffle and see what the volume's like.  Also, if you feel the process is just too slow, you may have to switch from WACK to MAREO.

Quote
THANKS!!!!!!!!!! You have been MOST helpful! If you are ever in Mumbai (used to be Bombay) please let me buy you a drink and some good food. I cant see any other way to repay you guys!
Sounds very, very good.
Quote
Drive my old woman nuts (this is BTW the 2nd reason for this project). :-) ha ha ha I can just see her face now.
LOL.  My wife dispairs of me also.
Quote
Where do you find the time to chaperone foggies like me.?
I'm a forum junkie! I'm supposed to be working, but I'm bored.  When I get the sack maybe I'll come visit.

Edit:
Quote
BTW I cant believe I have made 46 posts and not yet started ripping. you boys have been MOST patient.
I can't believe I've made almost 600 and am no expert in any field.  As I said previously: opinionated.
I'm on a horse.

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #92 –
Why no one suggests OptimFROG?
OptimFROG's fastest mode (--mode fast) beats FLAC's best mode (-8) in term of compression.
I tested OptimFROG 4.509 against FLAC 1.1.2; it produced files around 1.0~2.0MB lesser than FLAC per track, and more if I used the default (--mode normal).

OptimFROG's playback, when using the input plugin for Winamp, eats the same processing power when playing FLAC files.
(of course, it only applies when u're using the --mode fast switch when compressing; when u use the default, it's slightly higher than FLAC when decoding)

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #93 –
Quote
Why no one suggests OptimFROG?
OptimFROG's fastest mode (--mode fast) beats FLAC's best mode (-8) in term of compression.
I tested OptimFROG 4.509 against FLAC 1.1.2; it produced files around 1.0~2.0MB lesser than FLAC per track, and more if I used the default (--mode normal).

OptimFROG's playback, when using the input plugin for Winamp, eats the same processing power when playing FLAC files.
(of course, it only applies when u're using the --mode fast switch when compressing; when u use the default, it's slightly higher than FLAC when decoding)
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Let's not turn this into another "which lossless codec is the best?"-thread, please. Everything you need to know about this is already here:
[a href="http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lossless_comparison]http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?ti...less_comparison[/url]
Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind.

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #94 –
Quote
Why no one suggests OptimFROG?

I almost did - but I was trying not to confuse the issue too much.  As jaybee already pointed out, I just listed the top three.

There's so much that could be discussed here, but the goal is to get navin up and running with a good working solution - even though it may not be the preferred solution of everyone. Edit: Including me!  I don't agree with the "extreme" MP3s, and I'd archive as an image file. However, I'm here to help, and not to enforce my doctrine on new users.
Quote
Let's not turn this into another "which lossless codec is the best?"-thread, please.

Exactly.  There's so much being discussed that is contentious, as I have already stated.  This was the reason I was keen for navin to make some decisions himself.
I'm on a horse.

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #95 –
Quote
OK, you will need to download WaveGain v1.2.4 and put it in the same folder as WACK.

If the files aren't being stored as you would like we can adapt the settings, or just use your noggin to create a path using the placeholders (e.g.: %a = Artist) as you see fit.  My suggested path will create "\<artist>\<album>\<tacknumber> - <title>" - which makes most sense to me.

Hmmm... considering that you are ripping to track files only I'm not sure WACK is the best tool for the job now!  If we weren't using --scale I would say MAREO may be more suited.  WACK is going to rip to an image file and then split to track files, which is really an unnecessary step - the only benefit being that we can get the album scale value. I assumed you'd go for an image archive in which case WACK would be perfect...

I would do a couple of albums to test first and see how you get on - especially using scale on the MP3s.  Load them onto your iPod shuffle and see what the volume's like.  Also, if you feel the process is just too slow, you may have to switch from WACK to MAREO.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=303133"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


i got wave gain 1.2.4 and your path seems fine.

I assumed that with track files I would be able to see the individual files in windows explorer. with one big image file i would not.

thanks for the settings.

once i get the 400GB hard disk I will start (probable Monday or Tuesday).

BTW should I upgrade my RAM from 256MB to say 1GB?

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #96 –
Quote
There's so much that could be discussed here, but the goal is to get navin up and running with a good working solution - even though it may not be the preferred solution of everyone.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=303139"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Just think of me as the Vinny Barbarino of MP3!

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #97 –
Quote
I assumed that with track files I would be able to see the individual files in windows explorer. with one big image file i would not.
True.  There's no reason not to use track files.

Quote
BTW should I upgrade my RAM from 256MB to say 1GB?
If it will baffle your wife, yes.  I've no idea the specs required I'm afraid.  I'm sure 256MB will be fine.

Quote
Just think of me as the Vinny Barbarino of MP3!
I don't think I've ever seen it.

Was he annoying too?
I'm on a horse.

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #98 –
Quote
BTW should I upgrade my RAM from 256MB to say 1GB?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=303140"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

for the purposes of your music, i think what you have is fine.  you operating system would probaby run alittle faster in general if you upgraded, but thats up to you.
a windows-free, linux user since 1/31/06.

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #99 –


Quote
Let's not turn this into another "which lossless codec is the best?"-thread, please. Everything you need to know about this is already here:
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?ti...less_comparison
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=303138"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Never intended to. =/
I was just pointing that there is another lossless encoder that compresses better than FLAC.
Isn't it the same like when someone says that WavPack compresses better than Monkey's Audio or FLAC?
Or that one format encodes or seeks faster than the other?
Or is it just because they're the top three so it's safe to compare them to each other?

Since navin seems to prefer smaller (lossless) files, I just thought he should know about OptimFROG too.
I was just trying to show him more options, not to doctrine him to use OptimFROG... +_+

Well, yeah, just forget it... T_T

~sorryForBeingInTheWayOfProgress...