Hydrogenaudio Forums

Hydrogenaudio Forum => General Audio => Topic started by: CGC on 02 February, 2010, 08:26:34 AM

Title: RazorLame help
Post by: CGC on 02 February, 2010, 08:26:34 AM
Hi,

I am new to this forum and to the use of these software programs.  I need some guidance.

My intent is to convert my CD collection, first to FLAC then to MP3.  I have read a lot on the subject, maybe too much as it is starting to confuse me, but my goal is to create the best possible MP3 files I can.  I am not concerned about file size.

I believe I have successfully setup EAC andhave converted a couple of test CDs to FLAC.  I then installed RazorLame and the latest version of LAME within the same folder.

Not real confident at the RazorLame settings but I believe I have it set to the best VBR (320) settings.  However, When I attempt to add the FLAC files to RazorLame, nothing appears within the program.  I used the program's 'Add File' procedure and also tried to drag and drop the FLAC files into RazorLame to no avail.  Nothing appears in the program.

Probably something obvious but the reason is escaping me.  Thanks in advance for any help which can be provided to this novice.

Chris
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: .halverhahn on 02 February, 2010, 08:50:30 AM
Razorlame... good old time. I'm using today foobar (http://www.foobar2000.org/) for all types of converting.
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: lvqcl on 02 February, 2010, 11:03:51 AM
my goal is to create the best possible MP3 files I can. I am not concerned about file size.

Then just use FLAC, not MP3.

Not real confident at the RazorLame settings but I believe I have it set to the best VBR (320) settings.

But 320 kbps files cannot be VBR.


Probably something obvious but the reason is escaping me.

RazorLame doesn't support FLAC. And your LAME encoder doesn't support FLAC, too.
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: CGC on 02 February, 2010, 12:32:55 PM
my goal is to create the best possible MP3 files I can. I am not concerned about file size.

Then just use FLAC, not MP3.

Not real confident at the RazorLame settings but I believe I have it set to the best VBR (320) settings.

But 320 kbps files cannot be VBR.


Probably something obvious but the reason is escaping me.

RazorLame doesn't support FLAC. And your LAME encoder doesn't support FLAC, too.


If it does not support FLAC, that would explain a lot.  I do not understand the VBR settings.  I need the MP3 conversion as I like to make MP3 CDs to play in the car.
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: DVDdoug on 02 February, 2010, 01:07:24 PM
For converting FLAC to MP3, try:
XRECODE (http://www.freewarenuts.com/2009/06/xrecode-261.html)*
LameDropXPd (http://rarewares.org/mp3-lamedrop.php)

Another option would be to rip with EAC twice, once to FLAC, and once to MP3.  Or, you can probably use REACT (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=35158) along with EAC to rip to FLAC & MP3 at the same time.  (I don't use REACT, and I know how to do that.)



*this is the older free version of XRECODE.  XRECODE II (http://xrecode.com/) is $15 USD.


Title: RazorLame help
Post by: trout on 02 February, 2010, 01:11:20 PM
For a simple and easy to use conversion tool, try LameDropXPd (http://www.rarewares.org/mp3-lamedrop.php)

It supports FLAC input and tag copying. Right-click on the program to set options.

- Encoding Options -
use the [Quality] section for VBR encoding, or the [Bitrate] section for CBR

- Tagging Setup -
check "Copy oggvorbis/FLAC comments"
check the id3 option you prefer
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: lvqcl on 02 February, 2010, 01:11:44 PM
Vote for foobar2000.
Just install it in portable mode and use as a converter.
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: CGC on 02 February, 2010, 01:50:02 PM
Vote for foobar2000.
Just install it in portable mode and use as a converter.



Thanks for the info.  I guess I will be looking into these options and scratch the Razorlame idea.  I have read that EAC is great for ripping to FLAC but not so hot for making MP3 files.  Yet, I have also read that it is best to use the two step process; rip to FLAC, then convert to MP3.

I just want to create the best MP3 file I can and from my research, the VBR approach will do just that.  Yes?  I am not well versed when it comes to the command line settings for achieving the best bitrate.

CGC
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: pdq on 02 February, 2010, 01:55:43 PM
Best bitrate or best quality? If you mean highest bitrate then what you want is not vbr, but cbr, at 320 kbits/second.

If on the other hand you want vbr then the bitrate is not fixed but will vary with the source material. The highest quality vbr setting is -V 0. This will save significant file size over cbr 320 but should nearly always give results that are audibly identical.
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: CGC on 02 February, 2010, 02:07:53 PM
Best bitrate or best quality? If you mean highest bitrate then what you want is not vbr, but cbr, at 320 kbits/second.

If on the other hand you want vbr then the bitrate is not fixed but will vary with the source material. The highest quality vbr setting is -V 0. This will save significant file size over cbr 320 but should nearly always give results that are audibly identical.



Best quality.  Does this VBR setting apply to any particular program?  Foobar2000; LameDropXPd?
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: DVDdoug on 02 February, 2010, 02:34:38 PM
Quote
Best quality. Does this VBR setting apply to any particular program? Foobar2000; LameDropXPd?
Almost all of these programs use the same underlying LAME encoder.

320kbps CBR is the "absolute best".  It uses the least compression, gives you the biggest files, and therefore "throws-away" less data.

At lower bitrates, VBR is better...  For a given average bitrate, VBR gives you better quality. It's "smarter" and it will use high bitrates for complex music, and lower bitrates for simple sounds and silence.     

With VBR=0 (the best VBR setting) your average bitrate will be lower than 320...  It will only use 320 when needed.  Does that make sense???  The only way to get 320kbps all of the time is to use CBR...




Title: RazorLame help
Post by: greynol on 02 February, 2010, 02:39:51 PM
Different programs might present different interfaces.  The best programs are the ones either give you full control or will present you with the simplest options that correspond exactly to the guidelines set forth in our wiki (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=LAME) without adding extra things without your knowledge.

I don't know where you read that EAC isn't great for creating mp3s.  It can be a bit complicated if you want to encode flac and mp3 at the same time and do other things like grab artwork and do replaygain but many people seem to manage ok with applications like REACT.  When it comes to just doing mp3s, EAC works very well all by itself.
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: CGC on 02 February, 2010, 03:23:17 PM
Different programs might present different interfaces.  The best programs are the ones either give you full control or will present you with the simplest options that correspond exactly to the guidelines set forth in our wiki (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=LAME) without adding extra things without your knowledge.

I don't know where you read that EAC isn't great for creating mp3s.  It can be a bit complicated if you want to encode flac and mp3 at the same time and do other things like grab artwork and do replaygain but many people seem to manage ok with applications like REACT.  When it comes to just doing mp3s, EAC works very well all by itself.


I believe I got that info from the Radified Guide to Ripping...  Maybe it is dated but I got the impression that it is most beneficial to first rip to a lossless format such as FLAC.  Then convert to MP3 using LAME and an accompanying program such as Foobar200 or RazorLame.  I would then burn the result to either a CD to play in the car or to a DVD for extended play in the house.  I had not heard of these other programs but will certainly look into them.  I need to learn and I have not grasped it all yet.

Can you suggest a good start-to-finish process?
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: greynol on 02 February, 2010, 03:27:16 PM
For EAC look through these:
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?ti...gory:EAC_Guides (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Category:EAC_Guides)

There are certainly other games in town besides EAC, however (foobar2000, dbpoweramp), though it has pretty much been the de facto standard for a long while now.
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: CGC on 03 February, 2010, 09:38:19 PM
Best bitrate or best quality? If you mean highest bitrate then what you want is not vbr, but cbr, at 320 kbits/second.

If on the other hand you want vbr then the bitrate is not fixed but will vary with the source material. The highest quality vbr setting is -V 0. This will save significant file size over cbr 320 but should nearly always give results that are audibly identical.


Testing LameDropXPd3 and it seems to work well.  Is there a way to select Joint Stereo with this program?  Seems 2 channel stereo and 44.1 KHz is the only option.

Title: RazorLame help
Post by: trout on 03 February, 2010, 10:25:29 PM
It should output with joint stereo by default. Are you sure you are getting discrete stereo? If so, what encoding setting did you use?

You don't want 44.1 kHz? By default, LAME will only resample at lower bit rates. AFAIK LamedropXPd offers no sampling rate override.
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: johnsonlam on 03 February, 2010, 11:14:35 PM
Not real confident at the RazorLame settings but I believe I have it set to the best VBR (320) settings.


Chris,

You may fallen into a trap of "higher bitrate better sound".

Most important of MP3 is the psychoacoustic model, up to now LAME developers did an excellent job, so we can enjoy good sound quality even the bitrate is not set to maximum, VBR means LAME will decide which part of the music need higher bitrate, so maximum bitrate is not really necessary, otherwise you should stick to FLAC.

And most important is your own preference, only you can make up the decision, try LAMEXP since it's GUI have a very clear picture of bitrate vs quality, and it did have a multithreading support.

Foobar2000 is good but the conversion still not very friendly, RazorLAME was outdated, I stop using it long time ago.
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: CGC on 04 February, 2010, 08:31:49 AM
It should output with joint stereo by default. Are you sure you are getting discrete stereo? If so, what encoding setting did you use?

You don't want 44.1 kHz? By default, LAME will only resample at lower bit rates. AFAIK LamedropXPd offers no sampling rate override.



I have read that Joint Stereo is the best option.  It appears LameDropXPd defaults to 44.1 which may be fine.  I am just trying to get the best possible result.  My current home and car players will not play .FLAC so this is why I am converting to MP3.

However, while testing LameDropXPd last night, I successfully converted Disc 1 of the Beatles White album from FLAC to MP3.  However, after ripping the second disc (using EAC and same settings), LameDropXPd would not accept any of the ripped files.  Whether I tried to drag a single file or the whole disc, LameDropXPd immediately closed and the error log returned that they were in an unrecognizable format.

Doing something wrong.
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: trout on 06 February, 2010, 01:55:37 PM
Quote
... I got the impression that it is most beneficial to first rip to a lossless format such as FLAC.

If you are going to keep the FLACs as a backup of your CDs, then yes. If it is only a stepping stone to MP3, then it is a complete waste of time.

Quote
an unrecognizable format

Did you attempt to verify that the FLACs are valid files? Are they playable? Can flac.exe decode the file(s) without errors?
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: CGC on 06 February, 2010, 02:13:16 PM
Quote
... I got the impression that it is most beneficial to first rip to a lossless format such as FLAC.

If you are going to keep the FLACs as a backup of your CDs, then yes. If it is only a stepping stone to MP3, then it is a complete waste of time.

Quote
an unrecognizable format

Did you attempt to verify that the FLACs are valid files? Are they playable? Can flac.exe decode the file(s) without errors?



Yes, they are playable.  Being so new to EAC and LameDropXPd I haven't a clue what I may have done differently.  Any idea what the LameDropXPd error 'Unrecognized format error is: Invalid argument (22)' means?

Thanks
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: trout on 06 February, 2010, 03:22:29 PM
Quote
Yes, they are playable.

That's good, but only as a quick test. Some software is more error tolerant than others, so I would also run a more thorough test. Either run a decode with flac.exe on the command line, or if that is unfamiliar territory, just use a tool like AudioTester (http://www.vuplayer.com/other.php).

If the files check out as good, then I don't know what the problem could be. Maybe just a quirk with LameDrop. Is the problem just with this one disc, or others too? If it's just this one disc, I'd work around it and move on.
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: CGC on 06 February, 2010, 03:31:41 PM
Quote
Yes, they are playable.

That's good, but only as a quick test. Some software is more error tolerant than others, so I would also run a more thorough test. Either run a decode with flac.exe on the command line, or if that is unfamiliar territory, just use a tool like AudioTester (http://www.vuplayer.com/other.php).

If the files check out as good, then I don't know what the problem could be. Maybe just a quirk with LameDrop. Is the problem just with this one disc, or others too? If it's just this one disc, I'd work around it and move on.



Not that I understand any of this, but I used MediaMonkey to decode a FLAC file back to WAV and it worked properly.  As far as LameDrop, it is happening with multiple discs including the disc that worked just the other night so I am assuming it has something to do with the EAC settings. 

I tried using xrecodeII to convert the files to MP3 and that worked but I have no idea how to set that program up.  They all came out at 128.  My head is starting to hurt.

Thanks for the help, though.
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: evereux on 06 February, 2010, 03:58:47 PM
Some pointers on using Foobar2000 if you wish to convert FLAC to MP3.

Install Foobar2000 (http://www.foobar2000.org/download).
Download Lame Bundle 3.98.2 (http://www.rarewares.org/mp3-lame-bundle.php) and put Lame.exe in the Foobar2000 folder (or C:/Windows).
Add your files to Foobar2000.
Select / Highlight all the files you wish to convert.
Right click > Convert > ... (first time only, if you're happy with your set-up select last used) >
Output format MP3 Lame
Select Output path
Choose name formatting (ask for examples if required)

Job done, hopefully.
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: CGC on 06 February, 2010, 04:34:36 PM
Some pointers on using Foobar2000 if you wish to convert FLAC to MP3.

Install Foobar2000 (http://www.foobar2000.org/download).
Download Lame Bundle 3.98.2 (http://www.rarewares.org/mp3-lame-bundle.php) and put Lame.exe in the Foobar2000 folder (or C:/Windows).
Add your files to Foobar2000.
Select / Highlight all the files you wish to convert.
Right click > Convert > ... (first time only, if you're happy with your set-up select last used) >
Output format MP3 Lame
Select Output path
Choose name formatting (ask for examples if required)

Job done, hopefully.


I am trying.  Seems the best or extreme setting is restricted to 245.  Is that correct?  Again, I am looking for the best possible output, VBR 320+, Joint Stereo, etc.  I do not see where these settings are available in Foobar2000.

Title: RazorLame help
Post by: lvqcl on 06 February, 2010, 05:05:52 PM
Quote
Seems the best or extreme setting is restricted to 245. Is that correct?

No. It is approximate average bitrate.

Quote
Again, I am looking for the best possible output, VBR 320+

Not possible. Either VBR or 320 kbps.
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: CGC on 07 February, 2010, 02:13:37 PM
Quote
Seems the best or extreme setting is restricted to 245. Is that correct?

No. It is approximate average bitrate.

Quote
Again, I am looking for the best possible output, VBR 320+

Not possible. Either VBR or 320 kbps.



Now trying EAC to MP3 and eliminating the FLAC step.  I used the EAC Lossy Setup Giude with this string: -V 0 --vbr-new --add-id3v2 --ignore-tag-errors --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tg "%m" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" %s %d

Again I note the outcome is 2 channel stereo, 44.1 KHz.  How do I force Joint Stereo?


Thanks
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: greynol on 07 February, 2010, 02:18:49 PM
How do I force Joint Stereo?

There's no need.
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: CGC on 07 February, 2010, 02:32:17 PM
How do I force Joint Stereo?

There's no need.


Ok, does that mean it is not necessary; won't make a difference; can't be done?  Just trying to learn.

Thanks
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: greynol on 07 February, 2010, 02:58:25 PM
Joint stereo is done by default.  The point to all of this really is that we shouldn't second guess the developers without a specific justifiable reason.

My recommendation has always been to keep things simple.  I would personally recommend -V0 %s %d and have EAC do the tagging. I also use --noreplaygain because Replaygain information in the Lame header is completely useless to me and speeds up the encoding process, if only slightly.  Lastly, --vbr-new is the default as of 3.98.  Like with joint stereo, explicitly telling Lame to use it is redundant and unnecessary.
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: CGC on 07 February, 2010, 03:11:03 PM
Joint stereo is done by default.  The point to all of this really is that we shouldn't second guess the developers without a specific justifiable reason.

My recommendation has always been to keep things simple.  I would personally recommend -V0 %s %d and have EAC do the tagging. I also use --noreplaygain because Replaygain information in the Lame header is completely useless to me and speeds up the encoding process, if only slightly.  Lastly, --vbr-new is the default as of 3.98.  Like with joint stereo, explicitly telling Lame to use it is redundant and unnecessary.


I really appreciate your time and patience but this is too advanced for my level of understanding of this process.  I am probably better off finding an EAC guide that has all of these settings already incorporated into it.  (Which I thought I had with the EAC Lossy Setup Guide) but apparently this is not the case.

I do not want you to invest more time into this for me but if you know of such a guide, I would appreciate it.  I do not know the program well enough to invoke your recommendations as much as I would like to.

Thanks
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: greynol on 07 February, 2010, 03:16:33 PM
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=EAC_and_Lame (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=EAC_and_Lame)

It lays out seven options.  I'm suggesting you follow the first one, especially since it is the simplest and it seems that you're after simplicity.

Regarding incorporating --noreplaygain, your additional command line options would just look like this:
Code: [Select]
-V0 --noreplaygain %s %d
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: CGC on 07 February, 2010, 03:54:08 PM
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=EAC_and_Lame (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=EAC_and_Lame)

It lays out seven options.  I'm suggesting you follow the first one, especially since it is the simplest and it seems that you're after simplicity.

Regarding incorporating --noreplaygain, your additional command line options would just look like this:
Code: [Select]
-V0 --noreplaygain %s %d


Great, thanks.

Can you give a brief description of the noreplaygain setting?  What effect does this have?

Thanks
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: greynol on 07 February, 2010, 04:02:23 PM
http://lame.cvs.sourceforge.net/*checkout*...l#-noreplaygain (http://lame.cvs.sourceforge.net/*checkout*/lame/lame/doc/html/switchs.html#-noreplaygain)
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: CGC on 07 February, 2010, 04:10:39 PM
http://lame.cvs.sourceforge.net/*checkout*...l#-noreplaygain (http://lame.cvs.sourceforge.net/*checkout*/lame/lame/doc/html/switchs.html#-noreplaygain)


Ok.  I believe I am set.  I don't think I will ever fully understand but I am using EAC with your settings to rip my CDs to MP3 and they sound good to me.  You all have been very patient and helpful.

Thanks again,

Chris
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: greynol on 07 February, 2010, 04:18:41 PM
You're welcome.

If you tag and how and whether you put Replaygain information in the Lame header will not have any affect on sound quality.
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: CGC on 09 February, 2010, 12:17:26 PM
You're welcome.

If you tag and how and whether you put Replaygain information in the Lame header will not have any affect on sound quality.



What might you recommend for normalizing?  I currently use MP3Gain but only after I have put together a collection to be burned to CD or DVD.  Or, is this something that can be incorporated in the ripping process, eliminating another step?

Thanks,

Chris
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: greynol on 09 February, 2010, 12:25:19 PM
A replaygain-based approach, but using an implementation that's actually widely supported.  Putting RG information in the Lame header is not; putting it in an ID3v2 tag or APE tag (perhaps to a lesser extent) is.  Altering the level of the audio data itself is universally supported, of course.
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: CGC on 14 February, 2010, 11:31:52 AM
A replaygain-based approach, but using an implementation that's actually widely supported.  Putting RG information in the Lame header is not; putting it in an ID3v2 tag or APE tag (perhaps to a lesser extent) is.  Altering the level of the audio data itself is universally supported, of course.



Hi,

I am back with yet another question.  As I mentioned earlier, my goal is to create the best possible MP3 disc possible.  This was brought about by my acquisition of The Beatles Remastered Stereo collection.  I have been ripping these discs with the settings you provided but as I reach the end of this stage I realize that I may still be missing the mark, so-to-speak.

There are several songs in their catalog that play in succession.  Also, I like to remove the dead-air gaps at either end of the songs and even, include fade-in and maybe a fade-out between songs.  To accomplish this, in the past anyway, I would use the Sound Editor feature in my Roxio suite.  But I realized that when I did this, I was required to save the edited file and I seem to remember that I have to select certain MP3 settings at that time which I believe would undo everything I have accomplished using EAC.

Would I be able to accomplish this with EAC settings changes or is there an editor software out there that would allow me to make the desired changes without losing my optimum MP3 settings created when ripping with EAC?  Or, would I first have to rip to FLAC, let's say, do the sound editing then convert to MP3?

Thanks for your continued patience and help.

Chris
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: Soap on 14 February, 2010, 11:42:01 AM
Any competent player will play LAME MP3 and/or FLAC w/o gaps assuming there are no gaps on the source
If there are gaps on the source you wish to remove, you should do so to a lossless file, not to a MP3 (or other lossy copy) as, you are correct, reencoding would be required.
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: trout on 14 February, 2010, 01:23:47 PM
Would I be able to accomplish this with EAC settings changes or is there an editor software out there that would allow me to make the desired changes without losing my optimum MP3 settings created when ripping with EAC?  Or, would I first have to rip to FLAC, let's say, do the sound editing then convert to MP3?

No and No (exception: if the tracks are merged into a single file prior to encoding). Gaps are introduced at the beginning and end of a file during the mp3 encoding and decoding (playback) process.

The LAME mp3 encoder offers a method of defeating these gaps during playback. It stores encoder delay and padding information in the file header which enables a compatible player to compensate and provide seamless playback. If your player does not support gapless playback, then merging tracks is the only other option.

Wiki article about gapless playback. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gapless_playback)
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: CGC on 14 February, 2010, 01:31:16 PM
Would I be able to accomplish this with EAC settings changes or is there an editor software out there that would allow me to make the desired changes without losing my optimum MP3 settings created when ripping with EAC?  Or, would I first have to rip to FLAC, let's say, do the sound editing then convert to MP3?

No and No (exception: if the tracks are merged into a single file prior to encoding). Gaps are introduced at the beginning and end of a file during the mp3 encoding and decoding (playback) process.

The LAME mp3 encoder offers a method of defeating these gaps during playback. It stores encoder delay and padding information in the file header which enables a compatible player to compensate and provide seamless playback. If your player does not support gapless playback, then merging tracks is the only other option.

Wiki article about gapless playback. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gapless_playback)



I am using LAME with EAC.  I guess I will not know if my players support gapless playback until I try a created disc in them, but, are there LAME settings that are needed to be inserted to accomplish defeating these gaps?

Title: RazorLame help
Post by: Soap on 14 February, 2010, 01:36:31 PM
I am using LAME with EAC.  I guess I will not know if my players support gapless playback until I try a created disc in them, but, are there LAME settings that are needed to be inserted to accomplish defeating these gaps?

There is an OLD "nogap" switch which works by breaking mp3s up on frame boundaries instead of strictly on track boundaries, but should NOT be used w/o an understanding of your needs.  Most every player today is competent enough to recognize the gap information present in the LAME header by default.
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: greynol on 14 February, 2010, 01:40:36 PM
are there LAME settings that are needed to be inserted to accomplish defeating these gaps?

NO
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: CGC on 15 February, 2010, 02:01:00 PM
I suppose it would be advantageous to find an editing program that would allow edits to FLAC files.  After editing I could then encode them to MP3 using LAME.  Would that work?  I am looking at Sony's CD Architect 5.2d for this purpose but I do not know if it is compatible with FLAC.

Currently I do not use my computer to play my MP3s.  I create MP3 discs which I am able to play in the home surround sound unit and the MP3 CD changers in our vehicles.
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: trout on 15 February, 2010, 05:25:33 PM
I suppose it would be advantageous to find an editing program that would allow edits to FLAC files. After editing I could then encode them to MP3 using LAME.  Would that work?

If you are talking about editing files to achieve gapless playback of, for example the Golden Slumbers medley on Abbey Road, then again the answer is no. As previously explained, gaps at track transitions that were not part of the original CD are a result of the mp3 encoding and decoding process. If your MP3 CD players don't support gapless playback of mp3, then no editing you do prior to encoding is going to change that.
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: CGC on 16 February, 2010, 08:55:19 AM
I suppose it would be advantageous to find an editing program that would allow edits to FLAC files. After editing I could then encode them to MP3 using LAME.  Would that work?

If you are talking about editing files to achieve gapless playback of, for example the Golden Slumbers medley on Abbey Road, then again the answer is no. As previously explained, gaps at track transitions that were not part of the original CD are a result of the mp3 encoding and decoding process. If your MP3 CD players don't support gapless playback of mp3, then no editing you do prior to encoding is going to change that.



Hi,

I have merged tunes (MP3 files) together in Roxio's Sound Editor then re-encoded it as one file when saving it and it has worked.  I just would rather not use Roxio for the encoding.  I know I my inexperience is showing but if there was a way to save the edited file as .FLAC, then I assume I could use LAME to re-encode it back to MP3.  So, how far off am I with this scenerio?

Title: RazorLame help
Post by: pdq on 16 February, 2010, 10:34:39 AM
First, if Roxio allows you to save as .wav then there is no reason to use flac. Just reencode the .wav files with LAME.

Second, just a reminder that by reencoding you are decreasing sound quality. If there is any way possible to avoid it, such as if you have access to the original lossless files, then go that route instead.
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: CGC on 16 February, 2010, 12:14:45 PM
First, if Roxio allows you to save as .wav then there is no reason to use flac. Just reencode the .wav files with LAME.

Second, just a reminder that by reencoding you are decreasing sound quality. If there is any way possible to avoid it, such as if you have access to the original lossless files, then go that route instead.


This is where I get confused.  Roxio will not recognize a FLAC file.  I do not think Audacity will either.  Would I not want to use a program (if one exists) to edit the original lossless (FLAC) files before reencoding with LAME to preserve the best sound quality?

Title: RazorLame help
Post by: db1989 on 16 February, 2010, 12:30:23 PM
There's no difference. Converting FLAC to WAV (i.e. PCM) is of course lossless, and any editor supporting FLAC would have to do so 'behind the scenes' anyway.
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: CGC on 17 February, 2010, 08:07:40 AM
There's no difference. Converting FLAC to WAV (i.e. PCM) is of course lossless, and any editor supporting FLAC would have to do so 'behind the scenes' anyway.



It appears to me that WavePad Sound Editor, by NCH might do the trick.  I believe it would allow me to edit FLAC files which I should then be able to convert to MP3 using LAME.  This would hopefully maintain the sound quality.  Yes?
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: db1989 on 17 February, 2010, 08:25:31 AM
Please read my post again. No application will edit FLAC or other lossless files directly. They must be decompressed, edited and recompressed. Whether the program does so automatically or requires the user to provide a decompressed version makes absolutely no difference to sound quality. Lossless is lossless.
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: CGC on 17 February, 2010, 09:26:20 AM
Please read my post again. No application will edit FLAC or other lossless files directly. They must be decompressed, edited and recompressed. Whether the program does so automatically or requires the user to provide a decompressed version makes absolutely no difference to sound quality. Lossless is lossless.


Too much of a novice I guess.  Ok, can't edit FLAC.  I rip Abbey Road to MP3 using EAC/LAME.  I bring the Golden Slumbers tunes into an editor, remove all of the gaps then reencode them again to MP3 as one file to accomplish a smooth transition of the song which will eventually be burned to a CD which will play in my car.  Can I accomplish this without losing the sound quality I obtained with the original, aforementioned ripping process?

Title: RazorLame help
Post by: pdq on 17 February, 2010, 09:35:26 AM
Do NOT use mp3 as any kind of intermediate step. Use only lossles, such as wav, until the very last step, which is to encode to mp3 if that is what you you need. If the target is an audio CD, as opposed to an mp3 CD, then burn that directly from the lossless file, not from mp3.
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: CGC on 17 February, 2010, 09:39:15 AM
My target is a MP3 CD.
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: trout on 17 February, 2010, 10:10:13 AM
I do not think Audacity will either.

It does support FLAC.

Since you seem to have difficulty understanding the general principles that have been explained, I'll spell it out this way: You can import FLAC files, merge them, then export again to FLAC or straight to MP3 without the quality loss you'd get if you had started with an MP3 file.

You could skip the FLAC encoding step, and just rip to WAV to do the editing before encoding to MP3. The FLAC step would add a little encoding and decoding time, but has the advantage of preserving the tag metadata from EAC. If you rip to WAV, the metadata would be lost and you would have to tag the MP3's after the fact. Whichever way you find more convenient is fine, as long as lossy MP3 encoding is only the last step.
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: CGC on 18 February, 2010, 08:11:38 AM
Do NOT use mp3 as any kind of intermediate step. Use only lossles, such as wav, until the very last step, which is to encode to mp3 if that is what you you need. If the target is an audio CD, as opposed to an mp3 CD, then burn that directly from the lossless file, not from mp3.


As a test, I used EAC to rip a tune to WAV.  No settings changes in EAC were made, I just hit the WAV button in the left margin.  I then opened the new WAV file in Roxio's Sound Editor.  I edited the file then saved it, again as a WAV file but, of course, using Roxio.  I then took the newly edited WAV file and dragged it over to Lamedrop and converted it to MP3.

Have I lost any sound quality using this process?  Is there a difference in the quality of a WAV file created in one software program over another?  Or is a WAV a WAV no matter the source?

If this is a good process to use, it would facilitate merging the Beatles tunes that are originally gapless and burning them in that state to a MP3 CD.

Thanks
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: pdq on 18 February, 2010, 08:37:52 AM
As long as "edited the file" only means joining together multiple wav files into a single file, with no other processing, then there is no loss in quality.
Title: RazorLame help
Post by: CGC on 18 February, 2010, 09:10:39 AM
As long as "edited the file" only means joining together multiple wav files into a single file, with no other processing, then there is no loss in quality.



Bingo!  Thanks for your patience.