I have an old account but I haven't posted in a long time, can't remember the email I registered with so I started this account. Anyway, I've ripped my CD collection several times (once at 128kbps, then again at 192kbps, then again at v0) each time with Easy CD-DA Extractor. Didn't always rip all at once, but the settings were pretty much the same till I changed so many CDs could have been ripped with different LAME versions as well.
Anyway, I'm sticking with v0 and I'm ready to re-do the entire collection at the same time with the same LAME version and settings. I don't want to be kicking myself again in a few years so I wouldn't mind a few opinions before I do everything and realize I did something incorrectly again in a few years.
After reading this forum a lot, the Exact Audio Copy wiki, and general Google searches, this is my final:
Software: Exact Audio Copy (0.99 Prebeta 4)
LAME: 3.98.4-vc6
Command Line: -V 0 --id3v2-only --ta "%a" --tl "%g" --tn "%n" --tt "%t" --ty "%y" --tg "%m" --tc "rbm (eac secure mode)" %s %d
I'm looking for the highest quality v0, rip time doesn't matter. From my reading this is the best command line I can get, am I missing anything?
Also, it seems like LAME 3.98.4 is highly recommended, is there a different version I should be using?
Thanks.
I'm looking for the highest quality v0, rip time doesn't matter. From my reading this is the best command line I can get, am I missing anything?
Yes, plain -V0 is the best idea for encoding VBR. Any other switches are not likely to increase quality appreciably and might even degrade it.
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 that’s over 3 years old! I’m not aware of any good reason to use anything but the latest version, 3.99.5. I generally presume the developers know what they’re doing and therefore that later versions are better. Otherwise they wouldn’t release them.
Also, since this is specific to LAME and not EAC, it belongs in MP3 and not CD Hardware/Software. EAC is tangential in cases like this.
I'm looking for the highest quality v0, rip time doesn't matter. From my reading this is the best command line I can get, am I missing anything?
Yes, plain -V0 is the best idea for encoding VBR. Any other switches are not likely to increase quality appreciably and might even degrade it.
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 that’s over 3 years old! I’m not aware of any good reason to use anything but the latest version, 3.99.5. I generally presume the developers know what they’re doing and therefore that later versions are better. Otherwise they wouldn’t release them.
Also, since this is specific to LAME and not EAC, it belongs in MP3 and not CD Hardware/Software. EAC is tangential in cases like this.
Sounds good, I'll go with the newest LAME, I just read a lot, there seemed to be personal preference all over the place for a lot of older versions. I saw 3.98.4 referenced a lot, good point though.
Thanks.
You're ripping your CD collection for the 4th time; why don't you rip to FLAC and be done with it? As far as EAC is concerned, it's not any more difficult/time-consuming. First, get the newest EAC (http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/eac-1.0beta3.exe); there's no reason to be using an old version. You may want to use the newest FLAC encoder (http://www.rarewares.org/files/lossless/flac-1.3.0-icl.zip). Install EAC first then copy the new FLAC.EXE over the copy in the EAC folder.
Whatever lossy formats you may need later (MP3/AAC/WMA/OGG) can easily and quickly be generated from the FLACs.
I can only say this to you because I re-ripped my entire CD collection three times before I figured this out.
I would echo the recommendation for FLAC. Its lossless, and once you have a lossless archive you can easily transcode to whatever lossy format you want.
Personally, I would recommend you check out dBpoweramp. I think its tagging features are much more robust then EAC's.
If you do use EAC, use the newest version. It has significant improvements and supports CTDB.
Rip to FLAC first, then encode with any version of LAME you'd like - including future versions in future years - and never have to re-rip in this lifetime.
As for settings, -V 0 is all you need. The -V settings have been heavily optimized and tweaked over many years. The work of figuring out how to design an encoder to use bits most efficiently, has already been done by the encoder's developers. In earlier times, with less mature (or just bad) software, there might have been advantages to forcing the encoder to abide by certain restrictions in the form of command-line arguments. LAME has been developed to such a high degree that this is unnecessary.
One thing that might be worth checking out, though, is the "functional extension" of LAME that I've seen mentioned on these very boards. I don't remember what it was called, but it made some modifications to the higher bit rate VBR mode so that it would be more liberal with handing out 320 kbs frames, which can improve how the encoder handles problematic samples. My technical description of it may be off, but perhaps someone can find the thread.
LAME 3.100k is the current version of halb27's extension, but as has been discussed before, it is inadvisable to recommend LAME offshoots to people who have yet to demonstrate through ABX tests that standard V0 fails to meet their quality requirements.
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....howtopic=101150 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=101150)
but as has been discussed before, it is inadvisable to recommend LAME offshoots to people who have yet to demonstrate through ABX tests that standard V0 fails to meet their quality requirements.
Thank you! I will add that -V0 might well be excessive too, but I can see why you used it as your reference-point in this case.
One thing that might be worth checking out, though, is the "functional extension" of LAME that I've seen mentioned on these very boards. I don't remember what it was called, but it made some modifications to the higher bit rate VBR mode so that it would be more liberal with handing out 320 kbs frames, which can improve how the encoder handles problematic samples.
I think your understanding is roughly correct. It also offers the user the ability to set the minimal size of frame used by VBR. If you ask me, both of these are likely to lead, in the minds of users who do not fully grasp the concepts yet, to even more confusion about how VBR actually works and how relevant the bitrate is (hint: not very) in this mode.
My advice, especially to new users, it just to use standard LAME and presume wisely that its developers know fine well what they are doing, unless you have a particular psychoacoustic system that is specifically sensitive to the equally specific issues on which halb27 spends so much time and tests so many isolated samples of unusual timbres rather than representative sections of real music.
After several recommending it in this topic, I bought dbpoweramp. I like it so far, two questions before I go further with ripping.
1) I'm going to rip everything vbr 0 (mp3 lame) ... I selected "Slow (High Quality)" and then under advanced there is an "Additional CLI" is there anything else I should add or is their default optimal? Any options I should change that I might have missed?
2) I'm also going to rip to FLAC as several suggested, the v0 are for my iPhone, the FLAC will be backups in case I ever need to convert again. I've never done FLAC, under the options there are Lossless 0-8 then Lossless Uncompressed. I'm assuming I should be doing uncompressed I just wanted to verify?
Thanks for everything.
Why why why are you converting to MP3 if you have an iOS device to play the files? Convert to ALAC for archival then transcode to AAC for portable/temporary use.
1) I'm going to rip everything vbr 0 (mp3 lame) ... I selected "Slow (High Quality)" and then under advanced there is an "Additional CLI" is there anything else I should add or is their default optimal? Any options I should change that I might have missed?
No, the defaults are recommended, hence why the developers made them the defaults. Even
-q should be left at its default for normal use; the supposedly higher settings are not proven to be better/worthwhile.
2) I'm also going to rip to FLAC as several suggested, the v0 are for my iPhone, the FLAC will be backups in case I ever need to convert again. I've never done FLAC, under the options there are Lossless 0-8 then Lossless Uncompressed. I'm assuming I should be doing uncompressed I just wanted to verify?
No, not at all. Why else would it be called lossless
compression? The uncompressed variant is presumably provided for some edge cases, but almost no one uses it, because the main reason to use a lossless compressor is so that, well, your audio gets compressed. The numbered options only change the balance of compression against encoding time, not the audio at all, hence the other word,
lossless.
2. Lossless is lossless so what level of compression you choose makes zero difference to quality. It does make a difference is file size and can make quite a difference to how long the process takes.
Do a couple of test runs and see what works for you. Many people here have expressed the idea that compression level 5 is a good mix for saving some disk space without too much of a time hit. YMMV
No, not at all. Why else would it be called lossless compression? The uncompressed variant is presumably provided for some edge cases, but almost no one uses it, because the main reason to use a lossless compressor is so that, well, your audio gets compressed. The numbered options only change the balance of compression against encoding time, not the audio at all, hence the other word, lossless.
As I said I've never ventured in to FLAC before, I thought it was uncompressed so I was unsure why there were options like VBR (0-8). That makes sense though, thank you.
2. Lossless is lossless so what level of compression you choose makes zero difference to quality. It does make a difference is file size and can make quite a difference to how long the process takes.
Do a couple of test runs and see what works for you. Many people here have expressed the idea that compression level 5 is a good mix for saving some disk space without too much of a time hit. YMMV
I will do that, I see 5 is also the default in dbpoweramp but I'll do a few test runs. Thanks.
FLAC -0 in uncompressed. Again, why won't you consider ALAC/AAC?
I will do that, I see 5 is also the default in dbpoweramp but I'll do a few test runs. Thanks.
As long as your computer is moderately recent, FLAC encoding is pretty fast. Most of the time there's little reason to use anything but level 8.
As for your plan to use LAME V0, since an iPhone has a limited, non-upgradeable, amount of space, you might want to try other V settings to maximize use of available storage. You've probably already considered that, but I thought I'd mention it anyway while I'm posting. heh
FLAC -0 in uncompressed.
Where did you get this idea? It certainly isn't true.
Wow, I totally confused level 0 with uncompressed (http://xiph.org/flac/documentation_tools_f...ncoding_options (http://xiph.org/flac/documentation_tools_flac.html#encoding_options) proves me wrong as well).
There is no such thing as 'uncompressed' flac. It is a lossless form of compression similar to a zip file. Level 0 is larger file size/faster encoding. -8 is smallest file size/slowest encoding. However modern cpus with more than one core will encode even -8 far faster than your cd drive can physically read the disc, which is why I always use it (Why waste space if there's no benefit?). You can expand flac back to its original wav state, burn it to audio cd and it will always be the same, no loss in sound quality, again just like a zip file.
If the space on your iphone isn't an issue, -V0 is just fine if you aren't interested in doing abx testing to identify your transparency threshold, and you simply want that 'insurance' that you aren't losing sound quality. If space becomes an issue later on, consider doing some testing.
Also, since I am unfamiliar with dbpoweramp, does it do accuraterip checking to make sure your cdrip has been, well, accurately ripped? If not I won't sick the EAC brigade on you, but simply suggest you grab the free software cuetools, and check your ripped albums to make sure there are no errors.
Mach-X, thanks for the lesson about lossless compression, now take a look at this screenshot:
(http://www.audiostream.com/images/1125flac.jpg)
...I'd actually like to know how to do that with a command and/or with foobar2000.
Regarding MP3, even V2 is "just fine". I still don't understand why he doesn't go AAC.
Any idea what commandline switch that is? Never heard of such a thing, nor is there any mention of it in the FLAC documentation.
--disable-constant-subframes --disable-fixed-subframes --max-lpc-order=0
Also, since I am unfamiliar with dbpoweramp, does it do accuraterip checking to make sure your cdrip has been, well, accurately ripped? If not I won't sick the EAC brigade on you, but simply suggest you grab the free software cuetools, and check your ripped albums to make sure there are no errors.
accuraterip and dbpoweramp were both created and are maintained by the same person. http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showuser=1615 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showuser=1615)
Uncompressed FLAC is a dubious extension pioneered by dBpowerAMP. You can search for it, but naturally, you will stumble across a load of crap from people who think lossless compression somehow damages sound quality, despite it putting out exactly the same bits by definition. So maybe save your energy.
We let people decide on their own, I keep an open mind. A segment of the market had a need for an uncompressed lossless codec without tagging limitations, we gave people what they were asking for.
Here is a typical reply we give about its virtues:
http://forum.dbpoweramp.com/showthread.php...ll=1#post136096 (http://forum.dbpoweramp.com/showthread.php?30740-Need-to-convert-0-compression-FLAC-to-uncompressed-FLAC&p=136096&viewfull=1#post136096)
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.
After several recommending it in this topic, I bought dbpoweramp. I like it so far, two questions before I go further with ripping.
1) I'm going to rip everything vbr 0 (mp3 lame) ... I selected "Slow (High Quality)" and then under advanced there is an "Additional CLI" is there anything else I should add or is their default optimal? Any options I should change that I might have missed?
2) I'm also going to rip to FLAC as several suggested, the v0 are for my iPhone, the FLAC will be backups in case I ever need to convert again. I've never done FLAC, under the options there are Lossless 0-8 then Lossless Uncompressed. I'm assuming I should be doing uncompressed I just wanted to verify?
Thanks for everything.
Don't rip twice. Just rip to lossless (FLAC or ALAC) and then batch encode those to lossy (MP3 or AAC).
There is also the [multi-encoder] encoder which allows to rip to any number of formats in a single go.
Here is a typical reply we give about its virtues:
http://forum.dbpoweramp.com/showthread.php...ll=1#post136096 (http://forum.dbpoweramp.com/showthread.php?30740-Need-to-convert-0-compression-FLAC-to-uncompressed-FLAC&p=136096&viewfull=1#post136096)
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 that’s 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 that’s false for all such computers. But maybe you don’t want to state anything so conclusive about quality and thus alienate the particular proportion of your paying userbase who believe such myths.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
...or a lossy library in a different format (vorbis, opus, aac, etc.).
Please read here http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=844581 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=101762&view=findpost&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.
For those using linux e.g. on their NAS - the great mp3fs http://khenriks.github.io/mp3fs/#introduction (http://khenriks.github.io/mp3fs/#introduction) provides always up-to-date version of your FLAC library in MP3, whenever you need it.
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.
(http://audio.rightmark.org/lukin/temp/rmm/64bitSRC.png)
WoW! 64bit!
I hope you didn't got me wrong but looking at that cool pic i don't think so.
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.
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 that’s over 3 years old! I’m not aware of any good reason to use anything but the latest version, 3.99.5. I generally presume the developers know what they’re doing and therefore that later versions are better. Otherwise they wouldn’t 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.
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 that’s over 3 years old! I’m not aware of any good reason to use anything but the latest version, 3.99.5. I generally presume the developers know what they’re doing and therefore that later versions are better. Otherwise they wouldn’t 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?
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 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=96681)
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.
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.
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.
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!