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: Encoded Cds With Lame 3.93.1. Should I Re-encode? (Read 4713 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Encoded Cds With Lame 3.93.1. Should I Re-encode?

I used the SatCP tutorial as well as EAC & Lame Quick Start (http://www.ping.be/satcp/eac09.htm# & http://www.ping.be/satcp/cd2mp3-en.htm#) quickstart manual to re-encode my cd collection. Unforunately, I visited this forum after I encoded the CDs, and thus used the less tested version of lame (3.93.1). Should I go ahead and re-encode with 3.90.3?

I used the %l--alt-preset 128%l%h--alt-preset standard%h %s %d setting in EAC which is supposed to be the same as --alt preset standard. Atleast I hope so. Anyways, I plan to listen to the MP3s on my computer and on a portable CD-MP3 player with Grado SR-80 headphones. Is it worth the time to re-encode?

Previously, my CDs were encoded with Easy CD-DA Extractor 6.0 using Lame (not sure which version) and a mix of 192 and 256kbit/s CBR. I began using 192kbit/s CBR because I wanted to fit more albums onto a CD.

Encoded Cds With Lame 3.93.1. Should I Re-encode?

Reply #1 –
I would say it depends on how many CD's. If you had only encoded 20CD's, I would probably do it.

The general concensus will probably be that you won't be able to notice a difference in the  sound quality of the two versions.
flac > schiit modi > schiit magni > hd650

Encoded Cds With Lame 3.93.1. Should I Re-encode?

Reply #2 –
Absolutely not. I'm positive you'll never distinguish a 3.93.1-file from a 3.90.3-file. The latter is perhaps more tested but that doesn't mean it's better for sure. So keep your files as they are!

Encoded Cds With Lame 3.93.1. Should I Re-encode?

Reply #3 –
I had to make the same decision too, and I decided to stick with 3.93.1, but I can't remember why.
Happiness - The agreeable sensation of contemplating the misery of others.

Encoded Cds With Lame 3.93.1. Should I Re-encode?

Reply #4 –
I only encoded 37 CDs. Using EAC the ripping averages about 18x (goes up to about 27x), and the encoding about 6-7x. It will only take a few hours to re-encode. I just wanted to know if it's worth the time.

Also, is there any way to rip the wavs to one folder, and the mp3s to another? That way, I way, I could re-encode without having to re-rip. I really only need to limit the size of the files for my portable player, because I have plently of HD space. BTW, does anyone know if a portable DVD-MP3 player exists? I burned my mp3s to DVD for storage, and would love to play them in a portable (no more carrying around multiple disks).

Encoded Cds With Lame 3.93.1. Should I Re-encode?

Reply #5 –
sony makes a device that plays dvd movies on TVs and plays mp3 files stored on a DVD (dont know +R or -R). chkout the sony website for details.
Murali

Encoded Cds With Lame 3.93.1. Should I Re-encode?

Reply #6 –
I think that you do not need to re-encode

Encoded Cds With Lame 3.93.1. Should I Re-encode?

Reply #7 –
Just to be complete, could someone please provide a link to a thread/ test sample  where 3.93.1 --preset standard fails ABX-able vs 3.90.3 --preset standard? I could not find it 

Encoded Cds With Lame 3.93.1. Should I Re-encode?

Reply #8 –
Quote
Absolutely not. I'm positive you'll never distinguish a 3.93.1-file from a 3.90.3-file. The latter is perhaps more tested but that doesn't mean it's better for sure. So keep your files as they are!

I think that's almost safe to say with 3.93.1 versus 3.90.2. There are differences in the files produced, but they're almost certainly negligible.

However, if you try the erhu.flac (or was it ehru.flac ?) killer sample from the thread where -Z was added to --alt-preset standard for 3.90.2, you'll easily spot the difference between 3.90.3 and 3.93.1 in --alt-preset standard setting.

However, such killer samplers are rare, and 3.93.1 would almost certainly sound just as good with ehru as 3.90.3 does, if you used --alt-preset standard -Z in 3.93.1.

I haven't re-encoded any APS files I made before 3.90.3 came out, and they sound good to me (I used 3.90.2 and still have some 3.92 files as well), but I use 3.90.3 now (actually 3.90.3modified+APE+CUE, which just adds the 3.93.1 presets to 3.90.3 plus support for lossless input files and cuesheets), not that I do MP3 encoding very often, compared to my use of MPC.

P.S. And yes, JasonCohen, so long as you select the "High Quality" radio button in EAC, you get --alt-preset standard with that commandline. It ignores the bits between the %l and %l and uses the bits between %h and %h plus any bits outside those delimiters.

Encoded Cds With Lame 3.93.1. Should I Re-encode?

Reply #9 –
Quote
Also, is there any way to rip the wavs to one folder, and the mp3s to another?

You could rip and encode losslessly to FLAC or some other lossless format instead of wave files. This way you save HD space (assuming you don't have a lot of HD space). Then, these FLAC files can be used to encode your mp3s or any other lossy format as u see fit.

(after a second reading of the question, I finally understood what you were really asking about  .)

Well, this is a rough idea, but I think you can set the temporary ripping folder to the place you want to store your wavs in, and make sure to uncheck 'delete original wavs after encoding'. The folder to store mp3s in is specified as normal (before EAC commences ripping), or can be set in EAC options.

Encoded Cds With Lame 3.93.1. Should I Re-encode?

Reply #10 –
Thanks for all of the responses. I have another question.

A few of my disks showed errors in EAC when encoded. I checked the mp3s for audio glitches at the times specified by EAC and could hear no glitches, however I heard cracks and pops at other points in an mp3 where no errors were reported by EAC. I listened to the same track on the CD and didn't hear any abnormalities. I even listened to a 192 kbit/s CBR MP3 of the track which also had no abnormalities. What could cause such an audio glitch when there was no error with the rip, and no error on the CD?

I'm using a NEC 1100A DVD+R/+RW Rewritable Drive. I have the C2 feature disabled so it should be reading the disk twice to make sure the rip is OK even though my drive supports the feature.

Encoded Cds With Lame 3.93.1. Should I Re-encode?

Reply #11 –
I've been listening to the MP3s I created with EAC and LAME, and they have hardly any clicks, hisses, pops etc. I've only been able to find 2 so far. In comparison, the mp3s I encoded with Easy CD-DA extractor had many glitches throughout multiple files. That's probably because it encoded and ripped at a combined average of 22x (encoded and ripped a CD in 3 minutes).

The sound also seems to be a bit richer than 192 CBR. However, I would need to have better speakers, or headphones to compare it with 256 kbit CBR. In the double blind listening tests conducted with 3.91.3, how did the --alt preset standard and --alt preset extreme settings compare with 256 kbit CBR?

Encoded Cds With Lame 3.93.1. Should I Re-encode?

Reply #12 –
To your original question, I agree that there is most likely no difference between the 3.93.1 and 3.90.3 files, I've yet to see the holy ABX show any difference..
< w o g o n e . c o m / l o l >

Encoded Cds With Lame 3.93.1. Should I Re-encode?

Reply #13 –
Sorry for my ignorance but exactly is ABX?

Encoded Cds With Lame 3.93.1. Should I Re-encode?

Reply #14 –
ABX is a tool for blind testing so you can tell how likely it was you were guessing that one sample sounded different from another or from the original CD. (If you know which was which, the placebo effect can cause your preconceived subconscious biases to rate one as better when there's really no difference)

You can hear sample A and sample B, and know which they are, but samples X and Y could be either. You then say sample X is A and Y is B or you say sample Y is A and X is B. If you reach less than 5% chance that you were guessing (e.g. 7 out of 8 trials), you can be pretty certain it's real and audible.

WinABX requires two WAV files for input. Foobar2000 player has an ABX comparator with a slightly different interface, but can automatically prepare the samples and make sure the volume matches.

For example, this thread is where it was decided to add -Z to --alt-preset standard and extreme and create lame 3.90.3

Samples like erhu or ehru (see a few posts above the one I linked to) and birds and glass have an artifact that you'll almost certainly hear with lame 3.93.1 on --alt-preset standard but not in 3.90.3. Also 3.93.1 with the -Z switch added should solve the problem, because it's the -Z switch that was hard coded into --alt-preset standard in version 3.90.3 (which was released after 3.93.1 despite the numbering). I had no trouble ABXing erhu.flac on 3.90.2 anyway until I added the -Z, which solved it and made me guess which was MP3 and which was WAV.

Note that this is relatively rare, which is why I concur that it's probably not worth re-encoding with 3.90.3, just using 3.90.3 in future (or 3.90.3modified from Rarewares, if you want --preset medium etc)

Encoded Cds With Lame 3.93.1. Should I Re-encode?

Reply #15 –
Quote
Thanks for all of the responses. I have another question.

A few of my disks showed errors in EAC when encoded. I checked the mp3s for audio glitches at the times specified by EAC and could hear no glitches, however I heard cracks and pops at other points in an mp3 where no errors were reported by EAC. I listened to the same track on the CD and didn't hear any abnormalities. I even listened to a 192 kbit/s CBR MP3 of the track which also had no abnormalities. What could cause such an audio glitch when there was no error with the rip, and no error on the CD?

I'm using a NEC 1100A DVD+R/+RW Rewritable Drive. I have the C2 feature disabled so it should be reading the disk twice to make sure the rip is OK even though my drive supports the feature.

If EAC reports as no errors and you hear distortion, chances are secure mode isn't enabled in the CD Mode Options. You should also hit the detect button to see which features your drives are capable of doing. This will ensure quality rips and the only other problem could be that your disc is dirty or scratched, in which case you should use Disk Doctor (also called DVD Doctor, Game Doctor, there all the same!). As for distortion in CD-DA extractor, it could be the program itself, as I have had similar problems back with older versions of CDex. But why would you want to use CD-DA when EAC is prefered by these monster mega audiophile geeks all over this forum?  B)

Encoded Cds With Lame 3.93.1. Should I Re-encode?

Reply #16 –
I'm using a NEC 1100A DVD+R/+RW Writer Drive.

EAC reported this:

Detect Read Features

Caching: No
Accurate Stream: Yes
C2 Error Info: Yes

Examine C2 Function:

Found C2 Error Information

Settings:

Secure Mode is ON, Drive is capable of retreiving C2 information is checked, but I decided not to use the C2 feature to be safe.

Error Recovery is set to high.

Encoded Cds With Lame 3.93.1. Should I Re-encode?

Reply #17 –
This particular disk was scratched, and an error was reported on the track, however the audio glitch is at another time position. I could hear no abnormality at the time specified by EAC when the actual read & sync errors occured.

This also seems to be a pretty rare problem because I've listened to a few hours of MP3s, and the only two glitches were on that particular track.

Encoded Cds With Lame 3.93.1. Should I Re-encode?

Reply #18 –
I have found 3 more clicks on one particular song. The CD has only a few light scratches, and EAC reported no errors on either that song or any of the other 23 songs on the disk.

The log report for the song was:

Track 23
  Filename C:\Documents and Settings\Jason\My Documents\My Music CDs\,J.S. BachFrench Suites I-IV\23 - J.S. Bach - Track 23.wav

  Peak level 99.9 %
  Track quality 99.6 %
  Copy CRC 1AB50227
  Copy OK

And at the end of the file it reported:  "No errors occured"

The two minute, and two second song has 3 loud, and cleary noticeable clicks at 0:55, 1:56, and 1:57.

Encoded Cds With Lame 3.93.1. Should I Re-encode?

Reply #19 –
Try disabling the C2 error information in EAC -- set it manually to NO (uncheck the box)... then see if you get the same SQ issues.

Edit -- oops, I see you decided not to use it.  Well in that case, enable it and see if it helps!
 

Encoded Cds With Lame 3.93.1. Should I Re-encode?

Reply #20 –
Quote
I've been listening to the MP3s I created with EAC and LAME, and they have hardly any clicks, hisses, pops etc. I've only been able to find 2 so far. In comparison, the mp3s I encoded with Easy CD-DA extractor had many glitches throughout multiple files.

In my experience, glitches and pops are not a result of the encoder, but rather due to problems in the cd extraction which precedes encoding.

In other words, the extracted WAV files would have the glitches and pops, which would then be encoded.
flac > schiit modi > schiit magni > hd650