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: CD ripping nightmare! (Read 6575 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

CD ripping nightmare!

I spent the better part of a month ripping my cd collection using EAC at this setting:
-V 2 --vbr-new --add-id3v2 --pad-id3v2 --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" %s %d
I use Media Monkey and I looked in the tracks by encoding node and under 96 kbps I have 4000 files and under 128 I have 5000! What does this mean, do I have to go back and rip all these discs?
I did a little test. I took a disc that came out at 96 or so and did it at V1 but the bitrates are only in the 110 area.
What's going on?
thanks

CD ripping nightmare!

Reply #1 –
Check the bitrates with EncSpot just to make sure that MM isn't calculating the bitrate incorrectly.
If it is, then it's possible those tracks are basically mono...

CD ripping nightmare!

Reply #2 –
Is that the minimum bitrate they're using, or the average? If its the minimum, there is nothing to worry about.

Check one of the ones marked as below 96. Check the size of the file. a 5 minute song with those settings should be AROUND 7MB. If its like 3MB, you might be in trouble. Now, I have lots of songs (classical and/or mono recordings) that come in below 128kbps. Modern music (rock, rap et al) usually average higher, but a simple piece with just piano and voice will be pretty small.

Try encoding one of them from a dos prompt with the same settings and see if it comes out the same size. if it does, you're fine. If not? You might have something misconfigured someplace.

CD ripping nightmare!

Reply #3 –
Quote from: Jebus on
Is that the minimum bitrate they're using, or the average? If its the minimum, there is nothing to worry about.

Check one of the ones marked as below 96. Check the size of the file. a 5 minute song with those settings should be AROUND 7MB. If its like 3MB, you might be in trouble. Now, I have lots of songs (classical and/or mono recordings) that come in below 128kbps. Modern music (rock, rap et al) usually average higher, but a simple piece with just piano and voice will be pretty small.

Try encoding one of them from a dos prompt with the same settings and see if it comes out the same size. if it does, you're fine. If not? You might have something misconfigured someplace.


well, I see one song is 5:00 mins w/ 84 bitrate and it's 3.1 MB.
How do you encode from a dos prompt?

CD ripping nightmare!

Reply #5 –
It sounds as if you are checking your bitrates in Windows Explorer... ? Windows Explorer is not at all reliable for this.

I recommend you use dedicated MP3 software such as the player foobar2000 or the encoder checker EncSpot to check the bitrates of your MP3's.

CD ripping nightmare!

Reply #6 –
Quote from: NeoRenegade on
It sounds as if you are checking your bitrates in Windows Explorer... ? Windows Explorer is not at all reliable for this.

I recommend you use dedicated MP3 software such as the player foobar2000 or the encoder checker EncSpot to check the bitrates of your MP3's.


The bitrate he gave is consistent with the filesize/songlength ratio. So either the bitrate really is that low or the songlength or filesize are incorrect too.

CD ripping nightmare!

Reply #7 –
Quote from: Sebastian Mares on
I hope you set EAC to use a custom encoder and did not select LAME.

I have the "parameter passing scheme" set to user defined encoder.
I checked in foobar and it's the same.
Could the recording technology have something to do with it? Most of the low bitrate songs are old, 60's and before but also some reggae which didn't have very good recording technology. I re-did a track at V0 and I only got 128.'
I don't think there's anything wrong with EAC; I ripped the wave then converted it to mp3 in foobar at 190kbps and still got the 98 result.

CD ripping nightmare!

Reply #9 –
The file sizes and bit rates look about right for the LAME parameters that you used.  If you want to encode at a higher bit rate then try the following parameters.

  -V 0 --vbr-new --add-id3v2 --pad-id3v2 --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" %s %d

This will give you larger files and a higher bitrate.

CD ripping nightmare!

Reply #10 –
Quote from: sperk on
Quote from: Sebastian Mares on

I hope you set EAC to use a custom encoder and did not select LAME.

I have the "parameter passing scheme" set to user defined encoder.
I checked in foobar and it's the same.
Could the recording technology have something to do with it? Most of the low bitrate songs are old, 60's and before but also some reggae which didn't have very good recording technology. I re-did a track at V0 and I only got 128.'
I don't think there's anything wrong with EAC; I ripped the wave then converted it to mp3 in foobar at 190kbps and still got the 98 result.


60's and before most likely implies monaural material, and while monaural generally needs more than half the bitrate of similar stereo material, older recordings also typically have less high frequencies as well, so the bit rates that you are seeing could be perfectly OK.

CD ripping nightmare!

Reply #11 –
Quote from: pdq on
60's and before most likely implies monaural material, and while monaural generally needs more than half the bitrate of similar stereo material, older recordings also typically have less high frequencies as well, so the bit rates that you are seeing could be perfectly OK.


Yep, there's absolutely nothing to worry about. The last mono encodings I made averaged at even lower bitrates (I mostly use the -V 6 and -V 5 settings) without any ABXable loss of quality. LAME intelligently uses fewer bits on monaural recordings.

CD ripping nightmare!

Reply #12 –
Quote from: Junon on
Quote from: pdq on
60's and before most likely implies monaural material, and while monaural generally needs more than half the bitrate of similar stereo material, older recordings also typically have less high frequencies as well, so the bit rates that you are seeing could be perfectly OK.


Yep, there's absolutely nothing to worry about. The last mono encodings I made averaged at even lower bitrates (I mostly use the -V 6 and -V 5 settings) without any ABXable loss of quality. LAME intelligently uses fewer bits on monaural recordings.


Yeah, I wouldn't worry too much about these songs. I used V1 (I think thats what setting it was) on one of the Beatles album which had "poorly" recorded bootlegs and the bit-rate dropped down to 112 or so. I was gonna start freaking out, but I realized that it was just on those tracks, the ones that were "poor" sounding.

CD ripping nightmare!

Reply #13 –
You should not worry about this, sounds like most of your CDs were mastered from a mono source and LAME is smart enough to dected mono sound and then use a less bitrate for mono frames since 160kbps for mono is a waste of space this is one of the main advantages of Joint Stereo.

JS frames info on encspot (mono mastered mp3):



My LAME settings on EAC:

"I never thought I'd see this much candy in one mission!"