I usually rip my cd's with cdex, I use lame 3.93.1 with 192 kbps cbr full stereo and -q 5. That configuration give a good quality (not perfect) but the encoding speed is a bit slow in my system (a old p2 350).
My question is if I can acquire the same quality or better quality with more speed (or better quality with same speed) with others encoders or other configurations of lame. I test gogo 3.11, it's faster than lame with the same coonfiguration but I am not sure if the quality it's the same.
Other question it's if I should use abr instead of cbr in -q 5, the speed is same in gogo and lame.
That's all for now, this is my first post in this great forum and I hope that forgive me for my poor english. Thanks.

You should really take a look at the LAME settings we recommend:
http://doc.hydrogenaudio.org/wikis/hydroge...RecommendedLAME

Secondly gogo was uptimized for speed not quality whereas LAME was made to get the best quality possible.

There's no way to be as fast as gogo with lame.

An alternative: If you have enough HDD space you could use Exact Audio Copy, rip several CDs, enqueue encodings and let your PC encode the whole night ... using some of the reommended lame settings mentioned already here. I don't know if you can enqueue encodings of several CDs with CDEx.

I already tested these configurations but runs to slow in my computer, they are optimized for quality but I need speed and a certain quality. My computer it's for family use and I can't let encode a lot hours therefore I use cdex and a fast configuration of lame.
I am very insteresting in gogo but i don't find much information about.
I think that I should use a ABR 192 kbps in q-5 and joint stereo. In this manner I increased the quality and this configuration is a bit slow that I use normally, but what codec should I use? gogo 3.11, lame 3.90.3 or lame 3.93.1?

And please don't insist with presets, they are verey slow in old systems.

I'm a CDex user too - and i have an old pc too.

Still, i HIGHLY recommend a preset..... if preset-standard is too slow for you, try this:

--alt-preset FAST standard

the presets give far better quality. NEVER use CBR, unless you are really need it(really old hardware-mp3-players, streaming, etc.)

- Lyx

Ok, I know that preset give me more quality, but the speed is very slow even using --alt preset fast standartd. I usually rips a lot of cd's in the same day therefore I need more speed that a preset, and I don't want a transparent quality, only a decent quality for my pc and portable.

I've played a bit with gogo 3.11 some time ago (VBR settings IIRC). The speed advantage over lame (3.90.2 then) wasn't that big. (something like 12x vs. 10x at comparable settings). Maybe it's different with CBR/ABR ... . As there aren't many commandline options for gogo, you could try all available to check their effect on encoding speed/quality yourself. Some documents about switches etc. should be included in gogo downloads (e.g. at rarewares).

I'm not that familiar with details but I think generally quality tweaks/optimizations that are not available in gogo should take some extra processing time. So probably there won't be much quality difference between lame + gogo if you avoid using high quality/slowing down switches with lame.

So if - as you said - the faster presets are still too slow, I'd use gogo and test some settings myself for speed/quality.

edit: clarification

There's a big difference between 'same quality' and 'same quality you can usually hear' —for instance, 192kbps split between two full stereo channels isn't really enough for some kinds of music. I consider full stereo a waste, usually, and especially with most of the bands I listen to.

If you experiment with GoGo and find you don't notice the quality differential too much (and it's faster), then use it. Only you can decide what 'good quality' is for yourself.

Any lossy compression scheme is just that—lossy—especially at the bitrates being considered.

You should use at least --preset 192.
The speed difference with your current settings should be minimal, and you will have a big quality increase.

Some speed numbers (lame 3.90.3 / gogo 3.11; Athlon TB 1300, 100MHZ FSB, 133MHZ SDRAM):

lame --alt-preset fast standard : 5.1674x
lame --alt-preset 192 :::::::::::: 4.7461x
lame --alt-preset cbr 192 :::::::: 4.4226x
lame -b 192 -m s -q 5 ::::::::::: 17.631x
lame -b 192 -m j -q 5 :::::::::::: 14.558x
gogo -b 192 -m s -q 5 :::::::::::: 33.00x
gogo -b 192 -m s -q 5 -nopsy ::: 40.83x
gogo -b 192 -m j -q 5 :::::::::::: 32.03x
gogo -b 192 -m j -q 5 -nopsy ::: 39.84x

using -lpf on with gogo (16kHz lowpass on decreases speed similar to using -m j compared to -m s.

On your 350mhz, running any Lame's preset will result in a speed around 1.0~1.5x.
Using GoGo at 192 ABR/CBR you can get something around 3.0~3.5x.
I used GoGo myself until recently, when I replaced my trusted AMD k6_333mhz box.
I just recommend increasing the quality to 3 instead of 5.
Did your try Fhg MP3 plug-in, present on Cool Edit? (2000 or Pro). Its faster than Lame and the results not that bad.

Gogo does not sound that bad - If speed is your only concern, I would recommend that you use a command line similar to this one - "gogo.exe -a -b 192 -m j xxx.wav xxx.mp3" This will produce ABR files w/ Joint stereo at ~192kbps. If you want to add more quality, you can add the -q 2 switch, but it will cut encoding speed down to 2/3 of the above command line. Good luck.

The problem in gogo is the configuration of the dll file in cdex. It can't especify the quality (-q). I have to do in the commandline (more slow 2 passes ). In gogo I can increase the -q to -q 2 with a decent speed (over 4x in my system), but I am not sure if the quality of that configuration it's equal to lame settings that I was used. It's hard to me listen the differences.
Other possibility to me is to use lame 3.93.1 with js mode and abr in 192 kbps and -q 5, I think that configuration give me more quality with same space and it's a bit slower (over 3x in my system).
And preset's give me a speed of 1x or lower, and other thing taht I don't want to use --alt-preset standard it's the bitrate, I have a portable and the bitrate it's to high with metal tracks (the music that I should to listen). I don't want to surpass the 192 kbps.

Why don't you use .exe (no matter if lame or gogo) instead of .dll ? You'll be able to use ordinary commandlines with any switch(es) you want (should work with CDEx AFAIK). Or have I misunderstood?

Yes cdex it's prepared for external encoder, but the encoding don't is on the fly. There are that rip and after encode the track and this with all tracks. I would like that I can rip all the album to wav and after encode with gogo commandline using cdex not track-rip track-encode in order to tags all tracks for the same cdex. If I did these separately I have to tags the tracks with others aplication and it's a hard work when I encode multiples cd's.

You might want to give ExactAudioCopy (EAC) a try. It rips to temporary .wav files if an exe encoder is used, but after the 1st track is extracted to .wav completely, encoding starts immediately and ripping continues at the same time. So at most you'll waste the time needed to rip the 1st track of a CD compared to "real" on-the-fly. For very fast ripping speed you could try burst mode. IIRC EAC is able to add tags to files encoded by external .exe encoders without extra work.

I tested EAC in multiples instances, it gives me problems with my drive (lg 52x and rw lg 48x) in secure mode, I'll try tomorrow in burst mode and I'll tell the results.

There is one important thing I did forget to mention about FHG plug-in from CE:
Actually you can use it(fhg.flt) in conjunction which EAC, to encode on-the-fly.
Very easy: just copy it to EAC's folders and it will be recognized and then you can set your options. (VBR modes are fast as CBR!). My setting for it is:
VBR quality 70, Fast Codec.
Give it a try.

/edit/In time: LG drives use to work perfectly which EAC in secure mode.
Let EAC detect the drive capabilities (use a clean/new cd to easy the process), and then save the settings and close the proggie to let the settings to be saved.
Sometimes EAC seems to detect the features very fast, but its a buggy. Re-start it and detect again.(if the process of detection takes about 30 seconds for each step, then it worked).

Where I obtain this plugin? Only come with CE? Gives more quality than fastenc from musicmatch? Fastenc of musicmatch is a good codec, very good speed (8x in my system) but the quality it's far of lame.

As many of you already know, Sytrillium is dead, but v1.1 demo still avaliable here

IMHO, Fhg's quality is good enough for normal use.
Yes, the plug-in comes blunded which Cool Edit 2000/Cool Edit Pro 1.x 2.x versions.(the demo version can perform limited encodes).
edit: typos and clarify.

Well I have the fhg codec, it's of year 2000, exist a new version? this version is of cool edit 2000 and I don't now if cool edot pro has a new encoder.
What options I should use? 70 vbr quality, maximun bandwitch??

The latest usable version is found on CoolEdit 2.1 Pro.
Sorry, I don't remember the settings anymore, but you can start using the defaults first.(uncheck "add CRC")

The options of fhg codec not are saved and every time encodes at 128 kbps :S. This codec it's the same at musicmatch 6.1-8? or it's better? this configuration is more complete.
Well I go to sleep now and tomorrow I test it more exhaustively. Thanks for help me. I'm back tomorrow

This morning I tested the fhg codec of Cool Edit Pro 2.1 in EAC. It seems to be the same that come with musicmatch 8 and nero. This codec is very fast and give a good results of quality but the quality is under lame cbr 192 full stereo -q 5. I have used various configurations in VBR (80% seems a good configuration, it gives bitrates around 192 kbps), but the quality don't seems improve.
I think that I should to follow using lame, I'll change full stereo for joint stereo and CBR for ABR improving quality sound. The speed in my system with this configuration is 3x, that is far of 8x of fhg codec but the quality seems to be much better.

Recently Adobe has bought syntrillium....
Now Cool Edit Pro is called Adobe Audition....

Although you don't want to hear this, I would recommend using LAME 3.90.3 with --alt-preset standard. On my configuration (Intel Pentium II 333 MHz) it gives me ~2.5x.
If you don't really need MP3, I might give Ogg Vorbis a try - Quality 6 works with 3x here.
If space doesn't matter, use WavPack with normal compression - don't know why, but it encodes a 5 minutes song in less than 30 seconds.

It's odd, in my pentium 2 350 the speed with lame 3.90.3 is ~1x (too slow). Anyway I don't want to use lame --alt-preset standard for the space, I have a MP3 portable and the space is important therefore I don't encode over 192 kbps. I don't use Ogg and Wavpack for the same reasons.

So add the -Y switch. That will cut down the file size to around 192 kbps or even lower. And the quality is virtually the same.

OR... if you wanna try a really fast encoder, try *cough* LAME 4.0 (pre-alpha). The quality is ok but the speed is amazing:) I'll probably get a good spanking for suggesting this but I wasn't the one making it available in the first place. Needless to say, it's only for testing. I like it though for my portable. If you want me to, I can email it to ya:)

For portable use only -Y switch is a very good selection, but I want my mp3's files for portable and for pc, and I have conected the pc to my hi-fi therefore the I don't use the -Y switch, I noticed the lowpass filter in my hi-fi.
About lame 4, I tested the alpha 6 version and the quality of the sound is lower than lame 3.90.3 or 3.9x and very noticiable. Exist a new version of lame 4?

Are you for real? You dismiss LAME aps -Y due to inferior quality but at the same time you want to use GOGO? How do you make that equation?? By the way, (here we go again) have you ABX-tested the -Y switch? i.e. blind tested it to make sure you can really distinguish it from a regular aps-file? If you have, I won't bug ya. If not, you're really sticking out your neck here at HA by claiming stuff.

Regarding LAME 4.0. It will be a while until the official version comes out. No more leaks I guess

LAME aps -Y use a lowpass filter of 16 khz, that is good for portable I can't notice high frequency in portable, but in the hi-fi it's noticiable. Gogo not use a aggressive lowpass filtering if you don't indicate it (just lame). Yes I tested the -aps -Y several times and I have done the ABX. I know what I say .

well for starters, the -Y switch doesn't cut at 16 KHz like a lowpass would. See this thread:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....700&hl=y+switch

Anyway, I refuse to take this any further. Do as you like with it.

Ok, at any rate I need speed for encoding, with -aps -Y it's soo slow in my system I like use the lame -aps but in my computer this is a odyssey.