Hi gang,

I KNOW this will have been asked many many times but I need the help of someone who knows what they are doing.

I need to rip my CD's to 320kbs best quality encode and I have no clue on what preset to use. Every forum and person seems to recomend something different.

I will be using EAC as my ripper and Lame as my mp3 encoder.

Any help would be great?

Thanks.

Belinea

Oh and I forgot to mention that I will be using Lame V3.97 (unless a better one is recomended)

Why don't you read this first, http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=LAME
and then ask specific questions?

1. Get an ABX tool
2. Encode track to plain lame -V4
3. Try to ABX it
4. If you fail, you've found the ideal setting. If you succeeded, encode with V3 and try to ABX again. If you succeed in that as well, the most probably something is wrong - or you have bat ears.

This is a pretty good guide:

http://jiggafellz.isa-geek.net/eac/

I'd suggest using either V0 or V2, V0 will give you the best audio quality whilst saving a bit more space than 320CBR which remains at that constant bitrate even on silent/quiet song parts - which imo is a waste of space. But it's down to you at the end of the day.

-V 0 --vbr-new --add-id3v2 --ignore-tag-errors --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tg "%m" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" %s %d


-V 2 --vbr-new --add-id3v2 --ignore-tag-errors --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tg "%m" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" %s %d

Hi and thank you for your reply (even if it was barbed)

I indeed did read that page you suggested I read but it has still left me confused.

I worked out that I need something like

Best quality: "archiving"
-b 320.

but do i need to put anything before that or after it in the preset box?

Like I said in my original post, I know my question has probibly been asked 100's of times before but I am a newbie to this preset stuff and would welcome a helping hand

I mean no offence what so ever in what Im about to say, but giving someone a book with the answers does not mean they can understand what they are reading (if you understand my point)

Thanks for bothering to though, I appreciate it.

Belinea






Hi Ya,

Thanks for the reply, i appreciate it.

You have totally lost me know, isnt this just complicating things?

Regards,

Belinea




Hi Phixion

Thank for the reply, much appreciated.

The jiggafellz site rocks, thats the setup guide I always use but to be fair its a bit out of date now. Im using the latest version of EAC on a Vista DAW and the new version has quite a few features that guide does not cover. Its still a damn good guide to get you up and running

I will certainly try your presets a go and see how I get on. Cant say my ears are great at telling the fine points of audio which is why Im hoping for guidence from you guys lol

Cheers

Belinea

ABX basically means compare the original with the encoded file...there are programs available that allow you do this and record the results. Check out some of the threads regarding blind listening tests.

The reason for this is because there is no point in encoding at 320 kb/s in many (if not all) instances since most newer encoders are completely transparent to the common listener at bit rates of 128 kb/s and up.

I would recommend:

-V 1 --vbr-new --add-id3v2 --ignore-tag-errors --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tg "%m" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" %s %d

I use this setting and cannot distinguish between the original CD and the encoded mp3 even playing it back on my iPod in the car or with some decent headphones.
JXL

By The Way, Are these presets for 320kbs ?

Just asking as I am trying to learn and these things are actually giving me a headache?

Hi

Sorry if my reply sounded barbed .

Anyway, what most of the posters are saying is:

* MP3 at 320 is "THE BEST" that MP3 can do, but it rarely makes sense to do since most people cannot distinguish between a lower bitrate file and the original.

When people talk about "V", they're talking about presets that use VBR, which is a process that allocates a higher bitrate to "complex" parts, and uses less bits to store the "easier" parts to ensure a "constant quality". (I'm greatly simplifying things here, but you get the idea.)

The V scale starts from 0 and goes to 9. 0 being the "best" and 9 being the one that uses the lowest average bitrate.

A lot of people have found V5 to be transparent (i.e. cannot distinguish it from original). So what Lyx was suggesting is that you perform an ABX (foobar can help you with this) to determine what level is transparent to YOU.

of course, if you're in no mood for experimentation, you should use V2 or V0. I'd strongly recommend V0 over 320 kbps.

IMO 320 kbps is just wasteful. If you're THAT paranoid about the quality, just use flac or something.

Hi JunkieXL

Thanks for the preset suggestion.

OK I know 320kbs is taking up quite a lot of space but I really need to use 320 so I need the best preset for this if possible please?

thanks in advance

Bel

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=EAC_and_Lame

Replace the part in green (-V 2 --vbr-new) with -b 320.

I advise people to stay away from the jiggafellz site because of the sub-optimal EAC configuration recommendations.

Also, it will probably be easier to let EAC tag the files instead of using that cumbersome line with the kludge to prevent an error because recommended version of Lame has limited genre functionality.

use the commandline below for 320kbps

OK Maybe it would help if I explained why I need 320kbs

Im a DJ in a club here in the UK and the club is putting in a custom digital playback system.

The system will only play 320kbs MP3's - dont ask me why only 320 but there it is and I
gotta rip and encode a couple of thousand tracks from my original source CD's.

It has something to do with the fact that illegal downloadable MP3's are at 128 so to stop us
playing them the software used for playback will only play 320kbs.

Thats what Im stuck with

Thanks

Bel

Alright. The minimum commandline you have to use is %s stands for the ripped file and %d stands for the mp3 you create.
You can either use EAC to tag your mp3 files (on the ID3 Tag page in compression options) or let lame handle that. This is the part. If you let EAC handle tags you can leave the above code out.

Most guys here will let Lame handle the tags, so that leaves you with the commandline posted by A_man_eating_a_duck.

Ah rite,

Now I understand a little better

Thanks for the preset also, I am going to try them all out in the morning.

Thanks again

Bel

This is why I encode all of my CD's to archival lossless FLAC files. I can transcode the FLAC's using foobar and let it run for a day or two and have a whole new set of lossy files with whatever hot new codec comes out. And the resulting transcoded mp3 is the same as if I had just stuck the CD in and ripped it using EAC.

If you are going to take this much effort to rip them using EAC you might as well encode to a lossless codec like FLAC. You could then transcode them to 320 kb/s mp3's afterwards with very little effort or time and in the future if they get a new system that requires 256 kb/s files you can transcode the FLAC's again in a snap.
JXL

EDIT: There are multiple lossless codecs out there. FLAC is just the most popular and the one that I have come to like best. Check out the lossless guides...it could really help you out.

The line you would use if you wanted the preset would be:
or

"--preset insane" is no different than "-b 320".

That is strange. I think it is a misconception that all illegally downloaded mp3s are at 128kbps.

I just don't see the logic in that setup (not that you set it up though).

I would also have to agree with JunkieXL in that you should look into creating a lossless archive of your CDs. Then you can simply use a program such as foobar2000 to encode the lossless files to whichever lossy format and bitrate that you want. You should never have to rip your CDs again once you create a lossless archive.

Moderation: Amended an unintentional skirting of TOS #9.

Can you expand on this? The only thing I really notice in jiggafellz guide that is outdated is the FLAC command line he uses.

Actually I really like this idea as I have recently bought one of the western digital 1TB drives as an archive so ripping to lossless is a great idea.

So once I have ripped to lossless I need Foobar to encode from lossless to 320 kbs ?

Here:
http://www.digital-inn.de/exact-audio-copy...tion-again.html

We can split the thread if you would like to argue the merits of this site.

EDIT: Thread has been split to argue the merits of that site...
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=62546

You can convert your lossless files with foobar, however if you know now that you want lossless as well as 320kbps mp3s you might wanna take a look at REACT: http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=REACT
It allows you to encode to lossless and mp3 at the same time while ripping. However setting it up requieres some reading, so if you're to lazy to to that foobar2000 is a perfect solution for converting lossless to mp3, plus it basically only involves clicking your mousebutton

Hi Ya,

I dont think it's a case of being too lazy to read up on how to use REACT, if I'm honest I'm not techno minded enough to understand it all and Im just being honset here.

I Think the best way I can go is rip with EAC to lossless, then encode or transcode the lossless to MP3. As you guys said, once I have the lossless archive I wont have to re-rip my CD's

You can use a variety of programs such as foobar2000, dbpoweramp, and a few others to convert your lossless files to 320kbps mp3. foobar2000 seems to be the most commonly, free program that many people use.

As per my previous post, I didn't mean to advocate illegally downloading songs. I think that people should pay for material that they want to listen to unless it is the case where the artists/record companies off up the songs for free on the internet. I just wanted to point out that I think it is dumb that the software requires 320kbps files given that illegal downloads have moved beyond the 128kbps bitrate. There are even lossless downloads. I am not saying to run out and download those files but lossless > 128kbps. So technically speaking, you could have illegal downloads encoded at the 320kbps. The system just seems flawed in that the person who setup the whole rule about 320kbps isn't really stopping these illegal files from getting in. I understand why they want to but in this day and age, illegal files will always fine their ways in whether people want them there or not. If they really wanted to stop illegal files from getting in then they would require you to bring in an actual pressed audio CD. That is all. I am not trying to advertise illegal downloads or say that they are right. I believe that people should purchase the material that they want. Illegal downloading takes away from more than the record companies. It takes away from the artists, their producers, the engineers, tour managers, general managers, and pretty much everyone who works for/with the artists.

OMG I dont believe it lol

I have just been reading up on FLAC and that darn thing uses presets so here we go all over again

i guess if things are easy then they wouldnt be so good

?




Dont worry, I knew what you ment and I dont think any fair person would disagree with you - I certainly dont. All the stuff I play out is from CD's that I have either purchased or been sent as promos by the record companys.

OK guys you have been brilliant whith your help and suggestions and I know know which way I wanna go but if you could indulge me one last time.

I have been reading about FLAC and I have found two suggested 'Additional command-line options'

which one should I use?

-T "artist=%a" -T "title=%t" -T "album=%g" -T "date=%y" -T "tracknumber=%n" -T "genre=%m" -5 %s


or


-4 -T "artist=%a" -T "title=%t" -T "album=%g" -T "date=%y" -T "tracknumber=%n" -T "genre=%m" %s

Thank you so much so far

Another idea that just came to my mind was mp3repacker: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=32379
It can turn any mp3 into 320kbps CBR. Now that's of course the total opposite thing of ripping everything lossless, but it would be the easiest and fastest way of getting 320kbps mp3 files. I like this idea for it allows you to cheat around the "i-will-only-playback-320kbps" restriction, which is a stupid idea anyway, moreso considering the cause of anti-piracy as if you couldn't pirate 320kbps files

I would recommend -6 (considered flac's sweet-spot in encoding efficiency):

The only difference is the -5 vs -4, as far as I can see. With lossless you don't even have to worry really, since the quality is always the same (CD-perfect) you can convert the files later to a higher or lower compression rate. I usually use -8 which is the highest compression, but the slowest. Lower numbers will encode faster (or you can just leave that switch out altogether to use the default - probably a sensible idea actually).

In this situation it would have been useful. Our members are passionate about their encoding. I am still a little disappointed that it took nine posts for someone to actually answer your question though (kudos to greynol).

I would agree with using -6, although many FLAC users do use -8 (the highest compression setting). All settings - -4; -5; -6; -8 - will give you a lossless backup, it's all down to compression size vs encoding speed. IMHO -6 gives the best compromise.

Bear in mind that most of these command lines are for use with EAC. The %x placeholders will mean nothing elsewhere*.

* Except %s and %d in foobar.

A point that you could mention to the club is that legal copies can be purchased on the web and don't come at 320.

Yes kudos indeed to greynol

But also to everyone who took the time to reply, I appreciated everyones answers

Thank you all




I know you are right and we have had this discussion many times with the club manager but it's out of even his hands.

You see we are part a huge chain of clubs all over the UK and the big bosses at HQ have decided this is the way they want the clubs to go - dunno why but it's their way or the highway

Thank anyway,

Bel