Fastest encoder?

[CompDude]

Does anybody know what they think the fastest and best encoder out there.....cuz the one im using, db power amp....it takes 6 hours to convert 150 files to lame mp3 vbr 192-256....now if thats normal ok...but if there''s one thast faster...could u tell me?

[NPswimdude500]

are you simply converting files from your hard drive to a different format ? If so, I've used cdex lately to convert to ogg, and found that 150 files doesn't take nearly 6 hours. I'm not sure if this works for other formats, but it did from lame mp3 to ogg

[Prosperus]

doesn't that all produce really lossy files? How's the sound quality on those?

[CompDude]

yeah that might..work do u kno of any others maybe?

[seadzz]

CompDude,

1. Transcoding, converting from one format to another will result in a decrease in aaudio playback quality.

2. Encode speed, rip speed and transcode speed are more directly related to the guts inside your computer than anything else. If you have a newish machine with a P4 CPU, lots of RAM and a good CDROM you should be able to encode one album in under 3 minutes flat. Older machines with slow processors and too many programs running in the background are going to take forever......sorry but this is just the way life is my friend.

No matter what software you use if your machine is a POS there is not much you can do to speed things other than adding RAM, shutting down everything not required and maybe encoding while you sleep.

good luck,

sdz

[y0da]

transcodeing is like trying to murder the file but instead you miss by enough that it just comes out retarded

[CompDude]

k thx....the comp im running is a pentium 2 350 mhz 160 mb ram 100mhz sidebus.....but thats only the comp in my room....my comp downstair which my parents dont let me put my crap onto like music...is running pentium 4 2.8 ghz 512 mb ram and 400 mhz sidebus....so maybe thats why it's slow...but i decided to download razorlame...or bluerazorlame as the hacked software is called...and ill try that in a couple mins...to see the reults of one song

[HeartsOfWar]

Originally Posted by seadzz

CompDude,

1. Transcoding, converting from one format to another will result in a decrease in aaudio playback quality.

2. Encode speed, rip speed and transcode speed are more directly related to the guts inside your computer than anything else. If you have a newish machine with a P4 CPU, lots of RAM and a good CDROM you should be able to encode one album in under 3 minutes flat. Older machines with slow processors and too many programs running in the background are going to take forever......sorry but this is just the way life is my friend.

No matter what software you use if your machine is a POS there is not much you can do to speed things other than adding RAM, shutting down everything not required and maybe encoding while you sleep.

good luck,

sdz

yes, sure a good computer makes a difference, but you never tell anyone what format and bit rate you're referring to when you toss these x minutes per cd stories... Give more, whole information

Alco, transcoding between FORMATS is not advisable at all.... Different formats use different algorithms.

transcoding between BIT RATES is ok as long as you keep the BIT RATES in respectible ratio.

ex. transcoding a 256 MP3 into a 128 or 160 MP3 is ok

[seadzz]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfWar

yes, sure a good computer makes a difference, but you never tell anyone what format and bit rate you're referring to when you toss these x minutes per cd stories... Give more, whole information

Alco, transcoding between FORMATS is not advisable at all.... Different formats use different algorithms.

transcoding between BIT RATES is ok as long as you keep the BIT RATES in respectible ratio.

ex. transcoding a 256 MP3 into a 128 or 160 MP3 is ok

I encode using Ogg Vorbis at Q8 and can do a rip and encode of a average album using EAC in about 4 minutes start to finish. LAME is a little slower, something like 4:30 for the same album.

Transcoding between bit rates is just as bad as transcoding from one codec to another. I have no idea where you got the impression that going from 256 down to another lower number was ok.....simply not true. I would do a search over at http://www.hydrogenaudio.org and that will confirm my statements. Transcoding = Death anyway you do it. Sorry but such is life.

sdz

[altered_beast]

Transcoding is always a bad idea. You won't be happy with the results if you're even a slightly discerning listener. Try to find an alternate source for the file. Hell, even consider purchasing a source disc (shudder!) to rip it yourself properly.

[charles7926]

I hate to be dense, but I am a little new at this.

Do you mean that Transcoding between lossy codecs is bad, or Transocoding between any codec is bad. I thought that going from a lossless codec such as APE or FLAC to a lossy Codec would get you the same quality as CD->lossy... is this not true?

Charles

[Jonny]

I use Musicmatch 7.5 plus to rip CDs at 192Kbps CBR. This goes at 25X. Later versions of MM are slower, at least on my computer. My PC has 128 MB RAM and an 800 MhZ processor.

[altered_beast]

Originally Posted by charles7926

I hate to be dense, but I am a little new at this.

Do you mean that Transcoding between lossy codecs is bad, or Transocoding between any codec is bad.

Lossy codecs. I assumed the source was an .ogg, .mp3, .wma or something.

Originally Posted by charles7926

I thought that going from a lossless codec such as APE or FLAC to a lossy Codec would get you the same quality as CD->lossy... is this not true?
Charles

Hmmm. It might be better, but I still doubt that "lossless" marketing tag. If all the information of a raw .wav file is still there, then how is the file size smaller? Magic? The info is either there or it isn't.

IMHO when you're talking about digital audio, nothing sounds better than a real CD. (OK, that SACD/DVD audio is better, but that's total overkill!)