INTERACT FORUM

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Quick Re-Encoding Question  (Read 2885 times)

LarryJoe

  • Regular Member
  • Junior Woodchuck
  • **
  • Posts: 83
  • nothing more to say...
Quick Re-Encoding Question
« on: May 17, 2003, 04:20:27 am »

When re-encoding an existing MP3 from say straight LAME to LAME VBR, does MC9 first decode back to wav and then re-encode, or does it somehow just go from one to the other.

Thanks,

LJ
Logged

GHammer

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1930
  • Stereotypes are a real timesaver!
Re: Quick Re-Encoding Question
« Reply #1 on: May 17, 2003, 04:40:07 am »

Either way you should reconsider a reencode.
You are going to have loss of data, which in this case is music. Try one or two and see what you think about the sound afterward before you do very many.

If you have the source material, rip it again to whatever format/bitrate you need. You'll be much happier.

Logged

LarryJoe

  • Regular Member
  • Junior Woodchuck
  • **
  • Posts: 83
  • nothing more to say...
Re: Quick Re-Encoding Question
« Reply #2 on: May 17, 2003, 04:46:32 am »

Trouble is I re-encoded all of my 2000 mp3's and just realized that I a lost a little something in sound, of course this was after I deleted the backup.

Looks like there is nothing I can do but re-rip ?
Logged

GHammer

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1930
  • Stereotypes are a real timesaver!
Re: Quick Re-Encoding Question
« Reply #3 on: May 17, 2003, 05:14:03 am »

Sorry to hear that. I did a similar thing long ago. Went from 128 to 320 then tried wma didn't like it then went back to 256 k mp3s.

Yep, sounded like mud<g>.

Look on the bright side. You have a chance to do it right all at once. Here's what I'd do in your situation.

Rip into Monkey's Audio (APE) Why? You'll have perfect copies on your computer. When you want something to take with you, you can then create whatever rate mp3s or Ogg files and it will be as if you ripped them from the start.

In fact, I have started to rip my collection into APE just for that reason. If you want to learn more, hit their site.

http://www.monkeysaudio.com/
Logged

MachineHead

  • Guest
Re: Quick Re-Encoding Question
« Reply #4 on: May 17, 2003, 06:25:32 am »

Monkey's Audio is great for archiving, but at a cost of space on your drive(s). They fill up quickly if you have a lot of cd's to rip and a smaller drive.

However, the price of drives now is getting so low that it may make a lot sense to just get another. Or maybe three.  ;) Guess that's a personal call as to what you'd like to do.
Logged

rocketsauce

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1059
Re: Quick Re-Encoding Question
« Reply #5 on: May 17, 2003, 08:09:06 am »

Machinehead is right. Be aware that ripping those 2000 files to Monkey's Audio will probably take about 5-6 times more hardrive space than the MP3s.

Rob
Logged

dobon

  • Regular Member
  • Junior Woodchuck
  • **
  • Posts: 84
Re: Quick Re-Encoding Question
« Reply #6 on: May 17, 2003, 09:51:56 am »

I would rip to APE (or rather WMA lossless now) and backup the files on cheap CD-R media before converting to mp3-VBR or whichever other lossy format you prefer.
Logged

rocketsauce

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1059
Re: Quick Re-Encoding Question
« Reply #7 on: May 17, 2003, 10:11:39 am »

That's still a lot of cd-rs to back up 2000 songs in lossless.

Rob
Logged

dobon

  • Regular Member
  • Junior Woodchuck
  • **
  • Posts: 84
Re: Quick Re-Encoding Question
« Reply #8 on: May 17, 2003, 12:33:46 pm »

Quote
That's still a lot of cd-rs to back up 2000 songs in lossless.

Rob


Not really. That would be about 100 CD-R's. Much cheaper than harddisk space still. You could get a spindle for 30$ or less, and you don't need to backup the mp3's then.
Logged

JimH

  • Administrator
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 71653
  • Where did I put my teeth?
Re: Quick Re-Encoding Question
« Reply #9 on: May 17, 2003, 04:17:40 pm »

100 CDR's must be around $50?

100X700MB=70GB drive (if it existed) would be around $70-$90?

Just asking.  I'm not certain of current prices.
Logged

MachineHead

  • Guest
Re: Quick Re-Encoding Question
« Reply #10 on: May 17, 2003, 08:26:48 pm »

Quote
100 CDR's must be around $50?


Nah. Depends on what type of cd-r you want. Spindle packs at some office outlets are getting down around 10-20 bucks with in store rebates and mail-ins. Just have to watch the ads.

But... I'd probably be more inclined to look at a new drive. Some of the bigger ones from Maxtor and WD are just getting dirt cheap.
Logged

dobon

  • Regular Member
  • Junior Woodchuck
  • **
  • Posts: 84
Re: Quick Re-Encoding Question
« Reply #11 on: May 17, 2003, 09:25:01 pm »

In addition to beeing cheaper, the CD-R solution gives you a more robust backup than if you store the files on a harddisk drive. You still have to back them up then in case of drive-failure.

I have burned 500 - 1000 CD-R backups, mainly APE, this last year or two, and have used the cheapest noname media available. I can honestly not remember once that I have had problems due to the media itself. I may have forgot if there were one or two instances, but i.m.o. there is no reason two pay more for brand media.
Logged

LarryJoe

  • Regular Member
  • Junior Woodchuck
  • **
  • Posts: 83
  • nothing more to say...
Re: Quick Re-Encoding Question
« Reply #12 on: May 18, 2003, 02:57:59 am »

Thanks for all the advice.  Ripping as we speak.  This will take me at least 6 weekends to complete. Man this sucks, what was I thinking!?
Logged

dobon

  • Regular Member
  • Junior Woodchuck
  • **
  • Posts: 84
Re: Quick Re-Encoding Question
« Reply #13 on: May 18, 2003, 04:39:16 am »

Quote
This will take me at least 6 weekends to complete. Man this sucks

Auto-rip works well now and could save you some time if you know your cd's are in YADB. Losssless formats also rips much faster than HQ LAME if that is what you use.
Logged

MachineHead

  • Guest
Re: Quick Re-Encoding Question
« Reply #14 on: May 18, 2003, 04:53:07 am »

Quote

Auto-rip works well now and could save you some time if you know your cd's are in YADB. Losssless formats also rips much faster than HQ LAME if that is what you use.


And even faster if you rip to wav. Eliminates the conversion step from a lossless format. Either way you have to pay attention drive space. If your drive has Accurate Stream, and you trust it, you could rip with Digital Large Buffer and it should fly. This is using MC as your ripping - encoding tool.

Speed is really dependant upon your processor. If you have and old PII for example, you really could be spending weeks doing this. I know, I just ditched one of those. Now have AMD 2600+ and ripping and encoding a typical 10-12 track album takes roughly five to six minutes. I use EAC however (digital secure) with two instances of of the external compressor running. C2 is off, as well as cache. Accurate Stream is on.

MC can go faster with DLB as rip setting, but the speed is so much greater with this machine that I'd just as soon stick with EAC now because of its ability to create an .m3u during extraction. One less thing to do later.
Logged

dobon

  • Regular Member
  • Junior Woodchuck
  • **
  • Posts: 84
Re: Quick Re-Encoding Question
« Reply #15 on: May 18, 2003, 05:18:22 am »

Quote


And even faster if you rip to wav..


Ripping to wav seems rather pointless if you already own the cds. The goal is to produce files in a lossless format that can be tagged.

Quote


Speed is really dependant upon your processor.


That is true, but the FAST setting in ape is really very fast and the quality is of course the same as the higher settings. If you have a newer system there is not much speed difference though and you may choose to go for the high or extra high setting to save a few MB's.

Quote


I use EAC however ..

In my opinion there is no reason to use secure mode if the original cds are in good condition. There will be no audible difference.
Logged

MachineHead

  • Guest
Re: Quick Re-Encoding Question
« Reply #16 on: May 18, 2003, 06:00:54 am »

Quote
Ripping to wav seems rather pointless if you already own the cds. The goal is to produce files in a lossless format that can be tagged.


I was under the impression that LarryJoe was going to make mp3 vbr files. LarryJoe?

Quote
In my opinion there is no reason to use secure mode if the original cds are in good condition. There will be no audible difference.


I qualified this statement with the reason of it's ability to make .m3u playlist. Not because I have a need for digital secure. It happens to be what I've used for quite some time, and not about to change now.

And I do know all about ape files and being able to tag, speed of encoder, etc., etc. This wasn't meant to be directed at you in particular. Just pointing out an obvious thing about the fastest rip. Wave.
Logged

dobon

  • Regular Member
  • Junior Woodchuck
  • **
  • Posts: 84
Re: Quick Re-Encoding Question
« Reply #17 on: May 18, 2003, 06:17:39 am »

I'm sorry, I just wanted to clarify these points for the less experienced MC-user reading this.  :)
Logged

gkerber

  • Guest
Re: Quick Re-Encoding Question
« Reply #18 on: May 18, 2003, 06:33:16 pm »

Ripping to anything not - lossless... how can those people sleep at night, just knowing they don't have the exact quality as the original cd?
Logged

rocketsauce

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1059
Re: Quick Re-Encoding Question
« Reply #19 on: May 18, 2003, 06:54:11 pm »

Quote
Ripping to anything not - lossless... how can those people sleep at night, just knowing they don't have the exact quality as the original cd?


Because most people, in most listening situations (car, computer speakers, boombox, default headphones on a portable device, an average hi-fi system), can't hear a difference between a medium to high bitrate MP3 and the original cd. And it's even more difficult when you use a higher quality format like MPC.

Also, it's just not quite feasible, yet, for most people to acquire the hardrive space needed to rip their entire collection to lossless.

Rob
Logged

Bartabedian

  • Regular Member
  • Galactic Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 287
Re: Quick Re-Encoding Question
« Reply #20 on: May 18, 2003, 07:44:16 pm »

Personal notes on quality:

I'm an engineer\producer, I spend my life in studios, generally 10-15 hours a day, but thankfully only a few weeks here, a few weeks there. After about 6-7 hours, my ears get fried. I don't do intense audio after that amount of time.

#1, it is not true that most new music you hear today was created in a digital medium. That's a myth, but much more is digital today than say ten years ago.

#2, you never hear what I hear in the studio, never. Ogg this and APE that, you ain't really gettin' it like I do. Not even close.

#3, since most of it is in fact recorded analog, a digital transfer takes place in the chain, and it never goes analog to 16 bit stereo (CD quality), so a few bit depths here, a couple of dithers there, and now your listening to a CD. Oh yeah, let's not forget mastering to "even it out" in various forms using mulitband compression, perimetric audio doctors and the favorite brickwall digital limiters (L2 anyone?).

#4, any digital recordings are done at 24b-44k, or 24b-96k, far and away better than any normal CD.

Lastly, what does it all mean? Unless you want to replace those CD's on the shelves with hardrives or those low quality CDR's that CAN be volatile at random, strongly consider LAME encoded MP3's.

Why? Because the difference between what I hear in the studio and a CD on my home stereo or car player is a canyon to the crevice that is CD to LAME. And my home system is very nice, as is my car system. But even I can barley hear the difference between a 256kbs LAME file and it's CD counterpart in my car. Yea, there's a difference, and I could point out every nuance of the difference, but in every day life (traffic, wind through the windows, or surfing the net, friends hanging out, whatever...) I don't hear it, I'm not listening for it, I just hear the sweet music. And I've been trained to focus on unfortunate nuances in music for over 20 years now.

Music today is mastered to sound good in many different environments, on many different sound systems. Most people today listen on small stereos, boom boxes, desktop speakers or even their TV speakers. And I've never been in a car and ever thought to myself "gee, let's record in here, what great acoustics!" It's also been taken into reason what happens when the song gets compressed some more later on, like broadcasts of radio or (M)TV. Basically, it's prepared for what you want to do with it, even a digital encode of LAME proportions.

Enjoy.


PS - In a test I did with some other engineers in a very nice studio with $8K monitors, we put VBR up against CBR. Three of us swore we could actually hear the VBR working as the bitrate changed rapidly, and found it disturbing. Two others heard no difference at all.
Logged

rocketsauce

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1059
Re: Quick Re-Encoding Question
« Reply #21 on: May 18, 2003, 09:35:12 pm »

Yeah, what he said!

Very nicely put, WarrenPeace. :)

Rob
Logged

gkerber

  • Guest
Re: Quick Re-Encoding Question
« Reply #22 on: May 19, 2003, 05:17:52 am »

But ... once the bits are gone, they are gone forever... and if  you want them back, too late....

I consider myself somewhat of an audio snob, good equipment all my life.  I can clearly hear the difference between lossless and mp3-128 and mp3-192.  At mp3-256, it's tough, I "think" I can, but it might be in my head.

For the car, or for portable use, use mp3 if it saves space (assuming your car can play mp3 files).

Since I have almost all of the cd's used to rip to my hd, I can get those lossy bits back if I ever want them.  Others may not be so lucky.

I am *not* a photo snob though, I accept jpeg lossy compression without losing any sleep.

I worry about the lowering of quality that the public accepts, the lower quality we accept, the lower quality we will get from the music industry.
Logged

dobon

  • Regular Member
  • Junior Woodchuck
  • **
  • Posts: 84
Re: Quick Re-Encoding Question
« Reply #23 on: May 19, 2003, 05:53:28 am »

Quote
But ... once the bits are gone, they are gone forever... and if  you want them back, too late.....

That is excactly the point. For some music and listening situations you can sell quality for space, other times not. You need 96kbs for the 64MB flashplayer and 256 for the iPod/Zen. If you have a lossless backup-copy you can reencode with intact tags as needed without getting into the problem that LarryJoe describes in the original post of this thread.
Logged

Bartabedian

  • Regular Member
  • Galactic Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 287
Re: Quick Re-Encoding Question
« Reply #24 on: May 19, 2003, 08:02:24 am »

Quote
 At mp3-256, it's tough, I "think" I can, but it might be in my head.



Very well put. It's more a "feeling" than a knowable fact or touchable object. That's the secret "behind" MP3 encoding, how it all seems there...but we know it isn't. Kinda like a Hollywood set. We all go see and enjoy the movie though, don't we?

Quote
If you have a lossless backup-copy you can reencode with intact tags as needed without getting into the problem that LarryJoe describes in the original post of this thread.


Yes, this is my point. If you have the CD, why bother encoding twice, or three times? Once to LAME @224 to 320 CBRHQ is fine, move on, there's other things to do in life than re-encode your files repeatedly. If you don't have the CD, then shame on you :-X...



Thanks Rob! ;D
Logged

dobon

  • Regular Member
  • Junior Woodchuck
  • **
  • Posts: 84
Re: Quick Re-Encoding Question
« Reply #25 on: May 19, 2003, 08:50:20 am »

Hello WarrenPeace. I enjoyed reading your posts as well.

Quote
If you don't have the CD, then shame on you ...



Well, you own the CDs but you don't always have them. They are in the car, at the summer-house, somewhere in sons room (and scratched  >:() - so I like to have a backup.
Besides, and more importantly, when reencoding the original CD you must reenter much of the information stored in the tags. The CD DB's only hold the most essential artist and song info.
Logged

GHammer

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1930
  • Stereotypes are a real timesaver!
Re: Quick Re-Encoding Question
« Reply #26 on: May 19, 2003, 07:33:22 pm »

Quote



Very well put. It's more a "feeling" than a knowable fact or touchable object. That's the secret "behind" MP3 encoding, how it all seems there...but we know it isn't. Kinda like a Hollywood set. We all go see and enjoy the movie though, don't we?


Yes, this is my point. If you have the CD, why bother encoding twice, or three times? Once to LAME @224 to 320 CBRHQ is fine, move on, there's other things to do in life than re-encode your files repeatedly. If you don't have the CD, then shame on you :-X...



Thanks Rob! ;D



Having the CD doesn't mean I won't want to play with formats/codecs/settings.
Having the CD does not mean that I want to play it all the time. I like the ability to compile my own soundtrack for life.
Having the CD does not mean that I will not want to create a CD of 96K files for a portable going to the beach.

Having my music in a lossless format on my computer allows me to listen day-to-day and have excellent sound. It then allows me to burn whatever format/rate I wish for whatever situation. And do it very quickly. I do not wish to get 60+ CDs together and burn 1 or 2 tracks from each when I want a different format/rate.

With the cost of hard drives I have less and less reason to worry about storage. And doing as others here have said, saving the lossless to CDs, is also a great idea.

Either way I have tagged files ready to be converted to whatever I like.

This was not meant to be a thread about why MP3 is better than Ogg,  is better than AAC.

It was meant to provide a way for someone who is looking at ripping their entire collection to not have to do so again.

Logged

Bartabedian

  • Regular Member
  • Galactic Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 287
Re: Quick Re-Encoding Question
« Reply #27 on: May 20, 2003, 07:07:37 am »

Quote

Having my music in a lossless format on my computer allows me to listen day-to-day and have excellent sound. It then allows me to burn whatever format/rate I wish for whatever situation. And do it very quickly. I do not wish to get 60+ CDs together and burn 1 or 2 tracks from each when I want a different format/rate.


It's a valid point.

It won't change how I do it or my suggestion to others, but to each his own. Freedom, ain't it grand. ;D
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up