INTERACT FORUM

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Paying for MBJ versus the Free Version  (Read 3879 times)

Sunil

  • Guest
Paying for MBJ versus the Free Version
« on: July 29, 2002, 11:28:15 pm »

Hi.

Currently with the free version of MBJ I downloaded (and love), I seem to be happily able to rip at a decent clip and save in a library in a nice format.

Anything different that I would get if I upgrade to Plus?  In particular, will any of the ripping featuers go away after a certain trial period?  I couldn't tell if I would start to lose functionality.

Thanks in advance.

Sunil
Logged

Mirko

  • Regular Member
  • Galactic Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
  • Coffee ready?
RE:Paying for MBJ versus the Free Version
« Reply #1 on: July 30, 2002, 12:02:24 am »

I can only recommend buying. The software is wonderfull and I think JRiver deserves the money.
Logged

joe mama

  • Guest
RE:Paying for MBJ versus the Free Version
« Reply #2 on: July 30, 2002, 01:05:31 am »

IIRC, after the 30 day trial is up, you lose some of the tagging and Media Library organizing features.
Logged

JimH

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 7604
  • Miller drives a tall-masted tractor on the ocean
RE:Paying for MBJ versus the Free Version
« Reply #3 on: July 30, 2002, 05:22:25 am »

Here's a list of the Plus features:

http://www.musicex.com/mediajukebox/plus.html
Logged
Jim Hillegass
JRiver Media Center / Media Jukebox

Sunil

  • Guest
RE:Paying for MBJ versus the Free Version
« Reply #4 on: July 30, 2002, 08:01:34 am »

I agree with the first reply that buying is important given I'd like to see mediajukebox succeed and continue to get better.

Thanks for your responses.

I presume I can use the same copy of MediaJukeBox on all my home PCs?

Sunil
Logged

JimH

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 7604
  • Miller drives a tall-masted tractor on the ocean
RE:Paying for MBJ versus the Free Version
« Reply #5 on: July 30, 2002, 08:09:58 am »

Yes, but there is more info in the FAQ under Jukebox / Purchase above.
Logged
Jim Hillegass
JRiver Media Center / Media Jukebox

konicky

  • Guest
RE:Paying for MBJ versus the Free Version
« Reply #6 on: July 30, 2002, 12:30:27 pm »

Upgraded to the Plus version Today. Well worth the money. If you stay with the free version you'll miss out on a lot, including high quality MP3 encoding and DSP.
Logged

Sunil

  • Guest
RE:Paying for MBJ versus the Free Version
« Reply #7 on: July 30, 2002, 10:00:12 pm »

Well, I officially bought just a few minutes ago and feel so good about it too!!

Very cool.

Anyway, just one question...

When i use MP3 VBR, my rip speed cuts down to less than 1x.  This isn't the greatest, but then again, guess that is what i get when I want high quality.

But this brings up the next question... VBR doesn't seem to have a max bitrate setting?  Is it just that it will decide along the whole track?  Or am I missing something.

Thanks in advance.

Sunil
Logged

Scronch

  • Guest
RE:Paying for MBJ versus the Free Version
« Reply #8 on: July 30, 2002, 10:06:28 pm »

>The software is wonderfull and I think JRiver deserves the money.

I'm wonderful and deserve some money, too.  Shall I post my address?

[yes, MJ is worth paying for.]

Scronch
Logged

Mirko

  • Regular Member
  • Galactic Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
  • Coffee ready?
RE:Paying for MBJ versus the Free Version
« Reply #9 on: July 30, 2002, 10:13:17 pm »

>>The software is wonderfull and I think JRiver deserves the money.
> I'm wonderful and deserve some money, too. Shall I post my address?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

enough?

Mirko
Logged

joe|PLS|mama

  • Guest
RE:Paying for MBJ versus the Free Version
« Reply #10 on: July 30, 2002, 10:42:51 pm »

"VBR doesn't seem to have a max bitrate setting? Is it just that it will decide along the whole track?"

As you probably know, max bitrate for MP3 is 320.  As you said, VBR encoding "will decide along the whole track."  In other words, during difficult to encode parts of a track, higher bitrates (up to 320) will be used, and less difficult parts will be encoded using lower bitrates.  This way, the encoder doesn't waste bits on sections that don't need high bitrates, and it doesn't short-change the sections that will benefit from the higher bitrates.

There are a several of ways to limit the bitrate, but still use VBR.  First, just try encoding a few files using the different settings in the Quality drop-down list and see which of them gives you acceptable quality versus file sizes.  Or, choose Custom in the Quality drop-down and then click the Advanced button.  Then there are a few different options using what are called the --alt-presets.  If you want to shoot for a specific target bitrate, called ABR (average bitrate) then enter, for example, --alt-preset 192.  You can replace the 192 with any bitrate that you want.  This will still encode using VBR, but will limit the upper bitrate to whatever value you have chosen.  You can also use other VBR presets.  --alt-preset standard will give you bitrates ranging around 180 to 200.  --alt-preset extreme will range around 220 to 270.

Hope that helps a little.  Mostly, you just have to take a little time and do a few test encodings to see what settings work best for you.

Rob
Logged

Sunil

  • Guest
RE:Paying for MBJ versus the Free Version
« Reply #11 on: July 31, 2002, 03:03:32 am »

Thanks so much for the information!

Since my wife isn't really saavy with computers, currently when she wants to add a new album to our collection, it is plug and rip...

I have not been disappointed with CBR rips at 128kbps...  maybe I need my ears examined.

I will stick to that for the moment, but perhaps will rip a few nice classical CDs at the variable bitrate.

Thanks again.

Sunil

p.s.  So much to learn here-- completely new subject for me.
Logged

joe mama

  • Guest
RE:Paying for MBJ versus the Free Version
« Reply #12 on: July 31, 2002, 03:43:57 am »

No problem.

"I have not been disappointed with CBR rips at 128kbps... maybe I need my ears examined."

Many use 128CBR, it sounds good to a lot of people.  But, it might not sound good if you took the same track and encoded with different settings and then compared them.  Suddenly 128CBR might sound dull after you here the same song encoded using --alt-preset extreme.  It also can depend on what equipment you are using to listen to your MP3s.  If it is just computer speakers, or headphones on a portable, then 128CBR sounds good.  If you are listening to 128CBR on a hi fi system, it might not sound so good.  Also, some people just have better hearing than others.  Of course, you should always use what sounds good to you.  And I definitely recommend using VBR for classical encoding.
Logged

petersohal

  • Guest
RE:Paying for MBJ versus the Free Version
« Reply #13 on: July 31, 2002, 07:01:54 am »

Here is a complete list of the features you get when you purchase version 8.0 PLUS:

CD quality MP3 encoding up to 320 kbps
CD burning above 2X (to the max your PC will allow)
Media Library view for the ultimate in file organization
Media Scheduler for sleep, alarm, and recording functions
Media Editor for trimming, splitting, and modifying sound files
Internal DSP/EQ studio for customized audio playback
Media Server for home networking (playback on a second PC)
CD Labeler for printing labels and jewel case inserts
Tagging studio for easy MP3 file tagging (ID3 v.1 & 2)

http://www.musicex.com/mediajukebox/plus.html

PeterS
Logged

Rob Marques

  • Guest
RE:Paying for MBJ versus the Free Version
« Reply #14 on: August 05, 2002, 09:39:17 am »

With regard to quality levels:

"I have not been disappointed with CBR rips at 128kbps... maybe I need my ears examined."

Personally, I archive all my CD's as they are expensive and tend to get thrashed/stolen in my Jeep; therefore, I spend the extra time for the highest quality encoding. In this manner, I can burn CD's as I need them, get good sounding music and not care if they get stolen or thrashed; I still have the original CD. When you decode an MP3 from 128k back onto a CD, the sound quality loss is quite apparent in the high end (i.e. snares sound dull and flat, vocals aren't quite as clear as they should be, etc.) This is even MORE apparent if you used a poorly written encoder (which won't be the case in MJ, as is uses LAME for MP3, and adds support for OGG and APE among others :)

So I suppose the point is, if you are just ripping CDs to listen to on your computer with average computer speakers, 128k is fine. If you plan to archive music to be decoded and reused in any manner, you'll need to consider a high CBR or high quality VBR. I just upgraded to 135GB of hard drive space to hold all those files... *thanks God for dropping hard drive prices*

"Anything different that I would get if I upgrade to Plus?... I couldn't tell if I would start to lose functionality."

Just as musicians who actually write good music deserve to be paid for their work and talent vs. the one hit wonders that are products of the music nazis who try to part you from your cash and tend to get their music downloaded from *insert favorite P2P client here*, when you come across a shareware developer who writes something as good as MJ, paying for it shouldn't even be a question.

--- end of ramble ---

Rob
Logged

Sunil

  • Guest
RE:Paying for MBJ versus the Free Version
« Reply #15 on: August 05, 2002, 09:50:34 am »

Interesting information.

Given that the major use of the ripped CDs is for use on work/computer speakers and for my wife's Nomad, I am not sure I need the higher quality encodings.  

The backup option for my CDs is an interesting thought, however... perhaps a 160 Gig drive will come in useful after all... :)

Anyway, as you all may have noted earlier, I did go ahead and purchase MJ.  I was going to anyway, but was curious what would happen if I waited too long with regards to the features.

Cheers.

Sunil
Logged

Rob Marques

  • Guest
RE:Paying for MBJ versus the Free Version
« Reply #16 on: August 05, 2002, 12:26:11 pm »

I use a Nike PSA mp3 player for the gym. When I transfer files to that, I convert them during the copy process to 96kbps WMA files, or sometimes even 64kbps if I want a lot of music. (MJ does this QUITE quickly compared to other jukebox players, and at least 3-4 times faster than Windows Media Player 7.1, which was a HUGE selling point for me...) 64Mb of music, converted and uploaded, takes about 30-40 minutes with Media Player 7.1 over USB connection (old USB, don't have USB 2.0 yet), and MJ only takes about 5-10 minutes. I really dislike supporting Micro$haft standards, but at that bitrate, the WMA files do sound slightly better than MP3 and my Nike PSA only currently supports WMA or MP3 =(

Rob
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up