Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Daniel Reicher]

Brand new setup of Windows XP (clean install) and Media Jukebox (only program installed) running on a P3/733, 384MB, 100GB Maxtor HD, Sony 24X/10X/40X CD/CDRW.

When ripping CD's to 128KBit MP3 encoder - it is very slow. It starts the CD between 6x - 8x, but after a track or two it slows down to .1x - .4x and stays there for the remainder of the disc. It's taking between 2-3 hours to burn a disc.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Dan

[RemyJ]

What ripping method are you using and what is the condition of the CD?
Is the drive in DMA mode and is Digital Audio Extraction turned on?

As a test, try ripping to uncomressed wav (to eliminate the encoding process) using Digital Large Buffer mode, then again using Digital Secure mode and note the ripping speeds and the Digital Secure ripping report.

Remy

[Daniel Reicher]

Uncompressed Wave Format - Digital Large Buffer (14x)
Uncompressed Wave Format - Digital Secure Mode (6x) - 100%
MP3 Format 128KBit (High Quality) - Digital Large Buffer (2.5x)
MP3 Format 128KBit (High Speed) - Digital Large Buffer (5.5x)
Windows Media 128KBit - Digital Large Buffer (7x)

I'm getting ~2.5x with some consistency (depending on disc quality) running MP3 Format (High Quality). Is this a "reasonable" expectation. Is there a quality difference between MP3 High Speed/MP3 High Quality/Windows Media. I would love to get the speed of Windows Media, but what are my tradeoffs. My goal is to migrate my Sony 400-disc over to the computer and use this as my CD source. I guess I don't want to waste all the time if Windows Media is equal to MP3, but I'm more interested in quality reproduction.

Is 128KBit sufficient as well?

Thank you for your help.

Dan

[zevele1]

OK
We start again the proces

First,you have to understand that IT IS NOT Media JukeBox who is slow.
It is the mp3 encoder.But this encoder gives the best sound.
If you have RealJukebox,you can rip at an average speed of X12.
But just play the RealJukebox encoded song,and the same song encoded with Media Jukebox and tell me the difference of quality....HUDGE

Concerning formats ,there is different criteria

The first one is your ears.Before you start ,make tests:windows format,mp3 128,mp3 192,OGG.If you have a lot of room give a try to APE,lossless format.You keep all the sound quality,but you get files half the size of wave format

After it,what do you want to do with your files?Just to play them on your computer?Do you have a mp3 player?Do you have a DVD desck reading cds encoded with mp3?
Last think about the limitation of some formats.
With Windows media you have a lot of problems with tags,you cannot put sleeves in your songs and so on.

As you see many things are up to you...

But you have to rip to mp3 192 kps,128 is not good enought.
OGG is fast and exellent,but at this time confined to computer use only.
Windows Media is big s--t,and i want to see your face the day all your 400 hundreds rip cds will become 'secure',cause Microsoft actived the secutity,you want it or no.........

If you want a lossy format because of room,there is a way to do it 'faster'
rip cds to APE ,it is very fast.At night or when at work ,just set Media Jukebox to convert the APE in the format of you want and TO DELETE original files

The trade of is slower rip=better sound

I did 5 cds with mp3 on it for hollydays.I have a very average cd\mp3 discman.And to do fast was my mean goal-Beside this problem with cddb in Media Jukebox was a no go situation

I used Real Jukebox,rip at |PLS|X12.I know the quality is no good.But in fact i will listen once to each cd and give it away to who wants it.

The trade of was ok to me.But i would never rip with RealJukebox cds i want to keep on my computer

[RemyJ]

Your times are not out of line for your setup.  The very slow times you saw initially sounds like a disc ot two that just had problems.

When I transferred my collection, I used MP3 CBR, 256k, high quality in Digital Secure extraction mode.  As Zevele said, a great way to speed up the process is to rip to APE or uncompressed wav (watch your disk space), then do bulk conversions overnight.  

Remy

[Daniel Reicher]

I'm going to be sending the audio through my receiver. Will I get a good quality RIP by ripping to Uncompressed Wave via Digital Secure Mode and then doing the overnight conversion to MP3? When converting to MP3, what bit rate should I be using?

Thank you for all of your help.

Dan

[Fastyves]

Hi Daniel,

Personnaly, I use MP3 VBR High Quality for the balance between file
size and multi-purpose of the MP3 format : I can play it through my
home stereo with a good quality (but that's purely subjective - depends on your ears), I can burn it on CD's to be played on my home
DVD player, or my discman and, actualy, the most important factor : I can get it on my HDD (since I don't have hudge USB drives - King Sparta)!

As Zev wrote it in this thread, you've to test the different formats
to set up yourself this balance.

Anyway, enjoy it,

Yves.

[Galley]

I can encode with RealOne Player at 20-25x with "highest CPU usage".  MJB does about 10-12x on "normal".  Both are for 128Kbps encoding.  Of course, the ones made with MJB at the slower speed sound better.

[zevele1]

GALLEY
Do not be so modest.The mp3 encoded with MJ sound MUCH better than the one with Real

Daneil
Even better:rip first to APE ,loosless as the wav but half the size
Like it you can rip more cds at once,and convert even more at nigth or when at work.If you go for mp3 with your computer 'plug' to your stereo go for 192kps VBR
But in this case make sure that your VBR desk,you cd\mp3 player works with  VBR

If you do not have a mp3 player,and do no plan to buy one ,give a try to OGG,much better than mp3

[KingSparta]

Many Things Are Better When Slow And Easy.

[Charlemagne 8]

Sure, if you can manage to slow down.

Anyway, I would like to add that ripping to wav and ripping to ape (with rip and encode simultaneously checked) is the same speed. I would almost swear that ape is a faster rip but I have mine on fastest. The quality is the same but it takes up SLIGHTLY more room. It mattereth not if you're going to encode to MP3 later.

CVIII

[Sunil]

People here are posting 10x for ripping or so...

My max rip with "highest quality" at 128k is about 5x.  Is this about right?

I would LOVE to speed up the process-- it is fairly slow still for me.

Any ideas other than the APE and bulk conversion scheme?

Sunil

p.s.  Also, i just haev downloaded MBJ and have not paid for it yet, but it seems to rip fine and have all the features I want.  Is there something I am missing by not purchasing the Plus version?  What extra does it give in terms of ripping that I haven't already gotten?

[Mirko]

Sunil:

I also rip at ca. 5x. That's because I _always_ use secure ripping. I also think, that this doesn't really matter, because you get what you pay. Put in other words: If you want speed, you loose quality.

[joe|PLS|mama]

Daniel Reicher wrote:

"I guess I don't want to waste all the time if Windows Media is equal to MP3, but I'm more interested in quality reproduction.  Is 128KBit sufficient as well?"

If you are interested in quality, don't use WMA.  It is generally only good if you are encoding at bitrates under 100.  128kbps MP3 is really not very good quality, either.  MJ uses the LAME MP3 encoder which gives the best quality when you encode using VBR (variable bitrate) instead of CBR (constant bitrate).  128kbps is CBR.  Here is a list of the recommended settings to use with LAME.  In Encoding settings, choose MP3 Encoder VBR, in Quality, choose Custom, click the Advance button and use either --alt-preset standard or --alt-preset extreme.  The standard preset will give bitrates around 160-200 and extreme around 190-250.

"I'm going to be sending the audio through my receiver. Will I get a good quality RIP by ripping to Uncompressed Wave via Digital Secure Mode and then doing the overnight conversion to MP3?"

Yes, you will get good quality ripping to wav with Digital Secure Mode and encoding to MP3 overnight using one of the --alt-presets.  There is really no reason to rip to APE as an intermediary step, especially since you're working with a 100GB hardrive.  Also, if you are only going to be playing your music through your receiver, you might want to consider some of the other formats like OGG, MPC and APE.  If you might want to play your music on a portable, then MP3 is the best choice since the other formats don't have hardware support yet.  Both OGG and MPC will give better quality sound than MP3.  MPC is generally considered to give the best quality of all the lossy encoders (ie., a 200kbps MPC would sound better than a 320kbps MP3).  Also, MPC encodes faster than MP3 or OGG.  Of course, the highest quality would be Monkey's Audio (APE) because it is a lossless encoder, but the level of compression is much less than that of MP3, OGG or MPC.  For example, the bitrates on most of my APE files range around 600-800kbps.  Other benefits of APE are that it encodes fast and it is easy to convert to any of the other formats without losing quality.

Sunil wrote:

"I would LOVE to speed up the process-- it is fairly slow still for me.  Any ideas other than the APE and bulk conversion scheme?"

Unfortunately, if you use Digital Secure Mode, ripping tends to be slower.  The trade off is that your rips will be more accurate than using one of the faster modes, especially if you're trying to rip a scratched cd.  As others suggested, the bulk conversion scheme is the way to go.  MP3 encoding is a slow process, why wait for each cd to rip and encode all at once when you can rip a bunch of cds fairly quickly and then do the conversions overnight or when you're not using the computer.  Also, just rip to wav, there's really no need to rip to APE and then convert to MP3 unless you're working with limited hardrive space.

Hope that wasn't too long winded,

Rob

[shdbcamping]

I have found that the only way I could speed up the process was to get a new PC. P4's rock. the speed of ripping is a function of your computer system. End of story.

[shdbcamping]

and a side bar. I consider myself an audiofile and I have perfect hearing. I can't see any reason to trade disk space for anything that requires more than LAME plugin at 160k Bitrate CBR on HQ setting. What gets lost is mostly outside the human hearing range. I have not found anyone that can tell the difference... but I also have MP3 decoding Kenwood cd players in my vehicles and do not burn to audio discs.

[joe|PLS|mama]

"...LAME plugin at 160k Bitrate CBR on HQ setting."

LAME really was designed to give the best results when using one of the VBR --alt-presets.  Using CBR forces the encoder to waste bits on less complex parts of a song that don't need high bitrates, and short changes more complex passages that would benefit from higher bitrates.  For example, --alt-preset standard will give you bitrates a little higher than 160, but shoud give you much better quality.  If you really don't want to go higher than 160, using an ABR (average bitrate) setting like --alt-preset 160 would be better than straight CBR 160.    There really is no reason to use CBR unless your hardware doesn't support VBR/ABR or you're encoding at 320.

List Of Recommended LAME Settings

[ashra]

'....and short changes more complex passages that would benefit from higher bitrates'

Surely,this is somewhat of a contradiction.
I was always led to believe that LAME's strength was in it's ability to achieve max enoding compression whilst maintaining audio quality. VBR achieves this. But using VBR for a given bitrate cannot logically produce better audio results than CBR.
The statement refers to benifiting from higher bitrates but if you are using, say, 160 VBR it's max is surely still 160 as it is in 160 CBR.
If I am wrong, I would welcome some technical evidence.

[joe mama]

ashra:

Yes, VBR is the best way to go when using LAME and will give you the best quality.

Other more knowledgable people can correct me if I'm wrong.  Using an ABR (not VBR) setting like --alt-preset 160 doesn't just simply limit the upper bitrate to 160.  The encoder will use bitrates both higher and lower than the target bitrate that will ultimatley average out to 160.

[ashra]

Thank you joe mama, I didn't realise the VBR encoding setting related to the 'average' value.
If you're right, it makes all the difference.
I'll have to check for myself now.....I've got a lot of 'back-ripping' to do if you're right.
But I do thank you.

[ashra]

A quick search turned up this page http://mp3.radified.com/mp3_2.htm where the guy is comparing LAME's ABR setting with CBR & VBR.

If you check out this guy here, http://mp3.radified.com/mp3_2.htm, he gives LAME's definition of ABR (where they claim it should be better than VBR because it doesn't use the psychoacoustic model required for VBR)and you can see where this is heading.
I think the key here might be the subjective nature of VBR versus ABR (and by definition, as it doesn't use the same psychoacoustic model) CBR.
I guess a bigger hard drive and a move to APE is really the only solution for me!

[ashr]

Ooops!
That first link should have been http://www.jthz.com/mp3/vbr-abr-cbr.htm.
Sorry.

[joe|PLS|mama]

ashra:

AFAIK, people use ABR encoding to get files around a certain bitrate or size, for whatever reasons.  I think ABR encoding is primarily useful when you are trying to create files that are going to be streamed over the net.  You can use ABR to control the file size, but still gain some of the quality benefits of VBR encoding.

The only reason I mentioned ABR is because shdbcamping said in her/his post, "I can't see any reason to trade disk space for anything that requires more than LAME plugin at 160k Bitrate CBR on HQ setting."  I was suggesting ABR as a way for him/her to keep file sizes to around the same size as s/he is getting using CBR 160, but getting the quality benefits of VBR.

If you're really interested in a lot of good, indepth info about MP3, LAME and audio compression in general, I suggest you head over to Hydrogen Audio, especially the forums.

Rob

[ashra]

Thanks Rob. No, the reason I mentioned ABR is because I came across it in my search for info on CBR versus VBR.
I hadn't read shdbcamping's thread.
I have now.
The fact that I'm not an audiophile and I don't have perfect hearing but can hear the difference between a 160k bitrate file of the Beach Boy's Good Vibrations and the original means I'm outta here.
But, thanks Rob for getting me thinking re: VBR versus CBR.
Good health
Ashra

[sekim]

This is interesting. I just did a new install of XP and had to start re-ripping cds. The fastest uncompressed wave speeds I have seen were about 37x normal speed. Of course this is not using digital secure, but on average the rips are above 20x normal speed.

This is with an old PII system. The cd-rw drive is 16x-10x-40x.