-=PCTechTalk=- Re: Audiograbber
- From: dktrfaustus@xxxxxxxxxx
- To: pctechtalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 14:47:05 +0100
On 19 Apr 2005 at 8:16, The Keyboard Cowboy wrote:
> I also downloaded Exactaudiocopy on a writeup in a magazine. I loaded
> it first, but couldn't get it to make MP3s, only wav files. Wav files
> work on the computer, but the program I use to play my MP3s doesn't
> recognize wav files -- I use a little program called 1by1 to play
> MP3s. I couldn't see a way to get to MP3s directly from
> Exactaudiocopy...........though I admit I didn't spend a lot of time
> looking.
You have to install an external MP3 encoder to work alongside EAC,
then tell EAC to use it. A little bit of extra work. Audiograbber
comes with a bundled encoder, which certainly removes the hassle, but
it may be an older version.
(There are some ridiculous legal issues with obtaining compiled
copies of some MP3 encoders, so I'm afraid people have to do their
own homework on this.)
> Do you really see a great difference in the quality of the results?
> In Exactaudiocopy I set it up for 160 bit. Wav files are inherently
> larger than MP3s, and 160 bit makes them even larger. I ended up with
> 3-4 meg files for each song. If I converted the wav files to MP3s,
> I'd sue up even more HD space. With Audiograbber, I got MP3 files
> (with no intermediate wav file) directly with files sizes around 1.5
> megs. With the quantity of files I keep on the hard drive, that
> reduction seems important (800 gig hard drive space, RAID 0, but many
> thousand MP3 files). So far, I haven't noticed any bad pops, gaps,
> etc. in the music.
The difference in quality I mentioned was only specific to the
ripping process, not the conversion process. i.e. Less "jitter";
smoother rip.
(You may be lucky in the quality of your audio CDs. I recently got a
batch of rare, supposedly-new CDs from Amazon [Germany] which were in
appalling condition.)
In the time I've been using it, I've noticed EAC has produced near-
perfect results on badly-damaged CDs, where other ripping programs
faltered. EAC takes that little bit longer to rip, but for me, that's
preferable to ejecting/cleaning the CD/re-ripping.
As for conversion results; well, that all depends on our own ears,
doesn't it? Years ago, on some computer mag's advice, I started off
ripping at CBR 128. After a few weeks I booted it up to 160 after I
started noticing "swishy" noises, usually in the drum/percussion part
of the mix.
CBR 160-192 are usually "pretty good" for me, but these days I've
switched to ripping only VBR. I was pleasantly surprised at how small
the resultant files turned out, and how the quality is almost
indistinguishable from the original.
Faustus
--
<Please delete this line and everything below.>
To unsub or change your email settings:
//www.freelists.org/webpage/pctechtalk
To access our Archives:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PCTechTalk/messages/
//www.freelists.org/archives/pctechtalk/
Other related posts:
