|
Rockbox mail archiveSubject: RE: Lame IS THE ANSWERRE: Lame IS THE ANSWER
From: TP Diffenbach <rockbox_at_diffenbach.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:06:29 -0500 > several choices that all use the Lame encoder, they > all will give you the same quality encoding, so you > should pick one that has the simplicity or complexity > of user interface features that you desire. Craig's right about this of course, but note: lame can be given /lots/ of options that control the quality and size of the resulting mp3. It's important you put some thought into what you need; essentially, quality increases with mp3 size. Just because you've got a 20GB Archos doesn't mean you can ignore size. Bigger mp3s take up more space on the disk (this is no surprise to anyone, right?) but they also require more disk reads to play. Remember, using Rockbox you have about 1.7 MB of memory for mp3 data; bigger mp3s mean more reads, and more reads mean the battery is used up sooner. Definitely record in variable bit rate (VBR); this allows lame to allocate more bits to more complicated parts of a track, and fewer bits to less complicated parts. Strongly consider using joint stereo; some "audiophiles" mistakenly think joint stereo produces artifacts in the output, but modern encoders, like lame, do not. I use lame at quality High (q = 2), and VBR 2, or Very High Quality (q=0) and VBR 0, and always use the default VBR method, with minimum bitrate 128 and maximum 320. (I have some CDs of old 78 records (Gilbert & Sullivan! Yay!, which will record to 128), but I also have some modern recordings of operas as well (Wagner's Ring! Yay!) so this range makes sense for me.) The quality settings are probably too high, but I wanted to minimize the number of times I re-ripped. With these settings, most of my recordings average out around 192kbps (although, oddly, Warren Zevon (R.I.P.) recordings almost often hit 224kbps or even 256 kpbs). -----Original Message----- From: owner-rockbox_at_cool.haxx.se [mailto:owner-rockbox_at_cool.haxx.se]On Behalf Of c s Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 4:50 PM To: rockbox_at_cool.haxx.se Subject: Re: Lame IS THE ANSWER --- SteamShip <steamship_at_sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Don't listen to the others recommending a program > that you have to buy (no offense intended). The > above link is completely free What are you talking about? The only recomendations in this thread have been for free programs that just like EAC, also use the free Lame encoder. Since the thing that controlls the quality of the resulting MP3 encoding is the thing that all the recomendations have in common... the Lame encoder, and the rest is just a user interface wrapped around that encoder, the smart thing to do is pick the one that matches your needs for features and ease of use. I found FreeRIP (http://www.mgshareware.com/frmmain.shtml) to be extremely powerful, easy to use, and packaged with everything needed in one download, in addition to being completely free. Since EAC seems to be extremely popular, I plan to take a look at that too now just in case it has some nifty feature that I didn't relize I might want. After I do that, if I discover that either FreeRIP or EAC has any significant differences or advantages in my opinion, I'll report that here so that others can decide on their own what might be best for their needs. The main point to remember is that when you have several choices that all use the Lame encoder, they all will give you the same quality encoding, so you should pick one that has the simplicity or complexity of user interface features that you desire. ===== Craig rb_dev_at_yahoo.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/ Received on 2003-12-20 Page template was last modified "Tue Sep 7 00:00:02 2021" The Rockbox Crew -- Privacy Policy |