#Best mp3 encoder settings code
The LAME MP3 encoder is so highly developed that even big companies like Sony are ripping off parts of its source code (shame on them). or we'll compress them as exact digital clones using Monkey'sĪudio, or one of the other popular Windows-based lossless audio compressors (such as FLAC). With EAC's vaunted secure mode, we'll rip (digitally extract) your favorite songs from your favorite CDs, and encode those digital songs as high-quality MP3s,
Actually, I'll provide background info before referring you to my buddy from Belgium, SatCP, or my buddy from Calgary, Chris This guide will walk you through the steps of configuring ExactĪudio Copy, the world's best CD audio ripper (digital audio extractor). Know the ripping & encoding mojo presented here. It's because the people who encoded those MP3s didn't Unfortunately high-storage DAP's seem to be a relic of the past - Apple doesn't seem to be putting any resources towards it, MS is long out of that business and other companies are more interested in flash-based devices / WiFi / Cloud solutions.If you've ever downloaded MP3s from the original Napsterĭown by the courts in July, 2001], or one of the contemporary file-sharing services, and found that those songs sounded like krap, After that point it truly goes into "iffy" territory with mSATA adapters or dual SD card adapters, with no guarantees that these will even work. Second option is upping that 160GB iPod to 240GB, but you need to verify what iPod you have vs. This is what happened to me back five years after I settled on 160kps. This has obvious disadvantages and I wouldn't recommend it as it may be OK in the short-term, but in the long term you may end up redoing them. So you basically have two options: First, consider a lower bitrate like 160/192 to get more songs onto the 160GB iPod. And multiple iPods / SD cards on other players probably wouldn't work for you either since you want to hit shuffle against your entire collection. Sounds like the OP is between a rock and a hard place - ideally you want a 240GB or larger iPod, but it simply doesn't exist. For example, if you encode John Cage's "4:33" the file will be very small It just takes a little while to copy files, and of course longer if they are bigger.īy the way, a longer track can easily encode smaller depending on the content.
#Best mp3 encoder settings portable
I did not rip at 256 or 320 for portable use for a couple reasons-ġ) At that point, the files are not so much smaller than lossless, so it seemed silly.Ģ) Back when I started this, portables had much less storage, so the file sizes were important.ģ) File transfer time (as I'm suddenly wanting to hear XXX but need to leave the house NOW NOW NOW to not be late) is still an issue. The file size actually comes out closer to what a 256k CBR would be. So I started ripping at 224k, VBR, highest quality, just to have some margin. I'm not saying 192k is transparent-I did a few A/B comparisons and could hear a difference-but that I could ENJOY the music. In other words, I can listen to the songs and generally don't hear artifacts bothering me, the way 128k definitely sounds flat. I personally feel like at 192k, I get "musical" rips.
I've asked the same questions over on the dbPoweramp forum. And it may help someone else out in the future. But it would still be interesting to find out why this is happening. Why would the longer track have a smaller file size in Fast? That is strange.Īdmittedly, this has become largely academic now because i think I will stick to SLOW all the way. More interestingly, I did the same experiment on a track only 20 seconds shorter (4:25) and the results were far more different than I would expect for a 20 second difference: For a single track (length 4:45), encoded to VBR -V2, I got the following results: 2.5 seconds quicker than the other two settings.Ĭontrary to what I have been told - that the size file should not be effected by this setting - I found that whilst there was no difference between Normal and Slow, Fast DID produce smaller file sizes.
On the other hand, Fast (Low Quality) was quicker. I tested with just one track at a time (each track varied from 4 to 6 minutes). I checked three times and on each check it took the same amount of time to encode for both speeds. The speed to encode made no difference between Normal and Slow (High Quality). So I ran some experiment rips and this is what I found (quite odd results actually). I'm also interested to know how the setting effects file size and encoding speed.
0 kommentar(er)
