[pcolbeck]

So I finally got an iPod and have just bought a nice 250G hard drive and am about to start ripping my entire CD collection. I don't want to do this again in the near future so I want to get it right. I am using EAC to RIP to WAV and then RazorLame to convert to MP3. I plan on using alt-preset extreme which seems to give great results (a mixture of clasical, rock and folk). I do have a coupel of quiries though

1. should I be using Lame 3.96.1 or 3.97b ?

2. What about normalizing the files for volume, should I use iTunes to do this during transfer or is there a better way ?

Thanks

Pat

 

[blessingx]

Why use RazorLAME? I don't know if you're integrating it with EAC, but keep in mind WAV doesn't retain tags so you'll lose those if you step through.

 

[pcolbeck]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blessingx Why use RazorLAME? I don't know if you're integrating it with EAC, but keep in mind WAV doesn't retain tags so you'll lose those if you step through.

I was planning on using RazorLame to batch encode overnight. I have about 600 CDs to get through so it would take forever if I let EAC do the encoding to MP3.

 

[cerbie]

0. Ditch RazorLame. EAC can do it all just fine. If you're batch encoding, it has an option for that, as well (I'm not at my PC, or I'd find it and point it out

). RazorLame isn't bad, but it is a needless step, really.

1. 3.96.1 is the stable version, as seems to be a good replacement for 3.90.3. Until 3.97 becomes 'stable', I don't see a good reason to use it. By the looks of things, it's fine, but doesn't offer anything over 3.96.1, and hasn't been tested as well.

2. MP3Gain is a tool to do it that is reversable and lossless. I don't know if it can be piped through after LAME gets done, but if not, it can definitely be used to do it in batches. It stores the info needed to undo the normalizing, so you can losslessly go back to the orginal, w/o transcoding losses.

Have you considered going lossless, but then making MP3 or AAC files as you need them? It takes some time, as you have to transcode, but with a reasoanbly fast CPU and big HDD, it's not all that much trouble, and is really nice when it comes to making choices about bitrate, normalization, pre-EQing, etc.. You can just do that work from a lossless source, and have it all done to the input that LAME is given, and have the MP3s made on an as-needed basis (I keep 10-15GB on my HDD to rotate through, so I'm not re-encoding them all the time).

It can take some extra work ehre and there, but it is nice to know that you'll never have a real need to touch the CD again for any listening needs

.

 

[pcolbeck]

Lossless would be nice but I dont have the disc space really. Lets see

500*700Mb /2 for FLAC = 175 GB at the moment .....

I still prefer the real CDs for home listening anyway. Thisis just for portable instead of a MiniDisc plaeyer or PCDP.

I just found HydrogenAudio and there seems to be tons of stuff there I probably should have read before posting so sorry if I am asking numpty questions.

 

[notnormal]

Flac is still the safer choice as you would only need to rip the CDs once

. From there you can encode to the codec flavor of the month, or reencode things if you mess up. If you encode to a lossy format and change your mind in the future on the codec or settings, then the CDs would have to be re-ripped to maintain the maximum quality.

 

[pcolbeck]

I know I know, its just the disc space involved is huge ! I just bought a 250 GB iomega drive today and using FLAC would probably fill over half of it before I got to MP3s ...

I'll think about it though as your right I don't want to do this twice !