[gbeard]

Hi all you smart portable encoder-types!

I have decided to buy a Zen Nx and I am going to take this board's advice not to encode .wav files. I would like to rip and encode at 320k.

I have Clean 4.0 that I use for vinyl to cd transfer, and I see that it includes a LAME encoder. Will ripping and encoding CD's with this program be of significantly lower quality than the EAC/LAME route that most here seem to use?

I would like to make the process semi-painless, and it seem to me this would be a good way.

Any experiences with Steinberg's LAME encoder and ripping program would be appreciated.

Happy Friday!

gb

 

[gbeard]

If you can't tell, I am kinda new to this ripping mp3 thing ( I shudder to think I even used the term "mp3"

). I guess what I am really asking: Is there any appreciable difference in LAME encoders you guys use and the one bundled with this packaged software? Maybe it is such a stupid

question that it doesn't deserve an anwser?

 

[blessingx]

There are differences between versions of LAME used in the encoders, but not really between different implementations of LAME in different packages. Basically LAME 3.90.3 is the recommended compile (by HydrogenAudio), though I use 3.92.

The other question you're asking if a separate ripping process is essential. EAC rips (CD to HD), then LAME encodes (from the HD WAV/AIFF to MP3). For absolute best bit by bit source files to encode from? Yes. But does this translate into an audible difference (especially when using CD's without scratches, etc.)? Rarely.

You decide how important all these variables are (especially in a compromised format like MP3). Generally EAC/LAME is recommended as a best case scenario, but if it's more convenient to use something similar you should be fine. I for instance am not a Windows user, so EAC isn't even an option. In the higher-mid higher bitrates just make sure to use LAME (if MP3), not FhG, Blade, etc.

Good luck.

 

[stereth]

As far as I know, EAC just provides a nice GUI front-end for LAME. LAME handles all the encoding - EAC and other programs just queue up files to convert, handle command-line options, etc. So as long as you're using LAME, it doesn't matter what program you're going through.

 

[blessingx]

Quote:

Originally posted by stereth As far as I know, EAC just provides a nice GUI front-end for LAME. LAME handles all the encoding - EAC and other programs just queue up files to convert, handle command-line options, etc. So as long as you're using LAME, it doesn't matter what program you're going through.

Well that's not exactly accurate (though may be in spirit). While it can be used as a front-end as others, it does have some specific error correction tools when dealing with problematic CD's and doing the rip. It's more those unusual cases, when it's most useful. Basically its part is translating the CDA info to WAV's, then kicking off LAME, etc. LAME, as you mentioned, is the most important part (provided your CD's are in decent shape).

 

[stereth]

Right - EAC's selling point (and the reason I use it) is the paranoid error-checking when ripping wavs from CD. But when converting wav to mp3, all LAME front-ends should be the same.

 

[gbeard]

Thanks guys, that is exactly the information I was after. I am looking forward to trying out a portable that doesn't require lots of discs to be hauled around!

Cheers,
gb