Quake3World

to put "a long time" in perspective, audio catalyst was still cool.
but i finally got some new cds i want to dump to the hdd;
whats the best encoding tool around now-a-days?
i'm assuming lame is still where its at?

http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/ :icon11:

looks promising...
lame still the best codec?

Yep, seems to be.

Oh that reminds me, maybe you should use http://flac.sourceforge.net/ it's like mp3 but doesn't lose the audio quality like mp3 does.

wow, just read up on that... nice find.
now i'm going to have to go all audiophile and do comparisons.

I did a comparison of mp3 and mp3pro back in late 2001. I was pleased with mp3pro to say the least.

The sample album I used was Lateralus by TOOL, and the mp3pro format produced files that were half the size of similar sounding mp3 files.

The mp3 settings were standard 128kbit, 44khz, stereo, while the mp3pro settings were 96kbit, 44khz, stereo. After encoding the files, I took samples from some sections of a song with low noise, and from a section of the song where it was really loud. I layered the two waveforms on top of one another in Photoshop, after taking a screenshot of each in SoundForge zoomed in fairly close. I was surprised that there was hardly any difference. I checked out the spectragram too, and while subtle differences were apparent, they were very similar to one another.

The bottom line is, mp3pro is fit for use as your mp3 format. It plays in/on anything that will play standard mp3s, and the file size is tremendously lower than the standard mp3.

If you have any low quality mp3s, such as live concerts, talk radio, old recordings, I would suggest you encode them in mp3pro at a really low quality setting. The file size will be extremely tiny, and no doubt sound the same as the original. For example, a 3 hour recording of Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell was originally 40MB as an mp3, but crunched down to 17MB as mp3pro.

For all those idiots who use formats such as mp4 or flac, fuck off. I laugh at people who encode their CDs at like 320kbit and swear it sounds better. LMAO.

Edit: Look! LMAO someone posted about flac already. Fucking 50MB files for a 3 minute song. Laffola.

Edit: I also laugh at kids who use Ogg Vorbis. Faggot linux nerds like agent smith. Boowahhahahaha.

So you think 128kbit/s sound good?

It's perfect for headphones.

Fuck off if you say that a marginal amount of extra clarity is worth the doubled file size. Mp3pro is perfect for laptops, portable mp3 players, and mp3 CDs.

If you want to be an idiot and have 60MB flac files, 30MB mp4 files, or 12MB mp3 files clogging up your hard drives then go ahead.

The guy who wrote Audiocatalyst for Xing released his own freeware version after Xing dropped Audiocatalyst.

http://www.audiograbber.com-us.net/

The site tells you how to install LAME for it as well. Very similar interface to AC.

rep wrote:It's perfect for headphones.

Fuck off if you say that a marginal amount of extra clarity is worth the doubled file size. Mp3pro is perfect for laptops, portable mp3 players, and mp3 CDs.

If you want to be an idiot and have 60MB flac files, 30MB mp4 files, or 12MB mp3 files clogging up your hard drives then go ahead.

...

Never ever EVER listen to advice from rep.

Yeah and Kracus was a virgin until age 24, and grudge is one of these lamer linux open source douchebags who's life is the forum.

rep wrote:It's perfect for headphones.

Fuck off if you say that a marginal amount of extra clarity is worth the doubled file size. Mp3pro is perfect for laptops, portable mp3 players, and mp3 CDs.

If you want to be an idiot and have 60MB flac files, 30MB mp4 files, or 12MB mp3 files clogging up your hard drives then go ahead.

Your hearing must not be very good then, or you don't know what to listen for.

I can hear the flat, bottomed out bass notes of low bitrate mp3s like a fart in a museum. Not to mention the tinnyness of the higher end.

There is a massive audible difference for me with high bitrate mp3s and low bitrate mp3s. I can notice the difference on any medium too; my PC speakers (which are of good quality), ported to my home theatre system (again, good quality), using my pda as an mp3 player, or my actual mp3 player.


You should listen closer to an actual CD and a rip sometime to learn the difference. Course, on the other hand... some people just don't know what good bass sounds like.

i can hear the difference between 128 & 160 & 192
So saying that 128 is fine is shit
Lowest i go is 160 and even then i can hear distortion

I always rip at 192. Perhaps some day flac might be a good alternative, but my harddrive isn't big enough to support only half compression.

I used CDex, and have been since 1998

http://cdexos.sourceforge.net/

like wtf... i checked into that flac shit; wtf is the point of a compressor that gets ass compression.
mind as well just leave them on the CD rather than use that thing.

thanks for the debate...
and i'll have to check out that link bit... i always did like AudioCatalyst of all the older mp3 tools.

I used to rip at 320 dual stereo but for some reason the mp3s don't convert back over to an audio cd right. So now I just run 192 stereo. Its faster anyways...

so rep, are you as sure about this 128k/bits thing as you were about the BFG?