[rescue] suitability for use question
ttlchaos at randomc.com
Sat Mar 6 22:28:02 CST 2004
On Saturday 06 March 2004 01:39 am, Phil Stracchino wrote:
> So, really,the comparison drops down to two encoders -- LAME (whether
> compiled by you from source, or by the "author" of notlame), or
> bladeenc. Of these two, LAME is so far superior it's not even worth
> arguing about; bladeenc takes four times as long to generate MP3 streams
> of audibly inferior quality. At 160 kilobits, LAME will encode in
> realtime or better on a Pentium 200. I encode using 64-320 kilobit VBR,
> and on an Athlon 1800XP, LAME 3.92 encodes using those settings at
> speeds in excess of 20x realtime. (This typically means a minute or two
> of essentially idle CPU while it reads a track, then a burst of 100% CPU
> for 10-20 seconds while it encodes.)
Well, crap. This thread comes along as I'm about two-thirds through the way
of ripping my CD collection.
I'm using "ripperX" on a P4 @ 2.6. RipperX isn't the greatest of rippers, but
it does a fairly good job (uses CD Paranoia, LAME, CDDB and will rip and
encode concurrently). I wish it gave me better control over the title/author
What really gets me now, though, is that I thought I'd be impressed by
encoding everything at 160kb/s. I was a little scared to turn to VBR, mostly
for compatibility reasons. But now I'm not sure about that decision...
*sigh* Too late to turn back now.
So how do you guys listen to 10GB of MP3's in your car? I really don't want
to screw with a handheld device fed through a tape adapter. I want an
in-dash or trunk-mounted device with a hard drive.
More information about the rescue