|
Author
|
Topic: AudioCatalyst = Fast Ripping and Audiograbber = Slow Rippping??? - (Read 1 times)
|
Infinity
Junior Member  From:
Registered: Apr 2003
Posts: 2
|
Hello,Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I haven't used a mp3 ripper in a long time. I had been using AudioCatalyst 2.0 for a bit, and had quick rip speeds of around 8x(direct to mp3, not using intermediate wav file) so for an average song it would take approx 50 seconds. I just installed the trial version of AudioGrabber 1.82 I only get around 1x - over 5 minutes to rip the same song. I was just wondering why the newer version is so much slower? Also I noticed that AudioCatalyst used CDDB and AudioGrabber uses Freedb, is Freedb better? Thanks. PS: My cd drive is a Lite-On 163D DVD Drive
|
moonroy
Administrator From:Sweden
Registered: Jan 99
Posts: 2158
|
AC uses Xing codec, fast encoding speed but low quality.AG uses whatever codec you select, of which LAME should be the best choise. Not so fast, but outstanding quality. AG used to use CDDB but the licence agreement sucks, so it now uses FreeDb instead. Much better deal for everyone. I guess by now the two databases are sort of identical. ------------------
moonroy www.mp3.com/enuresis
|
SteveSobel
Junior Member From:Princeville, Hawaii, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
Posts: 7
|
I agree with moonroy - I used Audiocatalyst for about two years. When they stopped supporting the program I switched to AG with the Lame encoder. The improvement in sound quality was noticeable.
I save up the wav files and encode them when the machine is otherwise idle.
|
Phoenix42
Member  From:Boston, MA but an ex-paddy
Registered: Oct 2000
Posts: 590
|
As already mentioned your comparing apples to oranges, you need to compare apples to apples. ie rip to WAV in both case and see what the differance in speed is.If the time it take to rip to mp3 is of concern to you then do a search on the forums for "batch encoding". ------------------
-I love my Empeg!-
|
NeoRenegade
MP3 Addict From:Canada, eh?
Registered: Oct 2001
Posts: 1049
|
Yep, or if you want a good tradeoff between encoding speed and quality, you should search for the Gogo encoder and see what turns up. Gogo is basically Lame with speed optimizations.
|
Infinity
Junior Member From:
Registered: Apr 2003
Posts: 2
|
Thanks for all the advice 
|
Tomb
Moderator From:Hackney, East London
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 1481
|
You can get the latest version of Gogo from:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jfe1205/others.html Look under MP3. Gogo was originally based on Lame 3.89
|
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
Click here to bookmark this thread!
Audiograbber Forums
posted 08 April 2003 16:14 
