[scaught]

im encoding a CD to 160kbps MP3's and its only encoding at like 4.0x which sucks. is there a way to make it faster?

im using an imac 600mhz graphite with 512MB ram.

[max4ever]

I know of no way to speed up iTunes built-in encoding (other than lowering import quality). I usually average 8 or so, which a max of nearly 9.

[Niubi]

I find Audion a hell uv a lot quicker, and the LAME encoder raher then the fraunhome...

hth a little

[OverclockedHomoSapien]

MP3s are a waste of time for audiophiles. Their quality is TERRIBLE. The only thing they are good for is sending music over the internet....but they aren't any good at playing music so there isn't much point in sending the music.

My suggestion is to play the frickin' CD. You get high quality audio and don't waste any time converting it into something that sounds like ass.

[marusin]

While encoding your cds just for the hell of it on your home machine may be a waste of time, there are several reasons why someone (that means I) encode my favorite cds into mp3s...

- It's nice to have all of your favorite cds ripped to mp3 and stored either on your hard drive at work (or on cds storing mp3s)... This way I don't have to lug/worry about someone stealing a collection of cds that I am going back and forth to the office with...

- If you have a portable mp3 player that you exercise with (or travel around with) where you like to make mixes to listen to while you're on the move...

I always love the "audiophiles" that come out of the woodwork when it comes to the sound qualities of mp3s... While I admit the sound quality isn't the same as listening to the cd, a true audiophile would not waste their time using the "second rate' circuitry of computer hardware and listen to their cds through their McIntosh Amps and Zillion dollar speakers...

Am I right or am I right or am I right? Thought so...

Originally posted by OverclockedHomoSapien:
<STRONG>MP3s are a waste of time for audiophiles. Their quality is TERRIBLE. The only thing they are good for is sending music over the internet....but they aren't any good at playing music so there isn't much point in sending the music.

My suggestion is to play the frickin' CD. You get high quality audio and don't waste any time converting it into something that sounds like ass.</STRONG>

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally posted by marusin:
<STRONG>I always love the "audiophiles" that come out of the woodwork when it comes to the sound qualities of mp3s... While I admit the sound quality isn't the same as listening to the cd, a true audiophile would not waste their time using the "second rate' circuitry of computer hardware and listen to their cds through their McIntosh Amps and Zillion dollar speakers...

Am I right or am I right or am I right? Thought so...</STRONG>

You are totally right. Why on earth is this guy even bothering with such an inane reply to a topic about encoding speeds?

Most peoples stereoes aren't good enough, nor the average ear not trained well enough to discern between a high-bit rate MP3 and a CD anyways.

Encoding speed is dependant on two things:
CPU speed and (if you are encoding from CD) your CD speed.

If you check barefeats.com, you'll find that even though a 733 is the faster processor, it's superdrive reads CDs slower than other models with faster drives.

So for the fastest encoding, you should encode AIFF files from your HD. (Of course not feasible when you want to rip CDs though...)

iTunes and it's (sort of) predecessor SoundJam MP, leverages both multiprocessors and AltiVec, contributing to the encoding-speed.

[kjb]

Originally posted by - - e r i k - -:


iTunes and it's (sort of) predecessor SoundJam MP, leverages both multiprocessors and AltiVec, contributing to the encoding-speed.[/QB]

I have a G3 400/ Sony 8x4x32 CDRW that rips significantly faster w/ SoundJam than with iTunes. I don't quite understand why either. Isn't iTunes essentially the SJ engine w/ an Apple front end? Ripping in iTunes gets me something like 2.4x, even less when other programs are running. With SoundJam, I get close to 4.0x. This is running under OS 9, so maybe I should try it under X to see if that helps. Don't know that it would since I have a single processor.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally posted by kjb:
<STRONG>I have a G3 400/ Sony 8x4x32 CDRW that rips significantly faster w/ SoundJam than with iTunes. I don't quite understand why either. Isn't iTunes essentially the SJ engine w/ an Apple front end? Ripping in iTunes gets me something like 2.4x, even less when other programs are running. With SoundJam, I get close to 4.0x.</STRONG>

Yeah, that is weird. I usually don't mind the ripping speed since I just let it do it's dirty work in the background while I'm happily away surfing, photoshoping or downloading porn... oh wait... I mean warez... no MP3s... legal ones! Promise!

[osiris]

I'm getting between 4x and 7x encoding speed - I believe it depends on where the tracks are on your CD.

As for the audiophile snobs, well then don't bother. Vinyl records sound better than Cds on a professional turntable - so if you want to go that far your CDs stink too.

But to amass an entire collection then have it at your fingertip and instantly available is hardly a sacrifice to the small percentage of humans that can hear the difference.

So let's see - hundreds of mbs for a CD or hundreds of great sounding mp3s... you decide.

[krove]

Hehehe...I'm going to have to brag: I get between 9.0x and 14.0x encoding at 192kbps (on my dual 800 machine).

Pretty awesome!

[juanvaldes]

I get around 7-9 normally but if the CD is scratched it drops like a rock to 1x or sometimes even less. Though I believe I could get faster rip speed if I had a ultra fast CDR, my DVD probably doesn't have a very fast speed. humm...should probably look that up. Does anyone know the DVD speed for the first wave of DP systems?

For OCHS, CD"s SUCK!!!!! They break way too easily, they skip, scratch and erode, I know safely keep all of my CD's in their jewel cases where (hopefully) they will not get ****ed up. Also, my sound sticks and iSub kick the crap off my stereo and I can store thousands of songs on my HD as opposed to having to constantly change the CD and being able to play custom mixes of songs.

But hey, to each his own.

Since iTunes is SoundJam in sheep's clothing, why does iTunes encode slower than SoundJam? SoundJam encodes at 17x max and iTunes at around 8x max, both direct from the CD for my machine. Is iTunes slowing the drive down for a better rip (if there is such a thing when using digital data)? Has anyone got rip speeds for iTunes off their HD handy for comparison?