VideoHelp Forum

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Consider supporting us by disable your adblocker or Try ConvertXtoDVD and convert all your movies to DVD. Free trial ! :)
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 7 of 7
Thread
  1. Hallo!

    I use CDex for CD ripping & converting to MP3.
    And i am wondering, is there any difference (in quality) between 'on the fly' encoding or first extracting to .wav and then encode to mp3?

    Sorry for my bad English.

    Thanks
    Quote Quote  
  2. VH Veteran jimmalenko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Down under
    Search PM
    Given your PC specs, unless you've got a really ancient CD-ROM, I don't think it would make any difference either way. I guess you could always try it and make up your own decision ?

    It is you that will be listening to them, after all
    If in doubt, Google it.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Search Comp PM
    Unless the setting lowers the ripping quality to increase speed (never used CDex) then I can't see how it would make any difference even with an ancient CD-ROM. One you are creating a wav, the other you are piping the pcm directly to the mp3 encoder.
    Quote Quote  
  4. VH Veteran jimmalenko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Down under
    Search PM
    In the past (Like, 2001 or something), I used CDEX with an ancient CD-ROM (16X IIRC). On the fly results were generally horrible, as the CD-ROM couldn't supply the data to the MP3 encoder quick enough, and it was much like dropped frames when capping video. There were also a number of clicks, pops etc etc in the MP3s as well. Yet extracting to WAV with CDEX, then encoding the WAVs to MP3 with CDEX produced flawless results.
    If in doubt, Google it.
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Search Comp PM
    No reason (unlike capture) why it should need to be realtime though. If the drive can't supply the data realtime then it would just take longer than realtime to encode.

    16X isn't ancient. I had a 1X external back in the day.
    Quote Quote  
  6. VH Veteran jimmalenko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Down under
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by celtic_druid
    No reason (unlike capture) why it should need to be realtime though. If the drive can't supply the data realtime then it would just take longer than realtime to encode.

    16X isn't ancient. I had a 1X external back in the day.
    Just quoting my experiences with the program


    16X is/was ancient considering they maxed out at 52X some time around late 2001 / early 2002.
    If in doubt, Google it.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    "ALL's I KNOW" is that I use EAC, rip to wav, then batch convert with lame to mp3 (when I need to), they sound great!

    Scott
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads