[rescue] suitability for use question

[Eric Webb]

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 
fields, though.

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.


-E.