Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


Click here to return to the 'Ripping speed' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Ripping speed
Authored by: james_sorenson on Dec 13, '01 12:56:11PM

Is the Windows machine ripping the file using the same settings as the mac? The r3mix setting in LAME will severely tax your processor as it tries to make a perfect-sounding file as small as absolutely possible. Default settings for iTunes and most Windows players are usually set for lower quality (therefore more speed).

I have now modified this ingenious script for my purposes. I made an additional script that re-encodes a selection files to a different directory that uses smaller-file settings (so I can stuff more music in my MP3 player). Man, how long did it take to engineer this beast? Nice work!



[ Reply to This | # ]
Ripping speed
Authored by: Thistledown on Dec 14, '01 09:44:35AM

I ripped one track using iTunes to a wav file. I copied this file over to my windows box. I used "lame --r3mix infile outfile" to encode it both on the mac and the pc. The pc did it in 30 secs at 5.x speed. The mac took 3.x min at .9x speed.

The mac is running 3.89 (alpha?/beta?)
The pc is running LAME version 3.90 MMX (alpha 8, Oct 23 2001 10:14:08) (http://www.mp3dev.org/)

Perhaps it's the MMX. I don't know. I'll see if I can find a version of 3.89 and run the test again.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Ripping speed
Authored by: Thistledown on Dec 14, '01 11:16:02AM

Ok. I ran a test with two tracks this morning. I used ExactAudioCopy on a pc to extract 2 wav files from a CD. I transfered the wav files to my mac and here are the results.

800Mhz Pentium III PC running Windows 2000
LAME 3.89 MMX
Track 1
2.75x speed
1:31 time

Track 2
2.3x speed
2:17 time

LAME 3.90 MMX
Track 1
3.8x speed
1:01 time

Track 2
3.8x speed
1:22 time


550 Mhz TiBook running OS 10.1.1
LAME 3.89 (beta 1, 12/03/01) installed via fink
Track 1
.85x speed
4:34 time

Track 2
.80x speed
6:25 time

Clearly the Windows version is much faster which just irks me to no end. There are some obvious optimazations in the 3.90 MMX version. I'm surprised that a December build is as slow as it is on my mac. If anyone discovers a new build or optimization for LAME on OS X, let me know.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Ripping speed
Authored by: marmoset on Dec 18, '01 04:00:51PM

IIRC, the x86 versions of LAME use inline hand-coded assembly
in some performance-critical sections, LAME for other CPU
architectures falls back on routines written in C.
Unless someone goes through and does an equivalent
amount of optimization for the PPC version, using LAME
to compare the platforms' speed is not going to be a fair
fight.



[ Reply to This | # ]