Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

super rip for x-fi seem so slow

Last response: in Components
Share
June 20, 2006 8:03:55 PM

i have just started to use super rip with my xf-i fatal1ty to copy my cd collection and it seems to be ripping the tracks in real time. it seems 50 times slower than when i used to use my old onboard sound and media player 10. how come it takes so long?

is the quality really much better than if i used media player to rip my cds in 3 mins instead of and hour?
it would take me a month to copy my entire collection please help me speed things up

More about : super rip slow

June 20, 2006 8:31:45 PM

I recently bought an XtremeMusic edition of this card. I have not tried ripping FROM a CD but when converting my MP3 collection using the conversion tool that comes with the card, back to MP3, I did notice a MAJOR increase in sound quality, even if I transfer the files to my iRiver, it sounds better on there as well.

Which program are you using to rip? The Creative music player that comes with it or something else? What mode do you have your card running on, Creation, Entertainment or gaming?

I did notice that when I converted my MP3's, if in gaming mode, it goes slower then if in the other two modes, not much but noticeable. I am not sure if the Super Rip works inside other programs, WMP, Winamp or iTunes, so I have always used the Creative software to convert/rip/burn my music but use WMP to play it. Its a pain sometimes to move them over to WMP but my Logitech keyboard media controls wont control the Creative software.
June 20, 2006 9:04:53 PM

like i said earlier, i am not sure if it works in any program at all but from what I understand, if you use the Creative media player that comes with the card, you can Rip and burn using that, that uses the Super Rip abilities of the card. I am not sure if its a software thing or just built right into the card.
Related resources
June 21, 2006 2:51:43 AM

Ripping using the CMSS3D+24bC = SuperRip. As bits are ripped this DSP is applied. Though I believe that's hardware based I'm not sure how much the card accelerates this, apparently not much. I've not used it.
June 23, 2006 5:51:54 PM

Dont use the program to rip CD's. The ripping codec is designed to restore quality to MP3's... It doesnt make the MP3's sound closer to CD quality... it just adds sounds that werent originaly in the recording to the mp3. This may be an advantage for some people.

Doing this with CD's however, wont gain you anything. Nothing is better then CD quality, when the original source is a CD. If you are concerned about quality, use iTunes or annother program to copy into AIFF, or if space is a factor, a lossless codec.
June 23, 2006 6:10:37 PM

I have a feeling the ExtremeMusic will produce much better sound than my current onboard...
June 23, 2006 6:37:14 PM

Quote:
i have just started to use super rip with my xf-i fatal1ty to copy my cd collection and it seems to be ripping the tracks in real time. it seems 50 times slower than when i used to use my old onboard sound and media player 10. how come it takes so long?

is the quality really much better than if i used media player to rip my cds in 3 mins instead of and hour?
it would take me a month to copy my entire collection please help me speed things up
Super rip's audio quality is between 5-6MBPS, being the reason it takes so long. A 4 min music file can be nearly 200MB.
June 23, 2006 6:49:59 PM

Super rip will in fact slow your ripping process down, even running in create mode which it should be in, because it basicly run's the track through a DSP(more or less the CMSS-3D and 24-bit Crystalizer)that the cards hardware does in real-time and apply's it to the track so you get those features on the track so you can play it (with those features) on any computer that supports creatives format they want you to use. Plus, I ripped a CD and after wards the whole album was over 3 Gigs in size that could be why it takes so long :(  If you just are looking to rip in MP3 I would suggust a program like EAC(exact audio copy / using the lame encoder)
June 23, 2006 6:58:56 PM

Quote:
i have just started to use super rip with my xf-i fatal1ty to copy my cd collection and it seems to be ripping the tracks in real time. it seems 50 times slower than when i used to use my old onboard sound and media player 10. how come it takes so long?

is the quality really much better than if i used media player to rip my cds in 3 mins instead of and hour?
it would take me a month to copy my entire collection please help me speed things up
Super rip's audio quality is between 5-6MBPS, being the reason it takes so long. A 4 min music file can be nearly 200MB.

"A 4 min music file can be nearly 200MB."
errrr.. if ur talking about audio CDs thats nonsense. The average track is maybe.. 57Mb ish.. a 200Mb track would be about 20mins or so

As regards the main point, dont mess with all these sound altering and enhancing features/ ripping thru sound card. Maybe if your trying to compensate for a poor amp+speakers situation.. well even then dont. bother with that stuff. If youre just after the "highest quality" sound, just go with higer bitrate mp3, or use aac which apparently gives a higher quality output for a given bitrate (personally i think the difference is prety small but still..) If you really want to be obsessive use raw audio, but i dont think youl notice the difference between that and say 128kbps AAC

Just go with whatever media player you have to rip youre music. Better stil use itunes.
June 23, 2006 7:07:53 PM

! why the hell would anyone have a 6MB/s audio file? Is this sound card doing some kind of sick twisted for of unnescesarily pointless upsampling and or bitdepth increasing (forgot the word for that... the one wer ur increasng the resolution as regards the "vertical " resolution)
June 23, 2006 7:10:43 PM

Quote:
i have just started to use super rip with my xf-i fatal1ty to copy my cd collection and it seems to be ripping the tracks in real time. it seems 50 times slower than when i used to use my old onboard sound and media player 10. how come it takes so long?

is the quality really much better than if i used media player to rip my cds in 3 mins instead of and hour?
it would take me a month to copy my entire collection please help me speed things up
Super rip's audio quality is between 5-6MBPS, being the reason it takes so long. A 4 min music file can be nearly 200MB.

"A 4 min music file can be nearly 200MB."
errrr.. if ur talking about audio CDs thats nonsense. The average track is maybe.. 57Mb ish.. a 200Mb track would be about 20mins or so

As regards the main point, dont mess with all these sound altering and enhancing features/ ripping thru sound card. Maybe if your trying to compensate for a poor amp+speakers situation.. well even then dont. bother with that stuff. If youre just after the "highest quality" sound, just go with higer bitrate mp3, or use aac which apparently gives a higher quality output for a given bitrate (personally i think the difference is prety small but still..) If you really want to be obsessive use raw audio, but i dont think youl notice the difference between that and say 128kbps AAC

Just go with whatever media player you have to rip youre music. Better stil use itunes.

You must remember that Super Rip adds DSP effects and rip at a much higher bit rate then a normal mp3 at 192/kps 24- bit cystalizer makes the audio stream 24 bits as well not 16 like most audio CDs
June 23, 2006 7:14:33 PM

so yeh.. its doing massive upconverting..

That must be on of THE most pointlessly gimicky things i have heard of in a long time. Adding DSP effects is prety stupid also.. Why alter what is superb CD wuality sound. Depenends what u want i guess. Faithful audio reproduction.. or just to think it sounds better cos its a higher birate and had "stuff" done to it by the dsp..
June 23, 2006 7:14:48 PM

For almost 3.5 gigs per CD Mp3's at VBR 320 is good enough for me!!
June 23, 2006 7:19:55 PM

Quote:
For almost 3.5 gigs per CD Mp3's at VBR 320 is good enough for me!!


here here! thats the sensible approach to take. If you want to use that much storage for a single cd youl soon run out of HDD space, so ul have to get more hdds.. and youl get FAR superior sound quality investing that money in a decent amp and speakers, and using a reasonable bitrate, and forgetting about all this "sound enhancing" nonsense
June 23, 2006 9:10:20 PM

Quote:
For almost 3.5 gigs per CD Mp3's at VBR 320 is good enough for me!!


here here! thats the sensible approach to take. If you want to use that much storage for a single cd youl soon run out of HDD space, so ul have to get more hdds.. and youl get FAR superior sound quality investing that money in a decent amp and speakers, and using a reasonable bitrate, and forgetting about all this "sound enhancing" nonsense

Simply Amen.
June 25, 2006 6:41:45 AM

A lossless codec is AS GOOD AS IT GETS!!!!

forget about the bull-poopie suerrip

importing a cd with FLAC or AIFF will use around 600mb

use ALAC and it will be 450, and friggin lossless

nothing
is
better
then
lossless

COME TO ThE LIGHT
June 25, 2006 9:17:11 AM

Amen. Another nice feature which people seem to forget is that a lossless encoded file can be converted to another lossless encoded format with no quality loss.

Like, you've encoded all of your 400 CD with WMA lossless...then, you wake up, see the light ( 8O )and realize you want to use iTunes. You can convert all those WMA lossless files to Apple Lossless with no quality loss.

Lossless. Come to the light. MP3 is yucky.
June 29, 2006 3:47:14 AM

Quote:
Like, you've encoded all of your 400 CD with WMA lossless...then, you wake up, see the light ( Shocked )and realize you want to use iTunes. You can convert all those WMA lossless files to Apple Lossless with no quality loss.


For all intents and purposes you are correct. But some people would get anal and argue the point that you're safer always converting from the original CD. And then you're still getting something that is only 99.9% true to the original. Not only that...anything that says apple just irks me.

Quote:
Lossless. Come to the light. MP3 is yucky.


Loseless is superior in quality..no arguments here. But filesizes are quite large only to, in some cases, gain only a marginal difference in quality. (This is assuming an excellent mp3 encoder like lame is used at a decent bitrate.) So for me smaller mp3 files with a very marginal sacrifice in quality wins out.

I'm waiting for the day that a loseless encoder will be able to put out the same filesizes as an mp3 file. That will be sooo nice.
June 29, 2006 8:35:22 AM

Truthfully, there's not worlds of difference, to me, between the original CD and a 320kbps well-ecoded MP3. ...but since disk space is cheap I still prefer lossless. So I can sleep better ( I don't wanna be wakiing up in the middle of the night screaming "I should have encoded that Orbital CD in Lossless!!").
!