PDA

View Full Version : 2x slow ripping - not DMA problem



jesak
07-29-2007, 06:29 AM
Hello,

My new installation of DBpoweramp is ripping CD's very slowly. 1x to 2x top spped. I have looked through the FAQ which suggest that perhaps the IDE channel has been channged from DMA mode. Miy IDE channels are using DMA mode Ultra DMA 2.

In other programs such as Itunes, CD ripping happens at roughly 25 to 27x.

What can I have improperly set?

What information can I show here to help solve the problem.

This system is using a 3.7Ghz Extreme P4 CPU, 2Gb of RAM, 52x Sony CD writer. XP Professional SP2. I am using the Lame encoder.

I've tried many ripping values, from 96 to 320. Even the 384K Free Form deck ripper. No setting brings faster than 2.7x.

All help appreciated.

Thanks,

John

LtData
07-29-2007, 08:18 AM
Are you ripping in Burst mode or Secure mode? What version of Windows are you using?

Spoon
07-29-2007, 08:55 AM
Rip to Test Conversion to get the speed of the cd drive, make sure on the options page you have not selected a slow drive speed.

jesak
07-29-2007, 11:55 PM
Rip to Test Conversion to get the speed of the cd drive, make sure on the options page you have not selected a slow drive speed.
Hi,
I could not find an option to Rip to Test Conversion. How do I do this?

Also, I am using burst mode, constant bit rate all different speeds. Everything I try goes at 2.5x or 2.7x and such. The encoding can be at slow or normal... no change.

I am very highly visually handicapped... hell, I'm blind... why quibble. It is difficult to see the options on the DBpoweramp CD-ripper screen when you use handicapped settings (High Contrast *1). They only show as you highlight them. Since I don't use a mouse but rather keystrokes to move around, it is difficult to find/change things rapidly. Still, I couldn't find the Test Conversion thing... and I'm relying on sighted help.. and the actual time taken to rip a song... which is nearly the time it takes to play the song normally. :-(

Same sight problem when using the forum, so please forgive any stupid mistakes I display when answering these questins.


Thanks so much for taking the time to try and help me determine why my ripping is going so slow.

Much appreciated.

John

Spoon
07-30-2007, 03:39 AM
Test conversion is under the encoder box, instead of selecting mp3 (Lame) go for Test Conversion.

For setting speeds, use the Maximum first option, and restart the computer.

jesak
07-30-2007, 08:35 PM
Thanks!

I don't know whether it was choosing the Test Conversion and ripping a few tracks... or rebooting that fixed things... but now I'm ripping at 10x to 33x speeds. Thanks...

Can you explain the why of this?

Also, the first 10 of 15 track on a CD (for example) rip at about 10x or so, then the last few tracks speed up and up until I'm seeing 33x and higher... once up to 39x. Why is this? Why not an even 25x or so across all the tracks when ripping a full CD?

Thanks again,

John

LtData
07-30-2007, 08:59 PM
Because CD drives use a method of drive speeds known as Zone-CLV, as explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_linear_velocity

jesak
08-01-2007, 11:09 PM
Thanks, much appreciated.

But, after reading the article (and a couple others pointed to therein), wouldn't you think that the constant 1.2m/s speed sought by the zoning should give a more constant ripping speed rather than a fluctuating one? Meaning, if the speed stays roughly constant regardless of the distance being traversed... it shouldn't matter whether the head is near the center of the CD or the outer edge. I would have guessed that just the same amount of data would be transferred... i.e., bits. 1.2m/s is 1.2m/s no matter how much ground you are covering... and there isn't a concentration of more bits of data in 1.2m of linear storage whether it's in near the center or out near the outer edge. So, while I understood the article and understand the concepts, I still don't understand the wide fluctuation in ripping tracks from 1 to 15 or 20 on a CD... it seems to me the whole scheme of reading is optimized to transfer bits at roughly the same quantity per time interval no matter where they reside on the media.
But, don't worry about my confusion... I've been flummoxed by far simpler questions in my life. The oddities of optical media are just a magnificent miracle to me no matter what they are... just the fact that essentially numbers are being translated into nice smooth analog music is impressive enough for me to just appreciate it and not try and comprehend the nitty gritty of it all. So thanks for your answer. I enjoyed the read.

John