title
Products            Buy            Support Forum            Professional            About            Codec Central
 

Speed of Ripping

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • dljjohn1

    • Aug 2003
    • 2

    Speed of Ripping

    With the newest version of the software it is taking me 90 minutes to rip something that use to take me 11 minutes. What should I do.
  • Spoon
    Administrator
    • Apr 2002
    • 44505

    #2
    Try ripping to wave (time how long to rip a CD), that will tell me if it is the ripping part or compression that is slower.
    Spoon
    www.dbpoweramp.com

    Comment

    • Unregistered

      #3
      Originally posted by Spoon
      Try ripping to wave (time how long to rip a CD), that will tell me if it is the ripping part or compression that is slower.
      It took 45 minutes to rip using wave. Before this newer version on the software it would take around 10 minutes

      Comment

      • Razgo
        Administrator
        • Apr 2002
        • 2532

        #4
        that is slow. i just ripped to wav an entire album 43:04 in total length and it only took 1:44 to finish ripping.

        i'm running AMD Athlon 1.33ghz, but lowered to run at 1ghz.

        what is your system?

        Comment

        • dljjohn1

          • Aug 2003
          • 2

          #5
          Originally posted by Razgo
          that is slow. i just ripped to wav an entire album 43:04 in total length and it only took 1:44 to finish ripping.

          i'm running AMD Athlon 1.33ghz, but lowered to run at 1ghz.

          what is your system?

          I am running a gateway 2.19 ghz with 512 ram. Maybe I have something set wrong. Any suggestions?

          Comment

          • Razgo
            Administrator
            • Apr 2002
            • 2532

            #6
            your system is fast and if you got faster ripping speeds before it should still be the same same speed now.

            hmmm......

            i can't think of anything off hand right now. does using the rip to ram feature in powerapack make any difference?

            Comment

            • Unregistered

              #7
              Originally posted by Razgo
              your system is fast and if you got faster ripping speeds before it should still be the same same speed now.

              hmmm......

              i can't think of anything off hand right now. does using the rip to ram feature in powerapack make any difference?
              I unchecked my rip to ram and was able to rip in 8 minutes instead of 90 minutes. It seams when I am ripping now my machine runs slow. Any ideas??

              Comment

              • Unregistered

                #8
                well that is a drastic difference. if all you did was not use rip to ram first then maybe a ram problem? what is your operating system? XP? win98se?

                Comment

                • Unregistered

                  #9
                  Originally posted by Unregistered
                  well that is a drastic difference. if all you did was not use rip to ram first then maybe a ram problem? what is your operating system? XP? win98se?
                  XP is my operating system

                  Comment

                  • Spoon
                    Administrator
                    • Apr 2002
                    • 44505

                    #10
                    Make sure the ram amount that is being used is set the Maximum for rip to ram. If still no go then let me know.
                    Spoon
                    www.dbpoweramp.com

                    Comment

                    • Unregistered

                      #11
                      Re: Speed of Ripping

                      This is a result of your Priority being set to high. I had the same problem. One would think setting the priority higher would increase ripping speed, however, when ripping to RAM if the Priority is set to high, then the computer can't access the RAM. The bottom line: If you set your priority to Normal, then the Rip to RAM option will work significantly better.

                      Comment

                      Working...

                      ]]>