How to save to .mp3 format faster...

GoldWave general discussions and community help
Post Reply
Colin
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:27 pm

How to save to .mp3 format faster...

Post by Colin »

My machine is no slouch:

Goldwave version 5.06
AMD dual core 2.6ghz
2 gb of PC5300 DDR SDRAM
Currently using a 7200 RPM SATA drive for temp storage.

Is there any way to speed up the Save As function?

File info:

5 hour full range .wav file in stereo converting to 128kbps/44.1khz stereo .mp3 format currently takes about 17 minutes. I may be asking for something that's not possible, so please let me know.

Thanks.

GoldWave Inc.
Site Admin
Posts: 4014
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:43 pm
Location: St. John's, NL
Contact:

Re: How to save to .mp3 format faster...

Post by GoldWave Inc. »

The speed of MP3 encoding depends mostly on the processor speed, so there is not much you can do to speed things up. Make sure your hard drive is defragmented and install the latest version of GoldWave.

Chris

Colin
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:27 pm

Post by Colin »

A newer version could be faster?
I'll consider that, but I'm one of those stubborn people who never switches programs unless ABSOLUTELY forced... :P

Let me edit: Should I be defragmenting the OS drive or the drive that is used for temp storage? They are 2 physically different drives.

GoldWave Inc.
Site Admin
Posts: 4014
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:43 pm
Location: St. John's, NL
Contact:

Post by GoldWave Inc. »

A more recent version of GoldWave may be a bit faster. Installing the latest version of the LAME MP3 encoder may speed things up a bit too. The drive used for temporary storage is the one to defragment.

Chris

mh
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 6:20 pm

Post by mh »

If you have the cash, you could try setting up a small striped RAID array for your temp storage. GW is very dependent on disk write speed, so anything that increases that will definitely give you very worthwhile improvements (likewise with going SCSI).

Colin
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:27 pm

Post by Colin »

mh wrote:If you have the cash, you could try setting up a small striped RAID array for your temp storage. GW is very dependent on disk write speed, so anything that increases that will definitely give you very worthwhile improvements (likewise with going SCSI).
Now we're talking! I love buying hardware...

I could invest a couple hundred in a pair of striped Raptors, but are we talking 20% faster, 50% faster? Cost / performance you know! 8)

DougDbug
Posts: 2067
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 3:33 pm
Location: Silicon Valley

Post by DougDbug »

I don't think a faster hard drive will make that much difference. After all, the MP3 file is smaller than a WAV file... I don't work with MP3s that much, but it does seem to take longer to encode and save an MP3 than the WAV version.

MP3 compression does take quite a lot of number crunching, and I believe the LAME team is more concerned with audio quality than with encoding speed. The LAME encoder has reputation of good sound quality.

I'm not sure if the LAME encoder can take advantage of both of your AMD "cores". I doubt it, because LAME is multi-platform and that type of optimization would require specific code for the Windows/Intel/AMD platform. You might be able to find more information on the LAME website..

There is a Fraunhofer encoder called FastEnc that's supposed to be optimized for encoding speed. I have no idea if it works with GoldWave.

You can probably find a stand-alone WAV-to-MP3 converter that works faster than GoldWave/LAME.

Or, if you are simply recording to WAV and then converting to MP3 without any editing, you can find direct-to-MP3 recording software. (I assume you are recording something since you are working with 5-hour files...)

cdeamaze
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 3:19 pm

Post by cdeamaze »

First, let's determine the file size involved (see How to cut file size).
By direct calculation, your 5-hour .wav file size is 3.175GB. By contrast your .mp3 file size is, 10 times smaller, at 288MB.

Fast save requires a high performance hard drive, if you love buying hardware:
1. bigger Cache
Find out what kind of Cache do you have. And if you don't already have a 16MB Cache, consider getting one.
2. 7200 RPM Raid 0 Array
3. faster rotating speed such as $200 10000 RPM Western Digital WD1500AD Raptor-X HD

For cost vs performance and benchmark tests between Raptor and Raid 0 Array see Raptor-X is unrivaled and Cheap RAID Ravages WD Raptor

Colin
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:27 pm

Post by Colin »

cdeamaze wrote:First, let's determine the file size involved (see How to cut file size).
By direct calculation, your 5-hour .wav file size is 3.175GB. By contrast your .mp3 file size is, 10 times smaller, at 288MB.

Fast save requires a high performance hard drive, if you love buying hardware:
1. bigger Cache
Find out what kind of Cache do you have. And if you don't already have a 16MB Cache, consider getting one.
2. 7200 RPM Raid 0 Array
3. faster rotating speed such as $200 10000 RPM Western Digital WD1500AD Raptor-X HD

For cost vs performance and benchmark tests between Raptor and Raid 0 Array see Raptor-X is unrivaled and Cheap RAID Ravages WD Raptor
I record using Goldwave in full range stereo .wav I guess because I don't know any better.
If my desired output is 128kbps/44.1khz stereo .mp3, then what settings should I record with to start with a smaller file size without a sacrifice in end result quality?

The hard drive I use for temp storage is a WD 500gb 16mb cache sata. My raptor is only the 36gb model and does not have the sometimes required 30gb of free space for temp storage.

I guess I should look at a RAID 0 setup over a couple of 16mb cache drives. But my case is perfect as it is. I'd had to find something else or remove a couple storage drives. Sigh...

donrandall
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 11:06 pm
Location: Denver, Colorado

Post by donrandall »

Are you recording music, where stereo might be desirable and perhpaps even necessary? Or - are you record voiceovers, where a mono file would be just hunky dunky?

Colin
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:27 pm

Post by Colin »

donrandall wrote:Are you recording music, where stereo might be desirable and perhpaps even necessary? Or - are you record voiceovers, where a mono file would be just hunky dunky?
It's mostly voice, so mono would be fine, but I prefer stereo in this situation.

Post Reply