| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 28298 | 2002-12-16 00:33:00 | converting cd to mp3 | artpepper (1321) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 106439 | 2002-12-16 05:01:00 | > Windows Media Player is a pain? I use WMP9 on XP, and > copy music in the Windows Media Variable Bitrate > format set at medium quality... almost no loss of > quality and quite good compression rates. Oh dear.... :| ... "almost no loss of quality" ... that's an absolute shocker of a statement from someone using WMA format. Lo. |
Lohsing (219) | ||
| 106440 | 2002-12-16 05:19:00 | Oh please, they sound better than 128KB MP3 files (some people might not have hearing that actually notices a difference between a CD track and a 64KB MP3 version), and most definitely better than MP3PRO files (even when they're played through a player that plays back MP3PRO files). And it just so happens I do know what I'm talking about, crozier. I said I've never needed to write audio tracks to CD, not that I don't know how to. If I ever felt the random urge to write an audio CD, I have three programs at hand to do so. I am not that incompetent when it comes to technology. |
agent (30) | ||
| 106441 | 2002-12-16 05:28:00 | If you install Musicmatch Jukebox, it just does it all automatically. | Baldy (26) | ||
| 106442 | 2002-12-16 05:38:00 | Try FreeRIP. This neat little program can take the tracks off a CD and convert it into either, MP3, WAV or Ogg formats. best of all when you are connected to the internet, with the CD in the Drive it searches the net and in most cases can call the tracks the name of the song that it is, and who published it etc. It is FREE and doesn't contain Spyware you should be able to get FreeRIP from here (www.mgshareware.com). if not then do a search in GOOGLE Have a great Christmas |
NathanTheKind (472) | ||
| 106443 | 2002-12-16 06:34:00 | > Oh please, they sound better than 128KB MP3 files > (some people might not have hearing that actually > notices a difference between a CD track and a 64KB > MP3 version), and most definitely better than MP3PRO > files (even when they're played through a player that > plays back MP3PRO files). ROTFLMAO ... :^O Quit while you're ahead dude. Lo. |
Lohsing (219) | ||
| 106444 | 2002-12-16 07:28:00 | i like cdex due to it being free, open source and has far better quality settings than most rippers including WMP. eac is also very good. a fast ripper is not always a good ripper(a lot of fast rippers will have errors in the tracks). wmp9 (as far as i know) is still beta and should be used with caution. wma codec is fairly poor when compared to lame, ogg, and real. tho if you are making a combo disk to play in a cd player, then codecs won't matter as you will be ripping to wave and burning wave files to cd. ripping a cd to mp3 etc then coverting it back to normall music cd looses quality, which makes it pointless if you have the orignal cd. there is a huge range of music programs out there, you don't have to stick with microsoft ones. |
tweak'e (174) | ||
| 106445 | 2002-12-16 08:10:00 | Quit while I'm ahead? From your point of view, I was probably never ahead. But I will go on. As I've said, I extract my music off CDs using the Windows Media Audio Variable Bitrate codec, on medium setting. A variable bitrate is better because it uses less compression in harder areas to compress, and more in areas that are easier. This results in a better sounding file. And considering the medium setting encodes it between ~138KB and ~220KB (can't quite remember, I'm not on that computer right now, and this one doesn't have WMP9), I am getting just about no loss of quality, and this sounds much better to me than, say, an MP3 compressed at 160KB, which still has significant reduction in the range of frequencies, and therefore lower sound quality - do you know how audio compression codecs work? Now I know that WMP9 is still in beta stages, but I happen to be one of the lucky people who never experience any problems at all from beta software - and I'm not kidding about this, I use a lot of beta software, and none of it ever goes wrong. I should consider myself extremely lucky here, because I hear stories of people using beta software that screws up badly, and I'm just not one of those people. As for fast rippers, I put the speed of WMP9 ripping tracks off my CD down to the fact that I always customise my system settings to my preference (which is faster, with less visual effects), and I leave my computer completely alone while it is extracting the tracks. I also have a 7200RPM hard drive, 256MB RAM, an 800MHz (I know, it's not that flash), and a motherboard that supports ATA133. I used to use Easy CD Extractor to rip files and encode them into MP3, and I always downloaded MP3s, but now I use the WMA format. However, when I load Linux, I will use the Ogg format as opposed to any other format. |
agent (30) | ||
| 106446 | 2002-12-16 08:42:00 | sigh :( wma, ogg, lame, and most other mp3 codecs are all varible bitrate. > this sounds much better to me than, say, an MP3 compressed at 160KB it depends on which mp3 codec used and settings used. as far as time it takes to rip i think you missed the point. how long it takes is not very important. whats the point of a fast rip if its full of errors. i use cdex in paranoid mode which can take a while if it finds errors on the cd. i'd rather have it take longer and get a good rip. EAC is a good ripper but won't do ogg id tags where as cdex will (with cddb of course). if you are looking at useing ogg why not do it now? save reripping the cd's when you get linux. |
tweak'e (174) | ||
| 106447 | 2002-12-16 08:56:00 | > sigh :( wma, ogg, lame, and most other mp3 codecs > are all varible bitrate. > > > this sounds much better to me than, say, an MP3 > compressed at 160KB > > it depends on which mp3 codec used and settings > used. > > as far as time it takes to rip i think you missed the > point. how long it takes is not very important. whats > the point of a fast rip if its full of errors. i use > cdex in paranoid mode which can take a while if it > finds errors on the cd. i'd rather have it take > longer and get a good rip. EAC is a good ripper but > won't do ogg id tags where as cdex will (with cddb of > course). > > if you are looking at useing ogg why not do it now? > save reripping the cd's when you get linux. Agreed with everything tweak'e has posted... believe it or not Agent, the search function will provide you with some good postings regarding mp3, which I suggest you research before you start spouting about how the wma codec is the be all and end all of audio codecs for compression. Best of luck with those variable wma's. Lo. |
Lohsing (219) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||