ripping CDs
in [UK Linux]
|
From: Will Kemp on 2 Sep 2009 15:42 On 09/02/2009 04:42 PM, david wrote: > Have ubuntu 9.04 installed and wanted to rip approx 200 CDs to MP3. > > Any recommendations what to use that's fast, not CLI ie has a GUI, and > produces decent quality files. > > I couldn't find Sound Juicer (google search recommended) in the repos and > just tried using K3b which took 15 minutes to rip to ogg whereas, dare I > say it, I can do this in XP in about 4 mins (same CD). > > Really prefer to use Linux but it needs to be fast. I use grip. It seems fairly fast to me, although i doubt i could rip a CD in 4 minutes. It uses lame for encoding to mp3 and the rip/encode config stuff is good. It's nice and handy for correcting CDDB titles etc, too. -- http://NovemberEchoRomeoDelta.com
From: Will Kemp on 2 Sep 2009 15:43 On 09/02/2009 04:42 PM, david wrote: > Have ubuntu 9.04 installed and wanted to rip approx 200 CDs to MP3. > > Any recommendations what to use that's fast, not CLI ie has a GUI, and > produces decent quality files. > > I couldn't find Sound Juicer (google search recommended) in the repos and > just tried using K3b which took 15 minutes to rip to ogg whereas, dare I > say it, I can do this in XP in about 4 mins (same CD). > > Really prefer to use Linux but it needs to be fast. If you can rip it faster with XP, why do you want to use Linux? -- http://NovemberEchoRomeoDelta.com
From: Unruh on 2 Sep 2009 15:47 david <dave(a)antispam.invalid> writes: >On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 17:47:37 +0000, Unruh wrote: >> david <dave(a)antispam.invalid> writes: >> >>>On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 17:06:25 +0100, chris wrote: >> >>>> david wrote: >>>>> Have ubuntu 9.04 installed and wanted to rip approx 200 CDs to MP3. >>>>> >>>>> Any recommendations what to use that's fast, not CLI ie has a GUI, >>>>> and produces decent quality files. >>>>> >>>>> I couldn't find Sound Juicer (google search recommended) in the repos >>>>> and just tried using K3b which took 15 minutes to rip to ogg whereas, >>>>> dare I say it, I can do this in XP in about 4 mins (same CD). >>>> >>>> You seem to be comparing ogg with mp3 and probably with different >>>> bit-rates so the comparison isn't very fair. >>>> >>>> I normally use Kaudiocreator, it's quite simple, but quite >>>> configurable. Try that. >> >>>Chris, >>>Yes I know it wasn't a scientific test but it gave me a rough indication >>>that K3b would take too long cf the "other" system. FWIW my 4 min rip >>>was at 256Mbps and the total MP3 folder was about 80MB. The ogg was >>>40MB. If I am to believe ogg is superior to MP3 then quality of the 2 >>>rips might be similar ?? So looks a good indicator to me. >> >>>And I want MP3's as all the clients use that plus my portable player. In >>>an ideal world I'd use FLAC but it ain't ideal at the mo. >> >> MP3 is a proprietary system, and you are obliged, by the patent law, to >> pay the owners for the priviledge of converting to mp3. Alternarively >> you can use lame, which is free mp3 creator, but using it you may well >> be breaking patent law. >> That was a key reason why ogg was created-- to have patent free open >> source encoder. >> >Unruh, >The current temperature in Ouagadougou is 84degrees F. >Which has about as much relevance to my original question as your answers >do. >I want someone who uses, yes, uses an MP3 ripper via a GUI to suggest a >fast and good quality app that will run under Ubuntu 9.04. >I have no interest in anything else especially being lectured to on what >I already know. >Thanks >Dave I stated that so you understand why it is actually hard to get a mp3 encoder. No broadly distributed package can include an mp3 encoder because the patent owners will sue. It is possible, but you have to assemble the parts yourself. Namely lame plus other programs ( some do have hooks for lame. )
From: Unruh on 2 Sep 2009 15:51 Sheridan Hutchinson <Sheridan(a)Shezza.org> writes: >This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) >--------------enig9EBD3F7825ED09E492B9C75D >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >david wrote: >> I'm using Ubuntu 9.04..as per my orig post. >Excellent, hdparm is available in the repositories. Plenty of >information out there about how it works. >> It's the same PC that has win xp and ubuntu installed. >> Are you saying it may not be set up in Ubuntu but is in XP? >> If so I'll have a look. >Indeed that is precisely likely to be the issue. XP sets up DMA access >for IDE CD and DVD ROM drives automatically in most cases, however in >Ubuntu and Debian you need to configure the hdparm boot script to do >this for you. >That is however of course unless your ROM drive is SATA, which is >configured automatically by the kernel for best performance. >> However I am not so certain that's the (only) reason as surely you can'= >t=20 >> just dismiss the fact that different apps may take longer to do their j= >ob. >I probably can dismiss that as a CD ripper only has two fundamental jobs:= >a.) Digitally read data from a disc >b.) Compress the data into OGG or mp3 No. A cdripper has one job-- to read the data from the disk. Then there is another program which compresses the data. The best way would probably be to rip the data from the cds onto your hard disk and then use an encoder to encode that data to whatever format you want. That way you can maximize the speed of reading the disk, and since hard drivers are faster than cdroms, also maximize the compression. >Given that remit, all CD rippers are all the same; there is pretty much >no difference in extraction speed and compression between applications, >especially as the same Vorbis codec library will be used by all apps >that produce ogg's, and typically most cd-rippers use the LAME codec >library to produce mp3's. Windows, having paid and charged you for the program, may well use a different compressor than lame. >So to summarise, all rippers tend to use the same compression library's >and the read speed of discs is limited to individual disc drives, hence >there is little to no difference in performance between cd ripping apps. >--=20 >Regards, >Sheridan Hutchinson >sheridan(a)shezza.org >--------------enig9EBD3F7825ED09E492B9C75D >Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" >Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature >Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) >iEYEARECAAYFAkqet9wACgkQnBrliHqz8aAYwgCfVGPs4WjAtx0O3hQapb+JIg/R >wN8AoIp25zukTfPULONcSHTFz1PHFEMG >=iIuP >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >--------------enig9EBD3F7825ED09E492B9C75D--
From: Sheridan Hutchinson on 2 Sep 2009 16:02
Unruh wrote: >> Sheridan Hutchinson <Sheridan(a)Shezza.org> writes: >> a.) Digitally read data from a disc >> b.) Compress the data into OGG or mp3 > > No. A cdripper has one job-- to read the data from the disk. Then there > is another program which compresses the data. This is a purely philosophical point and really depends on ones subjective perspective. From my perspective the job of a CD ripper is to digitally read data from a disc and compress it. FWIW my CD ripper uses libraries, not programs, to compress data on request of the ripper. > The best way would probably be to rip the data from the cds onto your > hard disk and then use an encoder to encode that data to whatever format > you want. > > That way you can maximize the speed of reading the disk, and since hard > drivers are faster than cdroms, also maximize the compression. I disagree, if you know what your desired compressed output is then it is preferable for the ripper to compress on-the-fly (or close to) for efficiency gains. It would be obvious to me to be compressing the 1st ripped track while extracting the 2nd track. >> typically most cd-rippers use the LAME codec >> library to produce mp3's. > > Windows, having paid and charged you for the program, may well use a > different compressor than lame. I would have thought this was already made strikingly clear with the 'typically' prefix. -- Regards, Sheridan Hutchinson sheridan(a)shezza.org |