I'm looking for suggestions for software to rip CD's.. I'm also looking for comments on the relative advantages of ripping to mp3 versus wav files and the 'best' software to play those files back from the harddrive. I am presently using aplay in a for loop script but I need something better. My present wav files were ripped with cdda2wav under OS/2. what is the equivalent for linux/Fedora? Suggestions please.
R. Geoffrey Newbury Helping with the HTTP issue <a href="http://www.w3.org/Protocols/">HTTP</a>
R. G. Newbury wrote:
I'm looking for suggestions for software to rip CD's.. I'm also looking for comments on the relative advantages of ripping to mp3 versus wav files and the 'best' software to play those files back from the harddrive. I am presently using aplay in a for loop script but I need something better. My present wav files were ripped with cdda2wav under OS/2. what is the equivalent for linux/Fedora? Suggestions please.
R. Geoffrey Newbury Helping with the HTTP issue<a href="http://www.w3.org/Protocols/">HTTP</a>
Personally, I would always go with either MP3 or OGG files. I have about 600GB of MP3 and OGG files on a jukebox system running icecast. WAV files are just too big to be useful, unless you really want to waste storage space.
Mark Haney wrote:
R. G. Newbury wrote:
I'm looking for suggestions for software to rip CD's.. I'm also looking for comments on the relative advantages of ripping to mp3 versus wav files and the 'best' software to play those files back from the harddrive. I am presently using aplay in a for loop script but I need something better. My present wav files were ripped with cdda2wav under OS/2. what is the equivalent for linux/Fedora? Suggestions please.
R. Geoffrey Newbury Helping with theHTTP issue <a href="http://www.w3.org/Protocols/">HTTP</a>
Personally, I would always go with either MP3 or OGG files. I have about 600GB of MP3 and OGG files on a jukebox system running icecast. WAV files are just too big to be useful, unless you really want to waste storage space.
You might also take a look at "flac"; lossless wav compression, generally cuts the size of a wav in half without losing any audio quality.
Regards,
John
On Tue, 2006-09-26 at 11:39 -0400, R. G. Newbury wrote:
I'm also looking for comments on the relative advantages of ripping to mp3 versus wav files
Depends on what you want to do with them. If you're just going to play the files, exactly as they were ripped, you might as well encode them straight away. If you want to edit them first (e.g. to neaten up the changes between tracks), I'd rip to wave, and edit the data, then make the lossy compression to MP3.
If you have ogg capable players, I'd suggest ogg over MP3. It's unencumbered, and it generally sounds better.
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 01:34:47 +0930, Tim ignored_mailbox@yahoo.com.au wrote:
On Tue, 2006-09-26 at 11:39 -0400, R. G. Newbury wrote:
I'm also looking for comments on the relative advantages of ripping to mp3 versus wav files
If you have ogg capable players, I'd suggest ogg over MP3. It's unencumbered, and it generally sounds better.
Note that ogg is a container and not a codec. Vorbis is the rough equivalent to mp3. But you can also use flac which is lossless but whose output should be significantly smaller (maybe half depending on what you are recording) that of wav.
R. G.,
R. G. Newbury wrote:
I'm also looking for comments on the relative advantages of ripping to mp3 versus wav files and the 'best' software to play those files back from the harddrive.
It depends what you're after. Are you looking for 100%/perfect quality copies of the audio on your CDs, or is a "very close" version good enough? WAV files are almost never used anymore as a storage format. The files are huge compared to other formats available. Consider using one of the following formats. Which you choose in the end depends on your needs. I've provided a very brief description on some common formats that are not 100% accurate, but close enough:
- the FLAC audio format provides exactly the same quality (lossless) as the WAV format but are only a fraction of the size. Compatibility with audio applications is medium to low...but for lossless compression, it's worth it over WAV.
- the MP3 audio format provides a very close (but lossy) version of your audio. Filesize tends to be a fair bit smaller than FLAC (maybe half the size with default 128k settings). MP3 support does not work out of the box with Fedora due to certain patent/licensing restrictions. MP3s are very compatible with portable devices and audio application on other operating systems (iTunes, Windows Media Player, etc).
- the OGG Vorbis audio format provides a very close (but lossy) version of your audio. Some people argue that it's a little better quality than MP3, but they're close enough for most people. Filesizes tend to be slightly smaller or about the same as MP3. The big difference between the two is the OGG vorbis support is much better under Linux because it doesn't have any patent/licensing problems. However, portable devices and audio players under other operating systems are not very compatible. You'd probably need to download a special audio player or codec under Windows to play them for example.
Cheers,
Daniel Hedlund daniel@digitree.org
On 26/09/06, Daniel Hedlund daniel@digitree.org wrote:
R. G. Newbury wrote:
I'm also looking for comments on the relative advantages of ripping to mp3 versus wav files and the 'best' software to play those files back from the harddrive.
the FLAC audio format provides exactly the same quality (lossless) as the WAV format but are only a fraction of the size. Compatibility with audio applications is medium to low...but for lossless compression, it's worth it over WAV.
Of course, if you have a flac, you can make a lossy copy of it any time you want (e.g. keep flac on your hard disc and use it to make mp3s for a portable player). So compatibility isn't so much of an issue. If I rip anything that's going to be difficult to re-rip (e.g. vinyl), I'll keep a flac copy. That way I can go back to the recording.
- the MP3 audio format provides a very close (but lossy) version of your
audio. Filesize tends to be a fair bit smaller than FLAC (maybe half the size with default 128k settings). MP3 support does not work out of
168 or 192kbps is a better choice. Of course it depends whether you can hear the difference, but I used to find 128kbps mp3 didn't sound great.
the box with Fedora due to certain patent/licensing restrictions. MP3s are very compatible with portable devices and audio application on other operating systems (iTunes, Windows Media Player, etc).
- the OGG Vorbis audio format provides a very close (but lossy) version
of your audio. Some people argue that it's a little better quality than MP3, but they're close enough for most people. Filesizes tend to be slightly smaller or about the same as MP3. The big difference between
Depends what bit-rate you use, some people will claim you can do lower bitrates with Vorbis at the same sound quality, some (a very few) will claim the other way around.
the two is the OGG vorbis support is much better under Linux because it doesn't have any patent/licensing problems. However, portable devices and audio players under other operating systems are not very compatible. You'd probably need to download a special audio player or codec under Windows to play them for example.
Winamp will play out of the box, most of the other major players (RP, QT, WMP) have plugins available. Many of the more community based players (foobar, MuiskCube, VLC) support Ogg/Vorbis natively.
The big problem is usually hardware, though this is getting better, with most quality manufacturers supporting Ogg/Vorbis (there is one glaring exception of course but, let's face it, they're overhyped anyway).
On 29 Sep 2006, at 15:54, Ian Malone wrote:
On 26/09/06, Daniel Hedlund daniel@digitree.org wrote:
R. G. Newbury wrote:
I'm also looking for comments on the relative advantages of
ripping to
mp3 versus wav files and the 'best' software to play those files
back
from the harddrive.
the FLAC audio format provides exactly the same quality (lossless) as the WAV format but are only a fraction of the size. Compatibility with audio applications is medium to low...but for lossless compression, it's worth it over WAV.
Of course, if you have a flac, you can make a lossy copy of it any time you want (e.g. keep flac on your hard disc and use it to make mp3s for a portable player). So compatibility isn't so much of an issue. If I rip anything that's going to be difficult to re-rip (e.g. vinyl), I'll keep a flac copy. That way I can go back to the recording.
- the MP3 audio format provides a very close (but lossy) version
of your audio. Filesize tends to be a fair bit smaller than FLAC (maybe half the size with default 128k settings). MP3 support does not work out of
168 or 192kbps is a better choice. Of course it depends whether you can hear the difference, but I used to find 128kbps mp3 didn't sound great.
the box with Fedora due to certain patent/licensing restrictions. MP3s are very compatible with portable devices and audio application on other operating systems (iTunes, Windows Media Player, etc).
- the OGG Vorbis audio format provides a very close (but lossy)
version of your audio. Some people argue that it's a little better quality than MP3, but they're close enough for most people. Filesizes tend to be slightly smaller or about the same as MP3. The big difference between
Depends what bit-rate you use, some people will claim you can do lower bitrates with Vorbis at the same sound quality, some (a very few) will claim the other way around.
the two is the OGG vorbis support is much better under Linux because it doesn't have any patent/licensing problems. However, portable devices and audio players under other operating systems are not very compatible. You'd probably need to download a special audio player or codec under Windows to play them for example.
Winamp will play out of the box, most of the other major players (RP, QT, WMP) have plugins available. Many of the more community based players (foobar, MuiskCube, VLC) support Ogg/Vorbis natively.
The big problem is usually hardware, though this is getting better, with most quality manufacturers supporting Ogg/Vorbis (there is one glaring exception of course but, let's face it, they're overhyped anyway).
Hi all,
I note the conversation creeping into bitrate/quality territory... A quick comment: I'm currently in the process of re-ripping my entire CD collection at 196k from the prior 128k as I now use the audio on SD Cards in a BOSE stereo system in my car. I don't play music thumping or loud!, but with a relatively untrained ear can here the difference on classical and mainstream. This difference wasn't audible on my... err, ipod. :-). In short there isn't a lot of filesize difference, space is relatively cheap, so don't waste time with lesser bit rates now.
Greg.
-- imalone
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
-- Greg Frith gfrith@gmail.com
Ian Malone wrote:
Depends what bit-rate you use, some people will claim you can do lower bitrates with Vorbis at the same sound quality, some (a very few) will claim the other way around.
In my experience, there are some sorts of sounds that MP3 doesn't handle well -- choral music was one that I found, where the sound is that of (say) twenty voices singing together. I found that artefacts at 128 kbit/s under MP3 were *very* noticeable on my example tracks.
I have yet to find a type of sound that Ogg Vorbis cannot handle well.
So for choral music, yes, you can definitely get better sound quality with Ogg Vorbis. For other sounds, the differences were much less pronounced.
Hope this helps,
James.
On Mon, 2006-10-02 at 22:32 +0100, James Wilkinson wrote:
In my experience, there are some sorts of sounds that MP3 doesn't handle well
And in mine, there's *many* sounds it doesn't handle well, particularly some encoders (well, all of the ones that I tried). For instance, the ride and crash cymbals in 16-beat rock rhythms typical of many Beatles songs, they go mush mush mush, sounding rather like a radio going out of tune, instead of producing the proper sound. I can also notice other strange little squeaks and abnormal noises being added to music.
I'd tried encoding at some very high rates, and it hasn't helped. Many MP3s encoded by other people had similar effects, even if not as pronounced as the ones I'd tried encoding (some of which were from excellent sounding uncompressed digital originals).
To my mind, MP3s are about as bad as compact audio cassettes.
Tim wrote:
On Mon, 2006-10-02 at 22:32 +0100, James Wilkinson wrote:
In my experience, there are some sorts of sounds that MP3 doesn't handle well
And in mine, there's *many* sounds it doesn't handle well, particularly some encoders (well, all of the ones that I tried). For instance, the ride and crash cymbals in 16-beat rock rhythms typical of many Beatles songs, they go mush mush mush, sounding rather like a radio going out of tune, instead of producing the proper sound. I can also notice other strange little squeaks and abnormal noises being added to music.
I'd tried encoding at some very high rates, and it hasn't helped. Many MP3s encoded by other people had similar effects, even if not as pronounced as the ones I'd tried encoding (some of which were from excellent sounding uncompressed digital originals).
To my mind, MP3s are about as bad as compact audio cassettes.
I have cassettes that sound better than many mp3's. These are even the ones that were snacked on by a player in the past.
FWIW, I found this link that does a really good comparison of formats.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1561918,00.asp
There are curves that show the frequency losses that affect the quality.
R. G. Newbury wrote:
I'm looking for suggestions for software to rip CD's.. I'm also looking for comments on the relative advantages of ripping to mp3 versus wav files and the 'best' software to play those files back from the harddrive. I am presently using aplay in a for loop script but I need something better. My present wav files were ripped with cdda2wav under OS/2. what is the equivalent for linux/Fedora? Suggestions please.
R. Geoffrey Newbury Helping with the HTTP issue<a href="http://www.w3.org/Protocols/">HTTP</a>(I believe - on home computer)
If you have the disk space, use wav as it provides a true copy of the original. Next use flac as it is a lossless format and provides a decent way to backup your music without losing any quality. You can rebuild your CD's from the flac files. Mp3's are a lossy format. Ogg is a lossy format.
I use Grip to rip to flac. I rip to flac for use on my computers. I don't lose any of the quality or get compression distortion that I always end up with when using mp3 and depending on the song, with ogg as well.
My iRiver plays ogg files so when I want to use the file on my iRiver, I use soundconverter to change from flac to ogg. I always use the best quality as I cannot stand distortion. I can also use soundconverter to make mp3's for those times that I need to.
One song that I have never gotten a good compressed rip of is "Stairway to Heaven" and I am still trying.
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 15:45:25 -0600, Robin Laing Robin.Laing@drdc-rddc.gc.ca wrote:
If you have the disk space, use wav as it provides a true copy of the original. Next use flac as it is a lossless format and provides a decent way to backup your music without losing any quality. You can rebuild your CD's from the flac files. Mp3's are a lossy format. Ogg is a lossy format.
You really should refer to this codec as Vorbis, not Ogg. Ogg containers can be used with several audio (vorbis, flac and speex) and video (theora) codecs. For more information see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogg or http://www.xiph.org/ogg/
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 15:45:25 -0600, Robin Laing Robin.Laing@drdc-rddc.gc.ca wrote:
If you have the disk space, use wav as it provides a true copy of the original. Next use flac as it is a lossless format and provides a decent way to backup your music without losing any quality. You can rebuild your CD's from the flac files. Mp3's are a lossy format. Ogg is a lossy format.
You really should refer to this codec as Vorbis, not Ogg. Ogg containers can be used with several audio (vorbis, flac and speex) and video (theora) codecs. For more information see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogg or http://www.xiph.org/ogg/
Thanks for the link. I didn't know that. I have never seen an option to select a different codec for my ogg files. My iRiver doesn't specify XXX codec when you select ogg nor does it have anything in the manual that would be different.
Now looking at the wiki site, I could encode in flac and wrap it with ogg and it might play in my iRiver. If this is true, I would be happy. Of course, this would mean less songs on my player due to the larger file sizes.
It has been a good day. I learned something. :)
Bruno Wolff III:
You really should refer to this codec as Vorbis, not Ogg.
Yes, and no. I suppose it depends on whether the device cares more about the container or the encoding. Generally people talk about the files, rather than the codecs. So an ogg file is an ogg file. XMMS may play an ogg file encoded in more than one way. I don't know whether it'd play vorbis data outside of an ogg file.
Robin Laing wrote:
Now looking at the wiki site, I could encode in flac and wrap it with ogg and it might play in my iRiver. If this is true, I would be happy.
Probably not. They probably assume ogg files are encoded with vorbis, like most of us do, and not have any decoders for something else.
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 09:54:23 +0930, Tim ignored_mailbox@yahoo.com.au wrote:
Bruno Wolff III:
You really should refer to this codec as Vorbis, not Ogg.
Yes, and no. I suppose it depends on whether the device cares more about the container or the encoding. Generally people talk about the files, rather than the codecs. So an ogg file is an ogg file. XMMS may play an ogg file encoded in more than one way. I don't know whether it'd play vorbis data outside of an ogg file.
Probably you need both. But still, just saying Ogg is ambiguous when talking about properties such as being lossy versus lossless. Or even audio verus video. Probably saying Ogg Vorbis is best since that covers both the container and the codec. I haven't run accross Vorbis not inside of Ogg, but I have seen Flac outside of Ogg. Ogg also lets you combine multiple media streams in one container. So that you could have the soundtrack to a video in the same file as the video similar to what you typically find in mpg or wmv files.
-
Bruno Wolff III -
Daniel Hedlund -
Greg Frith -
Ian Malone -
James Wilkinson -
John Wendel -
Mark Haney -
R. G. Newbury -
Robin Laing -
Tim