Thank you for your reply Aryvandaar...DAMN! Another vote for flac! LOL
I'm converting music files from ogg to wav....128 megs per song!!??
- Thread starter Daniel~
- Start date
Ok TR! Your advice is beginning to haunt my every waking minute!
Just never tell me if you only had a dozen CD's to rip! ":O}
What did you use to rip with. Sound Juicer seems to be about all Mint 17.3 has to offer in package manager. What settings do you prefer...Will ripping 300+ albums...AGAIN...get me into high performance heaven?
If it doesn't...who will share my grief! LOL
Just never tell me if you only had a dozen CD's to rip! ":O}
What did you use to rip with. Sound Juicer seems to be about all Mint 17.3 has to offer in package manager. What settings do you prefer...Will ripping 300+ albums...AGAIN...get me into high performance heaven?
If it doesn't...who will share my grief! LOL
Directly to FLAC is the way to go.
I'm not sure why you actually need multiple formats of each CD, though. Is there a compelling reason for all that work that I have missed? Why not go directly to FLAC and play them from there, forever?
You can make a single file for an entire album, and use a .cue file, or create separate files for each track [that's the way I do it]
I ripped 90% of my [very very large] collection to FLAC years before I got involved in Linux. I used EAC and Foobar2000, which are great ripping apps, but unfortunately are Windows-only. Foobar, which is my ABSOLUTE favorite audio player for many years, runs fine as a player in Linux/WINE, but IDK if it would rip correctly, so I can't recommend it as a ripping tool for Linux. I also understand that EAC can be made to run in WINE, but I have not attempted this.
Now, I use Audex in Linux as a ripper: http://www.linux-magazine.com/Issues/2014/167/Audex-CD-Ripper
It's fast and simple; I think it would be fine for you. Install it from your package manager. It does not include the encoders, only the front-end; you will have to install the FLAC package [whatever it is called in your distro] for FLAC encoding. If you think you might want mp3 capability, install the LAME package as well. Do it all through the package manager, and the rest will be quite intuitive.
You will not have to worry about bitrates when encoding to FLAC. Bitrate is a 'lossy' codec thing that dictates the size of the finished file. Higher bitrates give you a bigger file, and thus more information = lower loss. Lower bitrates compress the file more and create a smaller file, and greater loss.
Because it's lossless, FLAC will generate an exact reproduction of the original file. It compresses the file as much as it is able to, but does not compromise the audio data. That's why it's a smaller file than the original file on the CD, but it is an exact audio replica of the original.
I'm not sure why you actually need multiple formats of each CD, though. Is there a compelling reason for all that work that I have missed? Why not go directly to FLAC and play them from there, forever?
You can make a single file for an entire album, and use a .cue file, or create separate files for each track [that's the way I do it]
I ripped 90% of my [very very large] collection to FLAC years before I got involved in Linux. I used EAC and Foobar2000, which are great ripping apps, but unfortunately are Windows-only. Foobar, which is my ABSOLUTE favorite audio player for many years, runs fine as a player in Linux/WINE, but IDK if it would rip correctly, so I can't recommend it as a ripping tool for Linux. I also understand that EAC can be made to run in WINE, but I have not attempted this.
Now, I use Audex in Linux as a ripper: http://www.linux-magazine.com/Issues/2014/167/Audex-CD-Ripper
It's fast and simple; I think it would be fine for you. Install it from your package manager. It does not include the encoders, only the front-end; you will have to install the FLAC package [whatever it is called in your distro] for FLAC encoding. If you think you might want mp3 capability, install the LAME package as well. Do it all through the package manager, and the rest will be quite intuitive.
You will not have to worry about bitrates when encoding to FLAC. Bitrate is a 'lossy' codec thing that dictates the size of the finished file. Higher bitrates give you a bigger file, and thus more information = lower loss. Lower bitrates compress the file more and create a smaller file, and greater loss.
Because it's lossless, FLAC will generate an exact reproduction of the original file. It compresses the file as much as it is able to, but does not compromise the audio data. That's why it's a smaller file than the original file on the CD, but it is an exact audio replica of the original.
No I didn't! LOL. I found that the DVD player cord was to short for it's new location and had to wait to get a new cord!
So I'll be using your prefer app after all.":O| Going after it now.
OK! I've in stalled Audex, Then flac then Lame. But Flac aand lame don't show up in Audex!
Als I can't seem to find where to tell Audex to put the out put files??
If this is going to get complicated I can get flac from Sound juicer":O}
Als I can't seem to find where to tell Audex to put the out put files??
If this is going to get complicated I can get flac from Sound juicer":O}
Attachments
Last edited:
Still having troubles....
OK! Break though! I just looked like the settings were already check...So I didn't try them":O} Ripping a disk to flac now.
As I have a 5.1 system...What do you think of Acc or MP4a based on flac?
All is well! It found all the codex on my drive and made them available.... But I wonder Should I be ripping to 5.1 as that's how I always listen...? Your thoughts?
I'm an audio purist [read 'snob'] 
So, for me, it's always 2-channel stereo, and analog playback when possible. I have never experimented with more than a 2 speaker array for playback [other than subwoofer systems], so I can't have an opinion. I do know that the music you listen to on CD was almost surely recorded in stereo. Encoding to 5.1 can't *reproduce* information that wasn't there in the first place, so it can only synthesize it, using some fancy post-production algorithm that doesn't exist in situ. If I understand correctly, that is what happens; there is a lot of *digital processing* going on, to simulate a *surround-sound* environment out of a normal stereo recording.
There's a reason that Quadraphonic recordings and their brethren never became popular. [I'm sure you remember those]
That being said, the die-hard gamers here SHOULD be able to weigh in, because the 5.1 setups are VERY popular in the gaming arena. In games, especially shooters, there is an expectation of sound effects all around you - left, right, front, and back. 5.1 enhances the experience. But with music? It's not really natural. The sound source is in front, and stationary. Of course, there is sound that bounces around off walls and etc, but that is also picked up by the same microphone array when recording.
The very, very best recordings of classical music were made in the 1950s and 1960s with a 3-microphone array where the three mikes were within 2 feet of each other. This most closely simulated the human hearing process These were the famous 'shaded dog' RCA recordings, which are rare and valuable now. The most important thing is that the microphone technique has withstood the test of time.
In the end, it's what sounds good to you. Try encoding the same CD both ways, and see what *you* like better. It doesn't matter what *I* like.
So, for me, it's always 2-channel stereo, and analog playback when possible. I have never experimented with more than a 2 speaker array for playback [other than subwoofer systems], so I can't have an opinion. I do know that the music you listen to on CD was almost surely recorded in stereo. Encoding to 5.1 can't *reproduce* information that wasn't there in the first place, so it can only synthesize it, using some fancy post-production algorithm that doesn't exist in situ. If I understand correctly, that is what happens; there is a lot of *digital processing* going on, to simulate a *surround-sound* environment out of a normal stereo recording.There's a reason that Quadraphonic recordings and their brethren never became popular. [I'm sure you remember those]
That being said, the die-hard gamers here SHOULD be able to weigh in, because the 5.1 setups are VERY popular in the gaming arena. In games, especially shooters, there is an expectation of sound effects all around you - left, right, front, and back. 5.1 enhances the experience. But with music? It's not really natural. The sound source is in front, and stationary. Of course, there is sound that bounces around off walls and etc, but that is also picked up by the same microphone array when recording.
The very, very best recordings of classical music were made in the 1950s and 1960s with a 3-microphone array where the three mikes were within 2 feet of each other. This most closely simulated the human hearing process These were the famous 'shaded dog' RCA recordings, which are rare and valuable now. The most important thing is that the microphone technique has withstood the test of time.
In the end, it's what sounds good to you. Try encoding the same CD both ways, and see what *you* like better. It doesn't matter what *I* like.
I'm sorry TR! I meant to answer that question three diffident times then, well I got embarrassed about having been so negligent
and shoved it under the rug...I'm so ashamed! ":O}|
It all started when my PS3 wouldn't except my ogg collection. So I did a MP3 conversion from my ogg files, not good but passable for inattentive listening.
then recently I got a "Roku" media streamer that will take a USB and offers a lot better selection of codex...Flac being one of them.
But I didn't know about flac at the time and converted to AAC for my roku music....after that I guess I just sort of got carried away...":O{
.
i ripped 30 last night, will see how it goes between other things tonight.
thank you very much TR and friends!!":O}
While I confess to still harboring some small bit of cherished resentment...I'm really surprised, I didn't think I'd much notice the difference, but it's there!
Just finished listening to Clapton's "Tears in heaven."
(Written upon the death of his small son)
The "intangibles" brought tears to my eyes.
I guess the best way I can say it, a deeper feeling seems present.
Still...The work goes on...":O}