Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MIKE]

Hi all , i'm considering 'ripping' my complete cd collection (about 200 cd's) to my MJ so as to ease ability to burn compilations etc..Has anyone else done this?I realise this will take up a lot of hard drive space but to be honest i don't use my computer for any other storage-hungry applications.

[Mirko]

Yes. I have copied about 2/3rd of my personal collection. I'll guess about 150 CDs. It's a lot of work (if you encode in highest possible qaulity) but pays off.

[Vlad]

Hi MIKE,

I've just finished ripping 267 in lossless APE format.  It took 10 days on and off (evenings and 2 weekends), so it's no big deal at all.  Out of disc space, now.  Have to wait for an upgrade in a few weeks to do the rest of the collection.  For APE, allow about 300Meg per disk.

Good luck.

[Osho]

I am in the same process.. I am done with about 30 disks. i have yet 300 or so left to be done !! I am doing it with loseless Monkey's Audio Format. It is gonna be a while before I am done.

Some tips, if you have multiple drivers in your computer try running EAC to see which drive it suggests you should use. Also, use Digital Secure mode if you are picky about not losing any data (can be set in Encoding options). I am using that and it takes about 10-15 minutes per each disk. Also, give a thorough thought to how you want your CDs to be organized and choose the options accordingly before you start. If you choose to download covert art from online, be careful as often it is not accurate.

Osho

[Vlad]

I wasn't going to bring up EAC but, since it's been raised, I'm using it too.  I've got 2 drives and I run 2 instances of EAC, one for each drive.  I can rip 2 disks concurrently in secure mode, faster than MJ will do one (about 6-7 minutes).  And, I can still listen to music and work on the library at the same time without any disruption or dropouts in play.  Something that I cannot do when ripping with MJ.

[nivw]

What is EAC?

[Vlad]

Exact Audio Copy.  It's free

http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/

and here's a guide for using it

http://radified.com/MP3/CDripper_MP3encoder.htm

[sekim]

>>>>  I've got 2 drives and I run 2 instances of EAC <<<<

You mean you can fire-up EAC twice? I've got two drives and was wondering if there was a way to do so in MJ. Not possible. This was brought up during earlier beta testing of MJ 8 with no definite answers. Anyway, with hundreds of cds starring me in the face I thought the quickest way to rip was uncompressed wav, then converting format. But if you can get both drives going that would be a major leap forward.

[Vlad]

You mean you can fire-up EAC twice?

Sure can.  If I get a chance over the weekend, I'll change over to another motherboard I have with extra IDE controllers and see if I can do 3 at once!  I seem to still have cycles to spare.

[scodan]

Matt,

I was going to post a ton of what I've learned over the past several weeks of ripping my own ~200-CD collection, but I simply don't have time.  I'll hit upon what I think are particularly valuable tips.

* Use a lossless format if at all possible.  Monkey's Audio is what I use and recommend.  Really, really think hard before going with a lossy format like WMA (ugh!), MP3, or OGG.  I don't care what any self-proclaimed MP3 guru says; MPEG Layer III doesn't hold a candle to Monkey's Audio where quality is concerned.  Blah, blah, blather on about how "no one can possibly tell the difference from the original if a 256-kbps or 320-kbps bitrate is used"; those of use who have "been there, done that", and converted, decompressed, tweaked, and adjusted, KNOW that "there ain't no thing like the original"! (There, I said it!)

* Think about organization before you start ripping.  Including the year for CDs is a minor inconvenience, but will you want to sort by that field later on?  You get the idea.

* Don't explicitly trust the CD info you get from FreeDB or CDDB.  I always verify it; almost always (yes, always), I have corrections to make.  (It's totally amazing to me how people can't seem to read a CD label and type it in correctly.)

* The flip side of this coin is that you should think about how YOU want to organize your collection.  For example, I postpend the word "The" on artist names (e.g. "Cranberries, The", rather than "The Cranberries"), but nowhere else.  This is a personal choice.

* Similarly, you will want to think about what genre information (if any) you want to include.  I use only a very few of them (I don't have too many "musical moods").  This is because I know that six months from now, I won't have any clue what I meant by "Progressive Rock" versus "Alternative".  (Call me simple minded, I don't care! )

* Whatever file name format you use, stick with it.  This is much easier said than done.  My greatest annoyance is with excessive use of the hyphen ("-") character.  You see, when or if I re-tag based on file names, I tell Media Jukebox that my file name format is "ARTIST-ALBUM-TRACK#-TITLE".  Well, if files have imbedded hyphens, the tags for those files will be screwed up, for obvious reasons.  I came up with what I think will be an elegant solution to this: Wherever an imbedded hyphen occurs, use a "soft hyphen" in its place.  This is done by typing Alt|PLS|0173 over the existing hyphen.  I suspect (though I have NOT verified) that renaming/retagging utilities will ignore the soft hyphen, thus allowing for correct processing.  I could be wrong, but I hope not (how do you like THAT statement?).

* Clean your CDs carefully of dust and fingerprints prior to ripping.  This is an obvious tip, I know, but I think it really does make a difference.  I use non-linting CD wipes and compressed air together for this task (hey, so I'm anal, what of it?).

* Use a good ripping utility, such as Exact Audio Copy (EAC).  On almost every (yes, every) CD, reads will not be 100% accurate or reliable on the first run.  Good ripping utilities do multiple reads to establish a level of confidence that the read data is accurate, or at least the best obtainable from the medium.

* If you use EAC, and you're also encoding to Monkey's Audio (APE) format, use the Monkey's Audio DLL (preferably version 3.97), rather than the EXE.  The EXE will result in a WAV file being written, then that WAV file is in turn encoded to APE format.  Lots of extraneous disk I/O.  The DLL encodes directly to APE format, and is faster.

* If you use MP3 format, use the latest stable version of LAME, and think long and hard what parameters you want to use (easier said than done!).

* My preference was to close all unneccesary processes on my system every time I ran EAC.  I also ran only a single instance of EAC at a time.

* If you use EAC, enable the "show dialog when finished" option.  Make sure it says "No errors occured".  If there are errors, try a slower extraction speed, and/or a different CD drive, if possible.

* Again, if you use EAC, disable the three options at the top of the "ID3 Tag" tab of the "Compression options" dialog.  Monkey's Audio does not support IDv2 tags.

* If you need a good renaming utility, I recommend Andy, http://www.realm-online.com/.  You can also use Media Jukebox's limited renaming functionality, if that's good enough for you.

* Backup, backup, BACKUP (I like SmartSync Pro, http://www.smsync.com/).

[sekim]

>>>> You can also use Media Jukebox's limited renaming functionality, if that's good enough for you. <<<<

So, why do you use MJ?

There seems to be a difference in the way things are done. MJ is as stated, an 'All In One' jukebox. Not dedicated programs that you have to go from one to the other to end up with a finished product.

While I my catch some hell for saying this, MJ is faster ripping in wav form then EAC. At least on my computer. I have used that encspot or whatever it is called, only to have it tell me that everything that MJ encoded was perfect. Goodbye encspot, I already knew the results with my own ears.

Also, if your cds are that scratched and abused, stop playing catch with the dog. There are other things the mutt would just as soon chew on. Maybe your foot...HAR HAR. Just kidding.

Lame settings can be a bit of a handful when entering in the custom mode. But this one comes from a link in this thread by Vlad.

--abr 256 -ms -q0 --lowpass 19.5 --athtype 3


Simply left click and drag until it is highlighted, next right click and copy. Open MJ Options > Encoding and select the regular Lame encoder. Click the down arrow and choose custom. After that you want to select the advanced button. When the Lame advanced pop-up is in front of you click and remove whatever preset option is there. Once blank, right click and past the above command line.

Rip a track or two and encode using this recipe. It is good.

[scodan]

So, why do you use MJ?  There seems to be a difference in the way things are done. MJ is as stated, an 'All In One' jukebox. Not dedicated programs that you have to go from one to the other to end up with a finished product.

I use MJ primarily for organization.  But you're saying that since I use MJ at all, I should use it for everything it's capable of?  Why?  I don't like the ripping feature as much as I like EAC's, for several reasons.  So I use what I prefer.  That's all!

Also, MJ does have a setting equivalent to EAC's; it's called "Digital Secure" mode.  I've used it, but I still prefer EAC.  (I'd also add that one of the guys who wrote Media Jukebox recommends EAC!)

Also, if your cds are that scratched and abused, stop playing catch with the dog.

My CDs are in excellent condition.  But even with pristine CDs, and a pair of readers which exhibit top-quality DAE, disc reads are emphatically NOT failsafe.  Neither are yours.  Almost every CD I ripped had at least one track that had less-than 100% read quality (meaning it took more than two passes to establish confidence that the data was obtained correctly).

I'm sure you wouldn't notice 99.8% of what MJ (in "Digital Secure" mode) or EAC would detect as a read error and correct, but hey, I'm anal, it's a pain to rip 200 CDs, I'm taking the time to do it now, and I want it done right.  That's all.

Rip a track or two and encode using this recipe. It is good.

I know it's good.  I used LAME quite a bit.  But it ain't APE!  

[Mirko]

Lame-Settings: --r3mix
No more parameters.

Look at http://www.r3mix.net if you're curious, why that should be "archive CD-Quality".

Listening tests in the german magazine c't shows, that even audiophiles are not able to tell the difference between --r3mix and original CD sound. But I personal don't _know_ that because my ears are somewhat "damaged" by clubbing to much in the past...

[phelt]

MachineHead & Mirko: please have a visit to the MP3 forums of Hydrogen Audio You'll find plenty of posts by folks who are contributors to the development of LAME and other encoders. Specifically, check out the list of recommended LAME settings

For those who have spent a great deal of time building Byzantine command strings for LAME, it can be a relief to discover the --alt presets. There are also many unbelievably complicated conversation threads relating to the choices that went into the presets, and other encoding issues, including lots of opining about psychoacoustic settings.

[Mirko]

@phelt:

--r3mix is
"--nspsytune --vbr-mtrh -V1 -mj -h -b96 --lowpass 19.5 --athtype 3 --ns-sfb21 2 -Z --scale 0.98 -X0" in long.

Explained parameters: http://users.belgacom.net/gc247244/quality.htm#390r3mix

I think this is quite the best quality for cd-archiving settings. Import is not the mathematical theoretical best setting but the settings that most people recognize as cd-quality.

By the way. I looked at the forum on hydrogenxyz. The people there discuss about the longform and not the "special" setting for r3mix. But I think the recommend quite the same parameters as r3mix shortens.

[scodan]

Mirko wrote:
Listening tests in the german magazine c't shows, that even audiophiles are not able to tell the difference between --r3mix and original CD sound.

Sure, it will sound very good--at least until it is converted to another format, or normalization is applied, whatever.  I've read many of the ultra-boring, full-of-conjecture conversations regarding MP3-encoding psychoacoustic settings and so forth.  But I have hundreds of gigabytes of storage; why would I screw around with a lossy format at all when I can have a bitwise original instead?

[Mirko]

@scodan:

The best way to archive is using Wave or some lossless compression. But if you would like to archive _with_ using as few space as possible, you could use MP3 _without_ listening compromises.

I think this is quite interesting.

[joe|PLS|mama]

Mirko wrote:

"I think this is quite the best quality for cd-archiving settings. Import is not the mathematical theoretical best setting but the settings that most people recognize as cd-quality."

The --alt-preset settings for Lame aren't just mathematical or theoretical, they were highly tuned and developed using extensive ABX listening tests by Dibrom (the Hydrogen Audio forums moderator) and many other people.  Have you done any of your own comparisons to see if you can tell the difference between --r3mix and --alt-preset standard?  If you haven't, how can you be sure that --r3mix is the best setting to use?


scodan wrote:

"But I have hundreds of gigabytes of storage; why would I screw around with a lossy format at all when I can have a bitwise original instead?"

Because, sometimes even hundreds of GB of storage is not enough.  Using APE, I might possibly be able to fit somewhere between 100 and 150 cds on an 80GB drive.  The problem is I have around 2000 cds and 500 cd singles.  If I ever need a bit-perfect copy, I still have the original cd.  However, I've also recently started copying a lot of my old vinyl (about 1800 LPs and 800 12" singles) to the hard drive.  I use APE for those, since ripping vinyl takes a lot more time and effort.

[scodan]

joe|PLS|mama wrote:
ometimes even hundreds of GB of storage is not enough. Using APE, I might possibly be able to fit somewhere between 100 and 150 cds on an 80GB drive.

I just ripped about 170 CDs to APE format, using "High" (not "Extra High") compression, and it took up about 70 GB.

We aren't breaking any new ground here.  We're both right.

I have nothing against MP3; I continue to use it where I see fit: Where space is the primary concern.

The only point to be made is this: APE gives you a 100% representation of the original, and lets you convert, manipulate, and experiment to your heart's desire, but takes up much more space.  MP3 saves a whole lot of space, sounds essentially indistinguishable from the original (or at least "close enough" to it), but isn't conducive to converting and maniplating without quality loss, and doesn't satisfy my inner neurotic needs.  

[Mirko]

joe|PLS|mama:

As I said earlier, my ears are somewhat "damaged" because of "hardcore"-clubbing a few years ago.
No, I _can_ hear/listen. Even to classical music with joy and some knowledge. But I don't trust myself here... so I have to look at more or less objective test results like the one in the c't. There were 300 audiophiles and 15 or something of them were given the credit for listing so well, that they may do the actual testing... read r3mix.net for the whole story.

But the message of all of this is, that --r3mix combines _the_ settings, that are important for _no_ loss in quality compared to cd-only. Do you think someone should top this? Why?

Besides. _I_ use MP3 for playing and sometimes converting to CDs only. If you have more uses for MP3s, other setting would be better I think (because the r3mix-setting are _specific_ for one and only one usage - cd-quality for mp3-archives). But even then you would better be using lossless compression.

[scodan]

But the message of all of this is, that --r3mix combines _the_ settings, that are important for _no_ loss in quality compared to cd-only. Do you think someone should top this? Why?

That's the thing--there is a "loss in quality", if you define that as "different from the original".

I'm an extremely honest person, so here's the deal: When I used MP3s, I encoded to 192 kbps, using LAME ABR (average bitrate).  For the most part, those files sounded great to me.  I had no complaints.  I used them often to create compilation CDs, and those sounded good as well (though I used those CDs only in the car).

However, I've never been happy with MP3, at any bitrate (even 320 kbps), for classical music.  I just hated the sound.  Granted, this complaint only held when I listened to the files using my high-quality Grado headphones.

In any event, I like having a bitwise original (i.e. APE files), in case I want to apply equalization, normalization, or simply convert the originals to smaller files of a different format.  I can take my APE files, and make any manner of MP3 file from them--and end up with the exact type of file you recommend.  If a "next-great-format" comes out at any point in the future, and we have the incredible ability to have high-quality sound at ultra-small file sizes, I will be able to convert to that format without worry or problem.  All of this without the hassle of re-ripping or the worry of quality loss--any degree of quality loss from the original.

Argue all you want, but doing any or all of this with MP3 will result in a lower-quality file.  Maybe you wouldn't be able to tell, maybe you would--but I simply don't want the concern.  I have original-quality lossless files, and I don't have to worry about it.

This horse is dead and beaten, so this will be my last response to this topic.

[Mirko]

Scodan:

Please. Read www.r3mix.net. Do it for your own knowledge, because you didn't seem to know the facts. There is _no_ difference between MP3 with --r3mix and CD to the _listener_ (you, me).

If you are working on files, every not lossless compression is wrong choice. But for archive (this is: listening forever) purposes the --r3mix is perfect sound; even for classicals. If you doubt that, read the page. There are facts and theoretical views.

_One_ big "but": If you have that what some people call "perfect listening ears" (in german it is "absolutes Gehör" and I don't know if I translated it correct) you may notice a difference. But that is because you can hear frequenzy (nearly) nobody else can.

You know, that the CD-format is much to detailed to be recognised by human ears, didn't you? Please read the page.

[Vlad]

I've been watching this little drama unfold with some interest.  Sorry, but I've decided to pipe in with my 2c worth...

Mirko,

If you look in some of the audiphile forums, you will find ample evidence that, in controlled ABX tests, audiophiles are unable to distinguish the most expensive speaker cables from plain old domestic power wire.  A common thread by the writers of the articles is that both before, and after the blind tests, the group was able to describe and discuss great differences in sound quality produced by the various cables.  But, only when they knew which cable was being used.

So, simply knowing something about the source of the sound can have a dramatic effect on out perception and enjoyment of it.  You can see where I'm heading, can't you.  If you KNOW that the file is imperfect, then it will sound imperfect.  Irrational, I know, but true, never the less.

BTW, I'm listening through $60/metre cables.  My rational side knows that they just make me THINK that the music sound better, but I can live with that.

[Mirko]

So, simply knowing something about the source of the sound can have a dramatic effect on out perception and enjoyment of it. You can see where I'm heading, can't you. If you KNOW that the file is imperfect, then it will sound imperfect. Irrational, I know, but true, never the less.

Vlad. Congratulations. You did it!
That's exactly the point that is criticisable (sp?) about audiophile or, put another way, Bang&Oluffsen buyers: They spend money on things that _don't_ matter. But they feel better, so it's ok ;-)

Thanks.

[hottuna]

Mike, I've ripped about 600 CD's into MJ since April this year and I highly recommend it. MJ is the perfect choice for what you are considering: building a music catalog and burning compilations.

MJ offers many options for encoding files, I chose MP3 at 256, others prefer a lossless format, it's really up to your ears and pocketbook which way to go.

As Scodan says above, pay particular attention to file naming, genres, and ID3 tags. Once you have a few thousand files this becomes important when you're looking for songs, which incidentally is incredibly fast even with the 10,000 titles I have in my collection. I suggest that you experiment with settings/options/file naming and locations; and (if you use mp3) the elusive settings/plugin manager/input/mp3 plugin/configure/id3v2 preferences to find what works best for you, id3v2 supports long song names but is slower when doing batch updates.

A wonderful thing about MJ (among many wonderful MJ things) is it's ability to manipulate filenames and tags in batch so that even if you don't set it up perfectly at first you can usually find a way to change your naming convention later.

have fun.

[scodan]

If you are working on files, every not lossless compression is wrong choice. But for archive (this is: listening forever) purposes the --r3mix is perfect sound; even for classicals. If you doubt that, read the page. There are facts and theoretical views.

Ugh - going against my own words and replying...

Did you miss the part where I said that even moderate-bitrate MP3 files DO sound good to me?  You think I'm arguing with you, but in fact I am not.  I am merely clarifying.

I take offense (the kind of "doesn't really matter because this is a faceless online exchange, but what the heck" kind of offense) to your statement that I "don't know the facts".  I do.  I have also known about "r3mix" for about a year now (as I remember, I disagree with r3mix on some points--how dare me!).

What it boils down to is this: Among reading, theories, opinions, and my own experience, I trust the latter foremost.  If everyone tells me "there is no difference", but I HEAR A DIFFERENCE, what should I do?  I'll tell you what I actually do: I follow my ears and dump MP3 for classical music, or wherever I deem appropriate.  Maybe I have "golden ears" and never knew it.  I don't care.

Imagine you were at an art auction, and saw two paintings side-by-side.  One of these paintings is a true original, the other a well-done copy.  The original is, well... the original.  The copy looks really, really similar to the original--so much so that you really can't tell the difference unless you're up close and scrutinize, and even then it's hard.  You want to buy this artwork.  The original is several times the cost of the copy.

What do you do?  If you have the money, you buy the original!

Because some people cannot comprehend analogies (seriously), I will spell this out:

Original painting = APE files

Copy of original painting = MP3 files

High cost of original painting = Higher disk-space requirement of APE files

Low cost of copy of original painting = Low disk-space requirement of MP3 files

If you're rich (i.e. if you have adequate disk space), you're probably inclined to get the original.  But if you can't, or choose not to, you are out of line saying that you wouldn't have preferred to, if you could.  You're also out of line if you try saying that a good copy--even a really, really, really good copy--is truly equivalent to the original.

What we have here, I think, are people who took a lot of time and trouble putting their whole CD collection into MP3 format, but are now worrisome that their format of choice is of lesser quality than some other.  They are bothered by the fact that I freely point out that their files are not of true "original quality".

Sorry, I can't help that.  I was under the same set of circumstances, so I made the conscious decision to re-burn my entire collection in lossless format.

Everyone seems to be missing another point "in defense" of using lossless encoding: The fact that it is better to begin with original quality when converting to another format, or when manipulating files, than it is to use a lossy format (even "ultra neato-keen, can't-tell-the-difference-you-lossless-bigot" lossy formats.  Given this fact, and the fact that I generally want only one copy of my media files, I choose lossless!

If you're happy with your files, great!  I'm happy with mine.  Let's leave it at that!