PDA

View Full Version : Just getting started...



bjmacdow
2005-04-19, 06:57
Dear all,

My Squeezebox2 is scheduled to arrive on Friday. I purchased a 200gb drive w/8mb cache for $94.00 and have been ripping music through WMP at a 192kbs rate. My question is whether this rate is enough quality? My home audio gear is fairly decent, running an Onkyo DTS receiver, and decent speakers and my thinking going into this process is that I would not be able to hear much of a difference between 192 and a higher standard.
This idea may be considered blasphemy to any audiophiles out there, but it seems to make sense to me in terms of conservative storage space ustage. Currently I have around 800+ CDs to get in there, I have ripped around 350 of them and there is a ton of room left on the drive so that I will be able to continue to add music to it all the time once my current discs are all loaded. Any thoughts that any of you have are appreciated.
Also...once it is set up and I have the music streaming, what are some modifications that all of you have made, what do you consider the most important additions, and what would you do first with your new system? It will be a rough couple of days waiting for friday, thank you for any of your thoughts.

Ben

Steven Moore
2005-04-19, 07:09
Why not rip an album at 192 and the same album at a higher rate and
judge the difference for yourself on the SB on Friday.
Everyone's hearing is different and 192 may or may not be good enough
for you.

Steven Moore
On 19 Apr 2005, at 2:57 pm, bjmacdow wrote:

>
> Dear all,
>
> My Squeezebox2 is scheduled to arrive on Friday. I purchased a
> 200gb drive w/8mb cache for $94.00 and have been ripping music through
> WMP at a 192kbs rate. My question is whether this rate is enough
> quality? My home audio gear is fairly decent, running an Onkyo DTS
> receiver, and decent speakers and my thinking going into this process
> is that I would not be able to hear much of a difference between 192
> and a higher standard.
> This idea may be considered blasphemy to any audiophiles out
> there, but it seems to make sense to me in terms of conservative
> storage space ustage. Currently I have around 800+ CDs to get in
> there, I have ripped around 350 of them and there is a ton of room left
> on the drive so that I will be able to continue to add music to it all
> the time once my current discs are all loaded. Any thoughts that any
> of you have are appreciated.
> Also...once it is set up and I have the music streaming, what
> are some modifications that all of you have made, what do you consider
> the most important additions, and what would you do first with your new
> system? It will be a rough couple of days waiting for friday, thank
> you
> for any of your thoughts.
>
> Ben
>
>
> --
> bjmacdow
>

pfarrell
2005-04-19, 07:17
On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 06:57 -0700, bjmacdow wrote:
> WMP at a 192kbs rate. My question is whether this rate is enough
> quality? My home audio gear is fairly decent, running an Onkyo DTS
> receiver, and decent speakers and my thinking going into this process
> is that I would not be able to hear much of a difference between 192
> and a higher standard.

This is really a personal question. Can you hear enough difference to
care?

It is easy to do a quick test, rip a good sounding CD both ways, and
listen to them both. If you can't tell a difference, be happy.

I believe that I can hear a difference, and using FLAC, the
files are only two or three times larger than high rate MP3.
And disk drives are essentially free. So for me, FLAC is it.

There is one non-subjective reason to consider flac.
Since it is allows you to recreate bit exact audio,
you can change your mind later and transcode
the audio into any format without any loss other than
that caused by the target audio.

So if sometime down stream, you want all your files in WMA
or OggVorbis, you can take the FLAC, convert back to the
original wav files, and then convert to what you want and
know you have done no harm.

Once you use a lossy compression like MP3, it is lost forever
and you'd have to manually re-rip all your CDs.


--
Pat
http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html

jth
2005-04-19, 07:23
If you are going the mp3 route, I highly recommend using one of the LAME encoder's high quality VBR presets.

version 3.90.3 with setting "--alt-preset standard" or
version 3.96.1 with setting "--preset standard"

are recommended. Using CBR is just wasting space in my opinion. You may also want to try a listening test with "--preset extreme" - a higher bitrate VBR setting than "standard". If you can't tell the difference on the type of music you listen to the most, use the "standard" setting.

bjmacdow
2005-04-19, 07:31
JTH,

I am the total Novice here. I just did a search on LAME encoders as I did not know what they were. On Friday I will do a listening test, and then, if necessary, reformat the 200gb drive and start over ripping with LAME. Thanks for the suggestion.
You prefaced your suggestion with, "if you are going the MP3 Route". Is there a better route to consider that will also allow a fair amount of compression and decent reproduction?

Todd Fields
2005-04-19, 07:44
--- jth <jth.1nqp3n (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:

> If you are going the mp3 route, I highly recommend using one
> of the LAME
> encoder's high quality VBR presets.
>
> version 3.90.3 with setting "--alt-preset standard" or


I agree. Rip with Exact Audio Copy (EAC) in secure mode and let
EAC encode it for you as well using LAME 3.90.3 with the
"--alt-preset standard" switch. I've ripped about 800 CD's with
this method and couldn't be more pleased (unless I had enough
storage space to do it with FLAC.)

http://www.exactaudiocopy.de





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides!
http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide

jth
2005-04-19, 07:46
Squeezebox2 supports mp3, flac, and wav in the hardware - so these are natural choices if you're starting from scratch.

The other route is flac - http://flac.sf.net/. flac is a lossless audio compressor. This means your music should sound the same as CD, at the expense of greater file size than mp3.

You'll get compression of 20 - 60% with flac depending on the style of music. Typically it uses about 3-5x as much space on disk as a high quality mp3 file.

Again, you may or may not be able to tell the difference with your equipment and ears, so add some flac files to your listening mix. Get a friend to help you perform a double-blind ABX test if you're really serious about it. :-)

CavesOfTQLT
2005-04-19, 08:01
Sorry to jump into this thread but reading those flac comments makes me want to try it out. Can someone point me to a good 'copy that CD into flac' site or just to indicate the steps/instructions I need to do this using EAC or other software. So far all my CDs are encoded in mp3 and Ogg (mainly because my personal DP reads these formats), but I'd like to start using flac for all my new CDs, in readiness for my SB2 system. Any help/pointers appreciated.

bjmacdow
2005-04-19, 08:09
Ok...I am a total novice at this. For clarification, does EAC have LAME 3.90.3 embedded into it as an option? Or do you rip through EAC and then compress everything ripped again with LAME 3.90.3? Thanks for your assistance and clarification.

Steven Spies
2005-04-19, 08:18
Ben, one of the best places I have found for information about
compressed audio formats is www.hydrogenaudio.org It contains a vast
amount of information but try not to be intimidated. When you have
time browse the FAQ section there. Since you are going to be using a
Squeezebox2, you should stick with MP3 or FLAC. I personally use LAME
3.90.3 with "--alt-preset standard --scale x.xxx" I calculate the
scale with WaveGain in album mode. That way all of my albums have the
same relative loudness. One could also use MP3gain on the files after
compression but I would find it easier to do it before hand. However
if I had Squeezebox2 and enough disk space I would go the FLAC route
for sure. Good luck, Steven


On 4/19/05, bjmacdow <bjmacdow.1nqpkb (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:
>
> JTH,
>
> I am the total Novice here. I just did a search on LAME encoders
> as I did not know what they were. On Friday I will do a listening test,
> and then, if necessary, reformat the 200gb drive and start over ripping
> with LAME. Thanks for the suggestion.
> You prefaced your suggestion with, "if you are going the MP3
> Route". Is there a better route to consider that will also allow a
> fair amount of compression and decent reproduction?
>
> --
> bjmacdow
>

malsbury
2005-04-19, 08:21
CavesOfTQLT wrote:

>Sorry to jump into this thread but reading those flac comments makes me
>want to try it out. Can someone point me to a good 'copy that CD into
>flac' site or just to indicate the steps/instructions I need to do this
>using EAC or other software. So far all my CDs are encoded in mp3 and
>Ogg (mainly because my personal DP reads these formats), but I'd like
>to start using flac for all my new CDs, in readiness for my SB2 system.
>Any help/pointers appreciated.
>
>
This was discussed a little over a year ago in a previous thread, you
can see my response there:

http://forums.slimdevices.com/showpost.php?p=12002&postcount=2

But in a quick summary here is what I did.

I used EAC to encode directly to FLAC. It is identical to setting up EAC
to encode to LAME.
You just select "Other Codec" in the settings and point to where the
FLAC.exe file is located.

You can get the codec at http://flac.sourceforge.net/ plus links to
other software that supports FLAC.

Settings for using alternative codecs in EAC can be found at
http://www.saunalahti.fi/cse/EAC/.

dbPowerAmp, can also rip from CD to FLAC. It worked well in a few trials
that I did. If you are not
willing to wait for EAC I think it is a good substitute. Even with its
AccurateRip feature turned on ,
which I would recommend, it was about twice as fast as EAC.

If you have any questions feel free to ask.

Tom

CavesOfTQLT
2005-04-19, 09:11
CavesOfTQLT wrote:

>Sorry to jump into this thread but reading those flac comments makes me
>want to try it out. Can someone point me to a good 'copy that CD into
>flac' site or just to indicate the steps/instructions I need to do this
>using EAC or other software. So far all my CDs are encoded in mp3 and
>Ogg (mainly because my personal DP reads these formats), but I'd like
>to start using flac for all my new CDs, in readiness for my SB2 system.
>Any help/pointers appreciated.
>
>
This was discussed a little over a year ago in a previous thread, you
can see my response there:

http://forums.slimdevices.com/showpost.php?p=12002&postcount=2

But in a quick summary here is what I did.

I used EAC to encode directly to FLAC. It is identical to setting up EAC
to encode to LAME.
You just select "Other Codec" in the settings and point to where the
FLAC.exe file is located.

You can get the codec at http://flac.sourceforge.net/ plus links to
other software that supports FLAC.

Settings for using alternative codecs in EAC can be found at
http://www.saunalahti.fi/cse/EAC/.

dbPowerAmp, can also rip from CD to FLAC. It worked well in a few trials
that I did. If you are not
willing to wait for EAC I think it is a good substitute. Even with its
AccurateRip feature turned on ,
which I would recommend, it was about twice as fast as EAC.

If you have any questions feel free to ask.

Tom

Thanks Tom, I'll give it a try tomorrow and get back to you if I have any problems.

Rob

Patrick Dixon
2005-04-19, 09:14
I personally think that if you rip just to a lossy format you will come to regret it.

HDs are now so cheap, and getting cheaper all the time, that storage is not really an issue. To rip 800 CDs at 5mins/CD (and IME that's quite quick) will take you more than 65hrs, and at least if you do it losslessly you'll then be able to batch convert to anything else you want whilst you catch up on your sleep! Whilst you're at it you may as well use EAC in accurate mode and set the read offset for your drive correctly - then you can be reasonably confident that your ripped files are bit for bit identical to what's actually on the CD.

Even when you've ripped them all, you'll still have to spend some more time fixing tags and stuff - and that's not something you want to do twice either.

But then, audio quality is pretty important to me and YMMV.

superbad
2005-04-19, 09:15
I definitely think you should do a blind listening comparison on a few tracks you know really well. You'll need a helper to ensure that it's truly a blind test (and turn off the display on your squeezebox). If it's not a blind test, you're going to hear whatever you expect to hear.

I did this with a song encoded at 128k mp3, high bitrate VBR mp3 (LAME alt extreme), and lossless. The 128k file jumped out right away. The other two were very hard to tell apart, but I felt one of them just sounded a bit crisper, and that turned out to be the lossless file. The difference was really small, but still noticeable. Based on that test, I have been encoding all my new music lossless.

I have a decent midrange system, but nothing crazy- no external DAC or anything like that.

Todd Fields
2005-04-19, 09:20
--- bjmacdow <bjmacdow.1nqr6n (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>
wrote:
> Ok...I am a total novice at this. For clarification, does EAC
> have LAME
> 3.90.3 embedded into it as an option? Or do you rip through
> EAC and then
> compress everything ripped again with LAME 3.90.3? Thanks for

You have to download the LAME codec separately. It is available
here:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=28123

You then must go into EAC's settings and point it to the codec.
On that same setttings screen is a place for the "--alt-preset
standards" switch.

The 3.90.3 version of LAME is best if you intend on using the
--alt-preset switches. Otherwise you can use a more current
version.





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

Patrick Dixon
2005-04-19, 09:21
Again IME, it's the small differences that you hear in a short A-B listening test, that make the big differences to your enjoyment over the longer term.

"Source first" is a hi-fi adage, and you can't get much more 'source first' than looking after the bits on your disk. You can then buy a better pair of speakers (or whatever) down the road, and not worry that you can now hear the compression artifacts.

fuzzyT
2005-04-19, 09:31
CavesOfTQLT wrote:
> Can someone point me to a good 'copy that CD into flac' site or just
> to indicate the steps/instructions I need to do this using EAC or
> other software.

from the FLAC FAQ:
<http://flac.sourceforge.net/faq.html#tools__eac_and_flac>

How do I set up EAC to rip directly to FLAC?

See Case's excellent EAC configuration page.
<http://www.saunalahti.fi/cse/EAC/index.html>

Or use MAREO to rip to multiple formats at once.
<http://mareo.netfirms.com/>

--rt

Todd Fields
2005-04-19, 09:33
--- Patrick Dixon
<Patrick.Dixon.1nqu70 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:
>
> I personally think that if you rip just to a lossy format you
> will come
> to regret it.

I agree to some extent. I ripped my 800 CD's twice before I
knew much about FLAC. The first time was done at 160kbs CBR
using MusicMatch (it was my first real experience with MP3 and I
actually thought it sounded good.) Around the time I purchased
my first SLIMP3 I discovered EAC and LAME so I reripped
everything. While I love my LAME MP3's, I have to admit if I
could do it over I would probably try and find a way to rip them
to FLAC and then have separate storage to maintain a copy in the
MP3 format as well (for quick transfers to my iPod and other
conveniences.) The last times I ripped my collection it took
most of my spare time for about a month. Now I have a kid which
means I no longer can devote that kind of time. I thought about
slowly ripping it again but even at 10 CD's a week it would take
a year and a half.

bjmacdow
2005-04-19, 09:50
Thank you all for the information and for pointing us to the various resources available.

Out of curiosity...how much time would it take to burn a standard 12 track CD in EAC to Flac and/or LAME?

I am thinking about continuing with the rest of my collection in one of these formats, and leaving the .MP3's that I have already ripped as is so that a large portion of my library is available when my Squeezebox2 arrives on Friday. Then I can go back and re-rip over time the discs that have already been added to the library.

Patrick Dixon
2005-04-19, 10:06
Out of curiosity...how much time would it take to burn a standard 12 track CD in EAC to Flac and/or LAME?There are acouple of ways to do it: you could rip (not burn) to WAV, and then setup a batch process to run overnight using flac and lame to generate compressed formats, wiping the WAVs when you're done, or you can use something like MAREO (which I haven't tried) to run them both directly from EAC. The second is likely to be a little slower. EAC queues compression tasks up, so the queue would just extend if you fed the draw more quickly than the PC could compress. (Beware that you don't kill EAC before the queue is empty or you'll end up with some files that didn't get compressed.)

Obviously, it depends on the speed of your processor and CD reader, but just ripping and converting to flac, I reckon you should estimate about 10 per hour. If you don't use the accurate mode it's quicker, but more risky. The problem is that it's difficult to just sit there and just watch, and when you start doing other things on the same PC it tends to slow down!

CavesOfTQLT
2005-04-19, 10:29
Thank you all for the information and for pointing us to the various resources available.
I second that. Thanks everyone.

I'm currently trying fuzzyT's suggestion of using Mareo, mainly because I'd want something that can rip and encode to ogg and flac at the same time, and as I normally use CDEx for my ripping and mareo states it will work with it it's a given that I give it a try. At the moment I'm just following the set-up on the mareo site, and then I'll be ready to give it a track to rip.

Daryle A. Tilroe
2005-04-19, 11:35
bjmacdow wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> My Squeezebox2 is scheduled to arrive on Friday. I purchased a
> 200gb drive w/8mb cache for $94.00 and have been ripping music through

So just look at $94 and consider what your time is worth. For
another $94 you could rip all your CDs to FLAC and never have
to do it again.

> WMP at a 192kbs rate. My question is whether this rate is enough
> quality?

Lossy if false economy; particularly if you are already concerned
enough about quality to ask. I just don't understand MP3/OGG for
anything other than a portable player.


--
Daryle A. Tilroe

CavesOfTQLT
2005-04-19, 12:24
At the moment I'm just following the set-up on the mareo site, and then I'll be ready to give it a track to rip.
Well after two hours trying I've given up on it. I keep getting errors from the Mareo command line window and I'm at a loss where the problem is. If anyone has got mareo working with either CDEx or EAC, converting into FLAC and OGG, with the resulting files having the following syntax "01-She Loves Me" within an artist/cdname file configuration, could you please give me a copy of the parameters (in the mareo.ini and EAC/CDEx), etc., of how you've done it. I'd be extremely grateful because at the moment the whole thing has got me completely and utterly stuck.

Rob

jmpage2
2005-04-19, 12:32
Just a comment on this whole "hard disks are cheap so rip to FLAC" thing.

Yes, hard drives are cheap, you can probably get a couple of 200GB drives and rip all of your stuff to FLAC.

Then if you want to back it all up effectively you will need to buy another couple of hard drives or set up a RAID, etc... all of a sudden not as cheap. Especially if you need a transcoded copy of your music for devices that don't support FLAC.

I had a buddy with a bunch of music that was not backed up. His motherboard went out and corrupted the hard drive. Now he gets to rip 400 CDs again.

Fun.

JJZolx
2005-04-19, 12:55
Just a comment on this whole "hard disks are cheap so rip to FLAC" thing.

Yes, hard drives are cheap, you can probably get a couple of 200GB drives and rip all of your stuff to FLAC.

You missed the point. Rip to FLAC so that you'll never need to rip again. Say you had your collection in FLAC, but some day you decide that your entire collection should be in another lossless format, or you'd like to create some low-rate mp3s. You run a conversion script and you're done. If you had only lossy files then you'd need to rip everything again or you end up with horrid quality sound.


Then if you want to back it all up effectively you will need to buy another couple of hard drives or set up a RAID, etc... all of a sudden not as cheap. Especially if you need a transcoded copy of your music for devices that don't support FLAC.

I had a buddy with a bunch of music that was not backed up. His motherboard went out and corrupted the hard drive. Now he gets to rip 400 CDs again.

Fun.

Or you back up to DVD-R like many of us. I get an average of about 16 CDs per 4.7 GB disc. You only need to back up any file in your collection once, unless you re-rip it or change something like a tag. I label the disks and keep a spreadsheet listing the albums on each disk. You can get a fairly large music collection onto a 100 disk spindle.
________
VN1500G (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Kawasaki_VN1500G)

pfarrell
2005-04-19, 13:12
On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 12:32 -0700, jmpage2 wrote:
> I had a buddy with a bunch of music that was not backed up. His
> motherboard went out and corrupted the hard drive. Now he gets to rip
> 400 CDs again.

Not at all clear to me that ripping to Flac or ACC or WMA or
anything else would have any impact on this argument.

Backups are needed, or you have to accept that the
700+ CDs on the shelf are the backup. If you want
faster backup than that, you have to use some other
media, DVDs, disks, zillions of floppies, etc.

My point was that disks are so inexpensive that
the disk saving between FLAC and a lossy compression
format is not worth the effort. The pain
of loading hundreds of CDs is a major part of the
psychic cost of losing your music.

My music is spread over three disks, it is unlikely
that all three will go out at once.
I chose to have only one copy of the music in FLAC on
disks, and consider the shelves of CDs to be my backup.

YMMV, etc.
--
Pat
http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html

Phil Leigh
2005-04-19, 13:15
If you have 800 CD's, that's probably an investment of £6k-£12k
500Gb of disk (more than enough to hold 800 Cd's in FLAC) will cost < £500. (+£500 for a set of backup disks).
Surely it's worth it to:
1) get your CD's out of the room and into storage
2) never worry about having to re-rip to a better format - how much is your time worth - we only live once (I think)

As your enjoyment of the music you have paid for increases, you MAY be tempted to improve your hi-fi - MP3's (in ANY form) do not compare with FLACS/WAV's once you have a certain level of reproduction equipment and a certain level of expectation about how you'd like things to sound.
IMHO, MP3's are great for portables/in-car/internet download - and that's it.

Flame-proof suit deployed :o)

Todd Fields
2005-04-19, 14:44
--- bjmacdow <bjmacdow.1nqw1n (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>
wrote:

> Out of curiosity...how much time would it take to burn a
> standard 12
> track CD in EAC to Flac and/or LAME?

This depends greatly on three things:

1) The speed of your CD drive - Obviously, the faster your drive
can extract the audio the quicker the overall process will move.

2) The condition of your CD's - One of the primary reasons
everyone uses EAC is that it has a "secure" mode that reads
every bit on your CD at least twice to make sure you get a bit
perfect rip. Therefore, EAC takes at a minimum twice as long to
extract your audio even if you CD is in pristine condition. If
on the second read it detects an error it re-reads it again and
again until either it perfectly extracts the data or determines
that it cannot be read and fails. During this process on a
badly damaged disc it can slow the read process to well below
1x. I ripped a CD once with EAC that had portions that I could
not even play on any other CD player because it was in such bad
shape and got a bit perfect copy but the process took 8 hours.

3) The speed of your processor - Once the audio has been
extracted (into a WAV format) it must be encoded using your
chosen compression format (MP3 or FLAC). This is a very
processor intensive process. It can take forever on an older
computer.

If I have a CD in pretty good shape I can rip it using EAC in
secure mode and encode it using LAME (MP3) with the --alt-preset
switch in ten minutes or so. I have an AMD 2800+ processor with
1GB RAM and a Plextor Premium 52x CD drive.

FLMike
2005-04-19, 14:51
Here is a link to a site that I found interesting. Although he favors WMA lossless for his collection--which many people here would disagree with--he does offer a good discussion on using EAC and why a lossless format is his preference.. Disclaimer: I am NOT taking a side on FLAC vs WMA. There is some good content here regardless of what you think about the format choice.

http://www.virroaudio.net/ripping/EACconfig.htm

-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Fields [mailto:jtfields91 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com]
Sent: Tue 4/19/2005 5:44 PM
To: Slim Devices Discussion
Cc:
Subject: Re: [slim] Re: Just getting started...




--- bjmacdow <bjmacdow.1nqw1n (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>
wrote:

> Out of curiosity...how much time would it take to burn a
> standard 12
> track CD in EAC to Flac and/or LAME?

This depends greatly on three things:

1) The speed of your CD drive - Obviously, the faster your drive
can extract the audio the quicker the overall process will move.

2) The condition of your CD's - One of the primary reasons
everyone uses EAC is that it has a "secure" mode that reads
every bit on your CD at least twice to make sure you get a bit
perfect rip. Therefore, EAC takes at a minimum twice as long to
extract your audio even if you CD is in pristine condition. If
on the second read it detects an error it re-reads it again and
again until either it perfectly extracts the data or determines
that it cannot be read and fails. During this process on a
badly damaged disc it can slow the read process to well below
1x. I ripped a CD once with EAC that had portions that I could
not even play on any other CD player because it was in such bad
shape and got a bit perfect copy but the process took 8 hours.

3) The speed of your processor - Once the audio has been
extracted (into a WAV format) it must be encoded using your
chosen compression format (MP3 or FLAC). This is a very
processor intensive process. It can take forever on an older
computer.

If I have a CD in pretty good shape I can rip it using EAC in
secure mode and encode it using LAME (MP3) with the --alt-preset
switch in ten minutes or so. I have an AMD 2800+ processor with
1GB RAM and a Plextor Premium 52x CD drive.

robertwallace
2005-04-19, 16:27
Rob,

Mareo really doesn't like any blank lines in the mareo.ini file. Make
sure every line that's not a command line has a semicolon at the
beginning. Make sure there's not a blank line at the end of the file --
very easy to overlook.

The command must be one line - no breaks. Use an editor that shows (and
preserves) lines without breaking.

I'll attach my current working mareo.ini -- I rip to mp3 and FLAC. I
let EAC do the output path for MP3s and put the output path for my FLACs
into the mareo.ini. I also have separate setups for CDs with various
artists and comment out the one I'm not using.

Try mine the way it is (changing drive letters and paths to suit you)
then, one change at a time, modify the ini file to do what you want.

Robert

CavesOfTQLT wrote:

>CavesOfTQLT Wrote:
>
>
>>At the moment I'm just following the set-up on the mareo site, and then
>>I'll be ready to give it a track to rip.
>>
>>
>Well after two hours trying I've given up on it. I keep getting errors
>from the Mareo command line window and I'm at a loss where the problem
>is. If anyone has got mareo working with either CDEx or EAC, converting
>into FLAC and OGG, with the resulting files having the following syntax
>"01-She Loves Me" within an artist/cdname file configuration, could you
>please give me a copy of the parameters (in the mareo.ini and EAC/CDEx),
>etc., of how you've done it. I'd be extremely grateful because at the
>moment the whole thing has got me completely and utterly stuck.
>
>Rob
>
>
>
>

; MAREO - (M.)ultiple (A.)pplications (R.)unner for (E.)AC and (O.)thers.
;
; LIST OF LITERALS AND THE VALUES THEY REPRESENT
;
; Literal From Finall Value
; @program@ Command Line Parameter # 1 EAC or CDex
; @finalname@ Command Line Parameter # 2 Encoded File Final File Name
; @source@ Command Line Parameter # 3 FULL Source File Name
; @dest@ Command Line Parameter # 4 FULL Destination File Name
; @artist@ Command Line Parameter # 5 CD Artist Name
; @cdname@ Command Line Parameter # 6 CD Name
; @songname@ Command Line Parameter # 7 Song Name
; @track@ Command Line Parameter # 8 Track (song) Number
; @year@ Command Line Parameter # 9 Year of the CD release
; @genre@ Command Line Parameter # 10 CD's Music Genre
;
; @11@ Command Line Parameter # 11 Anything User Defined
; .. .. ..
; @nn@ Command Line Parameter # nn Anything User Defined
;
; @ownpath@ MAREO finds out the full path to MAREO, without the the ending backslash
; @fullname@ MAREO finds out the full temporal name with the encoder extension
; @pathonly@ MAREO finds out the full temporal path, without the ending backslash
; @nameonly@ MAREO finds out the temporal name, without any extension
; @extonly@ MAREO finds out the encoder file extension withouth the dot (ie: OGG)
;
; NOTE: insteado of (for example) "@oenpath (AT) lame (DOT) exe", you can use a full path like "c:\encoders\lame.exe"
;
; THIS IS A LIST OF ACTUALLY USABLE ACTION LINES, TAKEN FROM HYDROGENAUDIO.ORG RECOMMENDED SETTINGS.
; JUST UNCOMMENT THE ONE YOU NEED TO USE.
;
;
; ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
; MP3 LAME "STANDARD" (180-220 kbps VBR -- usually averages around 192 kbps):
; ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mp3 NONE NONE "C:\Audio\MP3\Encoders\lame-3.96.1\lame.exe" --alt-preset standard --add-id3v2 --ta "@artist@" --tl "@cdname@" --tt "@songname@" --tn "@track@" --ty "@year@" --tg "@genre@" --tc "‹berStandard - UberNet.org" "@source@" "@dest@"
;
; ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
; for VARIOUS artists - MP3 LAME "STANDARD" (180-220 kbps VBR -- usually averages around 192 kbps):
; ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
;mp3 NONE f:\Temp_MP3_Storage\@cdname@ "C:\Audio\MP3\Encoders\lame-3.96.1\lame.exe" --alt-preset standard --add-id3v2 --ta "@artist@" --tl "@cdname@" --tt "@songname@" --tn "@track@" --ty "@year@" --tg "@genre@" --tc "‹berStandard - UberNet.org" "@source@" "@dest@"
;
; ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
; Flac 'MAXIMUM COMPRESSION' (slow)
; ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
flac NONE g:\Flac'd_CDs\@artist@\@cdname@ "C:\Audio\Compressors\Lossless\flac-1.1.1-win\bin\flac.exe" --best --replay-gain -V "@source@" -o "@dest@" -T artist="@artist@" -T album="@cdname@" -T title="@songname@" -T tracknumber="@track@" -T date="@year@" -T genre="@genre@" -T comment="EAC .95b5 and FLAC 1.1.0"
;flac NONE g:\Flac'd_CDs\@artist@\@cdname@ "C:\Audio\Compressors\Lossless\flac-1.1.0-P4\bin\flac.exe" --best --replay-gain -V "@source@" -o "@dest@" -T artist="@artist@" -T album="@cdname@" -T title="@songname@" -T tracknumber="@track@" -T date="@year@" -T genre="@genre@" -T comment="EAC .95b5 and FLAC 1.1.0"
;
; ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
; for VARIOUS artists - Flac 'MAXIMUM COMPRESSION' (slow)
; ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
;flac NONE g:\Flac'd_CDs\@cdname@ "C:\Audio\Compressors\Lossless\flac-1.1.1-win\bin\flac.exe" --best --replay-gain -V "@source@" -o "@dest@" -T artist="@artist@" -T album="@cdname@" -T title="@songname@" -T tracknumber="@track@" -T date="@year@" -T genre="@genre@" -T comment="EAC .95b5 and FLAC 1.1.0"
;flac NONE g:\Flac'd_CDs\@cdname@ "C:\Audio\Compressors\Lossless\flac-1.1.0-P4\bin\flac.exe" --best --replay-gain -V "@source@" -o "@dest@" -T artist="@artist@" -T album="@cdname@" -T title="@songname@" -T tracknumber="@track@" -T date="@year@" -T genre="@genre@" -T comment="EAC .95b5 and FLAC 1.1.0"
; EOF

robertwallace
2005-04-19, 16:35
I did my A/B test with a good pair of headphones. One thing that I
noticed immediately -- the "soundstage" for an MP3 song (in comparison
with a non-compressed one) just collapses into practically nothing. A
song that immediately comes to mind is Joni Mitchell's "Big Yellow
Taxi". The acoustic guitar that opens the song is really "alive" in the
non-compressed version. Almost flat in the MP3. All the notes are
there, but the "stuff you won't ever miss" is gone. You may not hear
it, but you'll notice when it's gone.

Robert

Patrick Dixon wrote:

>Again IME, it's the small differences that you hear in a short A-B
>listening test, that make the big differences to your enjoyment over
>the longer term.
>
>"Source first" is a hi-fi adage, and you can't get much more 'source
>first' than looking after the bits on your disk. You can then buy a
>better pair of speakers (or whatever) down the road, and not worry that
>you can now hear the compression artifacts.
>
>
>
>

robertwallace
2005-04-19, 16:39
Amen, brothers.

I have all my CDs as FLAC. When I need a bunch of tunes for my
portable, I drag them into foobar2000 (a player) and hit a button on a
pulldown menu. A suprisingly short time later, I have all the tunes I
wanted in a "portable player" format. Doing that without having to find
and re-rip the CDs is wonderful.

Robert

Pat Farrell wrote:

>On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 06:57 -0700, bjmacdow wrote:
>
>
>>WMP at a 192kbs rate. My question is whether this rate is enough
>>quality? My home audio gear is fairly decent, running an Onkyo DTS
>>receiver, and decent speakers and my thinking going into this process
>>is that I would not be able to hear much of a difference between 192
>>and a higher standard.
>>
>>
>
>This is really a personal question. Can you hear enough difference to
>care?
>
>It is easy to do a quick test, rip a good sounding CD both ways, and
>listen to them both. If you can't tell a difference, be happy.
>
>I believe that I can hear a difference, and using FLAC, the
>files are only two or three times larger than high rate MP3.
>And disk drives are essentially free. So for me, FLAC is it.
>
>There is one non-subjective reason to consider flac.
>Since it is allows you to recreate bit exact audio,
>you can change your mind later and transcode
>the audio into any format without any loss other than
>that caused by the target audio.
>
>So if sometime down stream, you want all your files in WMA
>or OggVorbis, you can take the FLAC, convert back to the
>original wav files, and then convert to what you want and
>know you have done no harm.
>
>Once you use a lossy compression like MP3, it is lost forever
>and you'd have to manually re-rip all your CDs.
>
>
>
>

bjmacdow
2005-04-19, 17:09
Ok. I have downloaded the dbpowerAMP program and it provides an option of 1-8 compression for FLAC. Which would you folks represent. If something is ripped into FLAC Format should the sound be the same for each compression level, but the time it takes to rip each disc is longer as the compression level gets higher?

JJZolx
2005-04-19, 17:36
Ok. I have downloaded the dbpowerAMP program and it provides an option of 1-8 compression for FLAC. Which would you folks represent. If something is ripped into FLAC Format should the sound be the same for each compression level, but the time it takes to rip each disc is longer as the compression level gets higher?

That's correct. There's no difference in sound quality - all levels are lossless. I use FLAC's default compression level, which I believe is 5. You gain very little in file size by going higher.

You should play around and run FLAC from the command line using the different compression levels on a couple of WAV files and see for yourself the differences in encoding time and file size.
________
TW200 (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Yamaha_TW200)

Patrick Dixon
2005-04-20, 00:55
Just a comment on this whole "hard disks are cheap so rip to FLAC" thing.

Yes, hard drives are cheap, you can probably get a couple of 200GB drives and rip all of your stuff to FLAC.

Then if you want to back it all up effectively you will need to buy another couple of hard drives or set up a RAID, etc... all of a sudden not as cheap. Especially if you need a transcoded copy of your music for devices that don't support FLAC.

I had a buddy with a bunch of music that was not backed up. His motherboard went out and corrupted the hard drive. Now he gets to rip 400 CDs again.

Fun.If you are happy with MP3 quality at the moment, rip and backup FLACs to a 'normally-offline' disk and just keep the MP3s versions on-line. That way you miminise the cost, and always have a FLAC backup.

DVDs are an option but you'll only get 12-15 CDs per DVD, so for a large collection that's a fair number of DVDs to restore if you have a crash. Quicker than re-ripping though!

max.spicer
2005-04-20, 05:35
I have all my CDs as FLAC. When I need a bunch of tunes for my
portable, I drag them into foobar2000 (a player) and hit a button on a
pulldown menu. A suprisingly short time later, I have all the tunes I
wanted in a "portable player" format.
What button is that? Could you provide some more detailed instructions about how you do this in foobar 2000? I'm assuming that you are coverting into mp3 or ogg. Does it also transfer the metadata from the FLAC file to the other format?

Steve Baumgarten
2005-04-20, 06:14
> What button is that? Could you provide some more detailed instructions
> about how you do this in foobar 2000? I'm assuming that you are
> coverting into mp3 or ogg. Does it also transfer the metadata from the
> FLAC file to the other format?

I'm not sure about a button, but if you select all the files,
right-click and choose one of the "Convert" options, that'll do it for
you. There are many options including command-line driven conversions
for those not built-in to Foobar2000 (e.g., for FLAC files I use a
JavaScript script file to tell iTunes to convert to AAC for iPod
listening). Tags are definitely preserved.

SBB




Visit our website at http://www.ubs.com

This message contains confidential information and is intended only
for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you
should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please
notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this
e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.

E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free
as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed,
arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore
does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents
of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If
verification is required please request a hard-copy version. This
message is provided for informational purposes and should not be
construed as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any securities or
related financial instruments.

bjmacdow
2005-04-20, 08:49
That's correct. There's no difference in sound quality - all levels are lossless. I use FLAC's default compression level, which I believe is 5. You gain very little in file size by going higher.

You should play around and run FLAC from the command line using the different compression levels on a couple of WAV files and see for yourself the differences in encoding time and file size.


The only difficulty that I am having now, is having the dbpowerAMP program travel to the internet and retrieve cd/track/artist information.

Can someone provide an easy step by step method of ripping CDs to FLAC and getting the information about each disc downloaded with it? If this means ditching the dbpowerAMP program that is fine.

Do not feel the need to be too specific, just say what program you are using, how you point it to the FLAC Codec and what setting you use to rip the music with all of the information about the music included. Thanks a lot for the assistance.

pfarrell
2005-04-20, 09:14
On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 08:49 -0700, bjmacdow wrote:
> The only difficulty that I am having now, is having the dbpowerAMP
> program travel to the internet and retrieve cd/track/artist
> information.

I use CDex and EAC on Windows boxes, either will get the CDDB/freeDB
data where possible. On Linux, I use grip

Then I use flacfrontend on windows
to compress and tag.

There are lots of ways to do it.


--
Pat
http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html

Craig, James (IT)
2005-04-20, 09:15
Last time I used dbpowerAMP it did look up the CD data!
Is it not working?

James

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com
[mailto:discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com] On Behalf Of Pat Farrell
Sent: 20 April 2005 17:14
To: Slim Devices Discussion
Subject: Re: [slim] Re: Just getting started...

On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 08:49 -0700, bjmacdow wrote:
> The only difficulty that I am having now, is having the dbpowerAMP
> program travel to the internet and retrieve cd/track/artist
> information.

I use CDex and EAC on Windows boxes, either will get the CDDB/freeDB
data where possible. On Linux, I use grip

Then I use flacfrontend on windows
to compress and tag.

There are lots of ways to do it.


--
Pat
http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html

CavesOfTQLT
2005-04-20, 10:57
Okay, after getting stuck on the whole EAC/CDEx/Mareo/Flac/Ogg thingymajig I've been searching around the 'net and I've found this.

On another messageboard it was suggested to use VUPlayer (http://www.vuplayer.com/vuplayer.htm) so I've loaded it, and even though I've only given it a very quick run through, it seems to do everything I need.

Just thought I'd post it on here so anyone looking for a CDripper that interfaces to a database for track names, and then to encode to FLAC, OGG, MP3 etc., can add it to their option list.

bjmacdow
2005-04-20, 12:43
James,

I used dbpowerAMP, set it to code to FLAC and was ripping Morrison Hotel, an easily id'd disk and it did not do an autofill of the information. My DSL was definitely operating at the time. Not sure what the issue was, I will try it again tonight if time permits.


Last time I used dbpowerAMP it did look up the CD data!
Is it not working?

James

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com
[mailto:discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com] On Behalf Of Pat Farrell
Sent: 20 April 2005 17:14
To: Slim Devices Discussion
Subject: Re: [slim] Re: Just getting started...

On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 08:49 -0700, bjmacdow wrote:
> The only difficulty that I am having now, is having the dbpowerAMP
> program travel to the internet and retrieve cd/track/artist
> information.

I use CDex and EAC on Windows boxes, either will get the CDDB/freeDB
data where possible. On Linux, I use grip

Then I use flacfrontend on windows
to compress and tag.

There are lots of ways to do it.


--
Pat
http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html

bjmacdow
2005-04-20, 12:45
Okay, after getting stuck on the whole EAC/CDEx/Mareo/Flac/Ogg thingymajig I've been searching around the 'net and I've found this.

On another messageboard it was suggested to use VUPlayer (http://www.vuplayer.com/vuplayer.htm) so I've loaded it, and even though I've only given it a very quick run through, it seems to do everything I need.

Just thought I'd post it on here so anyone looking for a CDripper that interfaces to a database for track names, and then to encode to FLAC, OGG, MP3 etc., can add it to their option list.

I will give this a go this evening also. Thanks Caves.