PDA

View Full Version : How I may speed-up the digitalization of my CDs?



AndreE
2009-09-22, 02:43
Hi to everybody,

I am in the process of digitalization of my CD library.
My Linux box is working fast (if I can say so) with factor ~3-3,5… based on what I have seen in different posts it is a decent speed. And all tries did not bring any further increase.
I’ve triedto use of my notebook with MS vista installed. The digitalization works fine… but I could not get to the same standard what I have in Linux. File naming is different. The tags from OpenDb were not retrived in the same way or with the same quality.

How to get it “synchronized” from the naming convention and tags point of view?
What tools on Vista may bring the same what I can get from Grip + FLAC converter?

Any suggestions?

Any suggestion would be very appreciated

funkstar
2009-09-22, 02:57
CDs are already digital, you are just ripping them, not digitising them (sorry, couldn't help myself).

If you are pulling data from OpenDB on both Windows and Linux, the data will be the same. What are you using on Windows to rip with? is it using a different DB.

As for naming convention, that is entirely up to the app you use and how it is configured.

I use dbPoweramp. It does cost, but it is an excellent app, easy interface, very high quality rips and very flexible. It uses a variety of different sources for its meta data, including the AMG database which includes album are and a lot of very accurate data.

The folder structure and naming convention is completely customisable. You can even put clauses in so the naming is different for multi-CD sets.

Mnyb
2009-09-22, 03:32
Is not dB power amp made so you can run multiple instances and use all of the drives in the PC ? most people have two these days ? i may be wrong but worth checking out.

AndreE
2009-09-22, 03:50
funkstar,
I know that I am not really digitalizing ;-)
you are right, ripping... would be a better word

Mnyb,
the idea about two drivers is an interesting one. I had two, but it was some hassle on my old Pentium box and I’ve removed one. It could be potentially due to the difference: one drive is PATA and second was a SATA. I will try another drive to see whether this would be wokring.

Are there any "similar" to Grip + FLAC solutions on Vista? (…and if they are freeware – even better)
Who use what?

funkstar
2009-09-22, 03:56
Correct dbPoweramp has a batch ripper that will use multiple drives, I don't know if there is a limit.

CDex is free and pretty good, EAC (Exact Audio Copy) is free and high quality, but can be a pain to use and configure.

Flac can be used with any of them.

Mnyb
2009-09-22, 03:56
EAC is also good but is not as plug and play as dBpower amp, but it is free, you have to get the covers from other source possibly using mp3tag finess the tags and add images .

EAC is highly flexible so you can probably make it tag the right way.
But it requires some fiddling.

Edit: i know the feeling have done ~1000-1200CD's *twice* due to stupidity :-/

AndreE
2009-09-22, 10:11
I know this feeling.
Bigger part was ripped, but then... there was an electricity "incident" and the data was... lost together with HDD
HDD was in old PC - no big lose, but the time - this is regrettable ;-(

amey01
2009-09-22, 21:30
As long as you really are using the same source for your tags, it sounds to me like a configuration issue between the Linux and Windows PCs.

Go through the tagging settings and ensure you are using the same tagging formats and settings. Also, ensure you are mapping the metadata to the same fields in your resulting FLAC files.

So I guess what I'm saying is that it doesn't matter what tools you are using on Vista - if the source of metadata is the same then you just have to configure it to do the right thing......

Best of luck - tagging is the No.1 PITA in audio ripping!

aubuti
2009-09-23, 06:13
I know this feeling.
Bigger part was ripped, but then... there was an electricity "incident" and the data was... lost together with HDD
HDD was in old PC - no big lose, but the time - this is regrettable ;-(
That's why everyone should have a backup copy of his/her library, because a lot of time is invested in ripping and tagging, and even 1TB drives are cheap these days. Ideally the backup should be kept in a different place, because sometimes these incidents (electricity surge, fire, flood, theft) strike more than the main HDD.

AndreE
2009-09-23, 06:22
Hi aubuti,

You are completely right.
It is just a question of when to make a back up.
The process was just somewhere in the middle... and there were no indication to have anything happening... never before... but you know.
It is unpredictable and lies in the area of probabilities of events where we have no power to influence
The learning curve is passed... let’s see whether the education was good enough to stay for long

aubuti
2009-09-23, 15:02
Hi aubuti,

You are completely right.
It is just a question of when to make a back up.
That's easy: whenever it takes less time to make a backup than it does for you to reproduce the data that will be lost when something happens. And something *always* happens. To take the most basic case, all hard drives eventually fail. Your time is valuable.

Back everything up to an external USB drive. Even though it might take hours or days to backup a big library, it takes less than an hour of your time to start the backup going, and that includes the time it takes to buy the USB drive. Then store the drive somewhere else (I keep mine at work), and update the backups periodically as you add new albums or edit your tags. Maybe $100 for the drive and an hour of your time to protect tens or hundreds of hours spent ripping and tagging -- you do the math.

The simple question is how much of your work (ie, time) are you willing to put at risk?

amey01
2009-09-23, 18:30
That's easy: whenever it takes less time to make a backup than it does for you to reproduce the data that will be lost when something happens. And something *always* happens. To take the most basic case, all hard drives eventually fail. Your time is valuable.

Back everything up to an external USB drive. Even though it might take hours or days to backup a big library, it takes less than an hour of your time to start the backup going, and that includes the time it takes to buy the USB drive. Then store the drive somewhere else (I keep mine at work), and update the backups periodically as you add new albums or edit your tags. Maybe $100 for the drive and an hour of your time to protect tens or hundreds of hours spent ripping and tagging -- you do the math.

The simple question is how much of your work (ie, time) are you willing to put at risk?

Absolutely. And most importantly, don't use RAID. One popped capacitor in the NAS' power supply or dropping something on the case is all it takes to take out both disks at once. It's NOT backup.

I too back up to a USB hard disk, then periodically take this to work and run a backup to Ultrium tape, which I keep in my office. Do the backup as you go - every time I add a new album, I FTP it to both disks.

aubuti
2009-09-23, 18:39
Absolutely. And most importantly, don't use RAID. One popped capacitor in the NAS' power supply or dropping something on the case is all it takes to take out both disks at once. It's NOT backup.
I completely agree that RAID is not backup. But I wouldn't go so far as saying "don't use RAID." It has its uses. RAID's biggest advantage for music libraries is that if one of the drives dies you can switch to the other and not have any downtime. That said, I personally don't understand the urge for zero downtime for one's own music collection. I mean, I love my music, but none of it is so critical that I can't live with it for 24 hours until I can get the off-site backup, get another drive, and restore the music library. Besides, there's always SqueezeNetwork, Pandora, Napster, etc. until my library is back in action.

amey01
2009-09-23, 21:24
I completely agree that RAID is not backup. But I wouldn't go so far as saying "don't use RAID." It has its uses. RAID's biggest advantage for music libraries is that if one of the drives dies you can switch to the other and not have any downtime. That said, I personally don't understand the urge for zero downtime for one's own music collection. I mean, I love my music, but none of it is so critical that I can't live with it for 24 hours until I can get the off-site backup, get another drive, and restore the music library. Besides, there's always SqueezeNetwork, Pandora, Napster, etc. until my library is back in action.

Sorry - I meant "don't use RAID for backup" - yes - RAID is high availability, not backup! If high availability is what you need, go ahead.....just have a backup as well!

It just gets my goat because I see so many NAS/RAID devices marketed as backup and "never lose another file" and all that BS. There is going to be a lot of sorry people out there!

JJZolx
2009-09-23, 21:37
It is just a question of when to make a back up.

While you are ripping your collection you can't backup often enough. I'd find a way to make it fairly easy and run a backup every night or two. Depends on how much work and time you're willing to lose in the event of a drive failure.

AndreE
2009-09-24, 00:59
Hi Jim,

Would you share the idea about your approach?
It would be interesting for me (I am in some thoughts about the backup concept)

Andre

Mnyb
2009-09-24, 01:20
Also learned by experience always rip lossles (otherwise you will do it again later ) fix all tags and cover art while at it, don' t rip and adjust weird tagging "later" you will make a mess.

My approach while ripping was : rip a bunch of CD's fix all taggs plunk them into your "music" directory/disc.. let squeezecenter scan, check if everything looks and sort ok on the screen if not adjust tags scan again.
Then put today's work on the backup disc.

And don't put all files in the same dir use some intelligent schema like artist/album/track1...n .

I have a long distance extra backup I p2p (skype) to a friend 600km from me.
This get done with 2 weeks interval. And My Friend backup some of his files with me