No announcement yet.

cd ripper program ?????

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • cd ripper program ?????

    I'am looking for a good downloadable cd ripper program.
    You know the kind I mean, convert from one type of format to another etc etc, I have loads of windows music files and I want to change them to MP3.
    Trouble is,,,,, all the ones I see online are only offering a limited service unless I purchase the full versions !!!

    There must be someone out there that knows of a site that offers a half decent program for free ???? Anyone ????

  • #2
    Have you tried the free version of MusicMatch Jukebox as I've got it and it will do just what you asked. :?:


    • #3
      Bah, quality and speed is what you want, and if you dont. Sumphin wron witcha.

      EAC and LAME , when combined, will give you nice VBR mp3s.

      You might wanna have a peek at the OGG Vorbis project as an alternative to mp3s. Do test and compare quality & filesizes before you go happily about ripping your entire Audio collection though. While MP3 is popular, OGG is gaining more and more support simply because it is, well, better.


      • #4
        why wats wrong with musicmatch jukebox?

        it makes awesome VBR bud. i seen the rips go upt o 550kbps but the usual is 230kbps. fantastic sound i have never complained about the VBR rip (100%)

        does the mp3pro too but the mp3pro sucks big time......the music sounds muffled (frequency dropped in half from 22khz to 11khz)


        • #5
          CDEX is also good for VBR mp3's and ogg vorbis files.


          • #6
            Originally posted by {PoSeIdOnAs}
            why wats wrong with musicmatch jukebox?

            it makes awesome VBR bud. i seen the rips go upt o 550kbps but the usual is 230kbps. fantastic sound i have never complained about the VBR rip (100%)
            You just answered your own question. Such high bitrates is plain wasteful. Of course, it all depends on what kind of music you were encoding. I shudder at the thought/sound of it if it did actually require such a high bitrate.

            That, bundled with the fact musicmatch is a bit dodgey with decoding mp3s (playback or whatnot) is enough for me to turn my nose at it.


            • #7
     dont realize that CDA ripped at pure WAV is at 1140kbps...... and u stated that ~550kbps is 'ridiculously high'

              I disagree by the way. On two fronts. It does sound better (bass especially) the higher the rip. And, Why rip at a lower rate when you can rip at the max and not worry about it being 'not good enough' later ?

              and who said it required such a high bitrate?

              There is a slider, see, and it goes from 1% to 100%. Mine is set to 100% always.

              Go try musicmatch again it has improved over time and it is really cool now........

              and what do you mean its dodgey with encoding mp3?? I have a feeling u are misinformed or are still thinking about possibly past versions ?? :D


              • #8
                Originally posted by {PoSeIdOnAs}
       dont realize that CDA ripped at pure WAV is at 1140kbps...... and u stated that ~550kbps is 'ridiculously high'
                'pure WAV', as you put it, is intended to be high-bitrate/filesize/quality. The whole point of the MP3 format is compress the bitrate as much as possible. To test this, load up your fav mp3 compressor and encode a WAV at 550kbps and them compress again, but at 256 or 320kbps. Notice a huge difference?

                Thats why 550kbps is wasteful and unnecessary. Bear in mind that MP3 is NOT a lossless codec. Its performance purely relies on both your compressor settings and the type of music you are compressing.

                Musicmatch is a 'cheap and nasty' way of doing things. imo of course. While it may be a more easy-to-look-at program that EAC and the command-line LAME, it doesnt have the flexibility and control.
                Simple as that.


                • #9
                  I agree with Bahamut Zer0, also I would like to point out that there are alot of easy to use interfaces with the RazorLame....which will give you both an interface to work with and command line usablity....
                  checkit out!


                  • #10
                    see i have to disagree with your point of saying that the 550kbps is useless. For an analogy I'll throw in comparing a AMD XP 1900+ to a AMD XP 2200+ Don't try to tell me there is a large difference between the two, because there isn't as we all already know:D

                    So why do people even bother with the more expensive one? U get the groups that just get it because they want to be 'top of the pack' for bragging rights. And you have those that actually juice out every last drop of power for their productivity work (like photoshop / CAD / LightWave / 3DSMaX / etc). And you also have the group that just gets it so that they don't have to worry about it in the future.

                    I belong in the 2nd and 3rd group :) I rip at the highest quality MP3 (note the way I phrased it). I don't want to worry about having a sucky MP3 rip because believe it or not you can tell a difference between the quality rips. I can. But like you said, it depends on the music you listen to. You are right in that respect of it depending on the music you listen to. But then you diss on it saying it is useless :p

                    The higher level bitrate MP3 rips increase the overall sound quality yes but especially the bass response. Of course this is useless if you record classical music or most cultural asian music since they don't even use bass :) But heavy metal, trance, enigma-like stuff, etc. do. The effects are minimal yes...but like I said, I don't want to worry about having a less-than-perfect rip. And by the way, the filesize is still manageable being roughly 7MB for a 5 minute track. If I do end up sending this over the net (rare) of course ill re-rip it to like CDPro format......

                    So really the only thing that you said which remains it being actually possibly true is the feature level and being 'nasty easy way of doing it.' I will not argue on this basis because I haven't tried that software you mentioned and there will always be opinions on methods taken by software no matter how good or bad it is. :D However, MusicMatch Jukebox is indeed fabulous in the results it produces. It could have more options yes (well all software could) but up until now it satisfied me greatly.

                    Now im gonna check that stuff out......

                    I wonder if any of that other software does what PlayCenter does with encoding the mp3 with EAX effects ..... maybe multiple speaker instead of the regular Dolby Surround (so that it works better with a 4-speaker setup in cars (which is like every car out there at minimum) ).....


                    • #11
                      Getting an MP3 at its higest quality and smallest filesize is 'half the fun'. Its like explaining why people want to make perfect clones of game cds, instead of doing a copy-to-hdd and burn it back with a cracked .exe. Both ways work, and sure, there are the 'bragging rights' but, well. Yeah. People do it because it can be done.

                      Alot of people these days mix cds and have portable MP3 players with a limited media storage solution. It makes perfect sence to put some effort into getting every last drop of performance/benefits from the mp3 format.
                      For those people, MusicMatch might not be the best program to use as it just doesnt offer the user the full potential of MP3.

                      No disrespect or anything, but since you have never used LAME to encode your mp3s, you havnt heard an mp3.
                      A quick check at LAME's homepage tells me MM does not sport any LAME codecs out-of-the-box. You are more than likely encoding mp3s using the stock Fraunhhoweveritsspelt MP3 codec that, if youve ever done any divx ripping you will know, is as buggy as an ant farm.

                      A typical 6min song is approx 6-7meg. Thats a pretty 'busy' song though. (Fearfactory)
                      Wheras a dance/pop song is even lower. (4-5meg)
                      Max quality settings across the board. I dont, nor ever, skimp on quality. :)
                      Without a $10,000 + studio setup, the difference between the mp3 and the CD is nothing.

                      Check the programs out at least. EAC is the bees knees for ripping cds and you can link to LAME to encode after ripping each track to make the 1-click-mp3 ability to come back again.