Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

hey just brought a mp3 player and i was wondering what software every uses to turn their cd's into mp3 files.

ahead nero came with my pc and used to let you get a few mp3's onto the pc but for some stupid reason it only let me do so many.

cheers all :)

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/200113-mp3-riping-software/
Share on other sites

lame... its the industry standard. works in DOS, but is quick and very very clean (no clicks, pops artifacts etc).

I usually use "-V 2 --vbr-new" for a 192 kbps variable bitrate compression. On a regular hi-fi system/car stereo you won't be able to tell the difference between it and the CD.

http://lame.sourceforge.net/

There are a few options... (actually heaps, but a few good FREE ones)

1. AudioGrabber. This software is a dedicated CD-> MP3 ripper. Connects to the 'net and grabs the titles, pretty basic but does the job.

http://www.audiograbber.com-us.net/

2. Quintessential Player (+ the free LAME MP3 Encoder Plug-in). This is what I use most of the time... it's a media player kinda like Winamp, but I use it mainly for it's ripping features (you can easily specify the bit-rate, etc) and fantastic MP3 Tag editing capabilities.

http://www.quinnware.com/

3. iTunes. This free player from Apple has the ability to rip to MP3, but it's disabled by default. From memory, you go into the Advanced tab of the options window and change it from AAC format to MP3, then play around with the desired bitrate, etc. If you're not using iTunes as a media player though it's a fairly bloated piece of software, especially when you have a lot of music in your library... runs okay but can take a bit of time to load up, and uses a fair chunk of your RAM.

http://www.apple.com/itunes/download/

Oh forgot to mention, if you'd like a point and click interface to lame rather than fiddlign with DOS commands, then you should use RazorLAME

http://www.dors.de/razorlame

pretty much anyone that pirates music/video uses lame to compress their MP3's. A lot of software that "streamline" the process just use lame to encode in the background.

A lot of software that "streamline" the process just use lame to encode in the background.

Absolutely... I know that AudioGrabber and Quintessential both use LAME... not 100% sure about iTunes though...

Easy CD-DA Extractor is my weapon of choice... who pays for software anyway? :thumbsup:

Don't go below 128 kbps for quality sound.

MP4 (AAC) is my choice, and for a few reasons, but mainly because its the best lossy codec available for iPod (which I use)... IMHO anyway.

Chuck in the disk and hit RIP using Windows Media player.

Don't need any extra software.

And yes it rips to MP3

That works, but make sure you go into Tools > Options > Rip Music, set the Format to MP3 and set the 'Audio Quality' slider to 192kbps MINIMUM... (I rip all mine at either 256 or 320Kbps...)

Chuck in the disk and hit RIP using Windows Media player.

Don't need any extra software.

And yes it rips to MP3

thats how i do it.

if you have the latest windows media player (the one with now playing, library, rip etc. at the top) then just click the little arrow underneath rip and set the format to mp3 and change the bitrate to 192 (default is 128).

That works, but make sure you go into Tools > Options > Rip Music, set the Format to MP3 and set the 'Audio Quality' slider to 192kbps MINIMUM... (I rip all mine at either 256 or 320Kbps...)

yeah but the WMP compressor is shithouse compared to Audiograbber and other lamegenc rippers. WMP ripped MP3's may sound OK on headphones or PC speakers, but on a proper hifi you'll hear all the artifacts it creates.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Latest Posts

    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...