Lossless Ripping (wma) & Scratched CDs

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,comp.multimedia,microsoft.public.multimedia.windows.mediaplayer (More info?)

In rec.audio.tech rob <rmdiv2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I want to rip all my CDs to a lossless format. The big question is what
> program should I use. wma seems to be the most supported lossless codec
> so I think that is what I will go for. Unfortunately, I have CDs that
> have some scratches so I am looking for a program that handles such CDs
> well. Here are my requirements:
>
> 1) Album, song, artist, etc information must be automatically retrieved
> from a db, hopefully one that doesn't have too many errors and one that
> has many records (I have many unusual CDs).
>
> 2) The program has to handle scratched CDs well. Preferably, the
> program reads the content of the CD at least twice, compares the two
> results and then takes corrective actions (reads again and if
> unsucessful interpolates values)
>
> 3) I don't care how long it takes to rip one CD (well, hopefully less
> then 2 hour/CD) as long as I don't have to interact with the program
> when it's doing its thing.

For ripping, I'd recommend Exact Audio Copy, which is designed around
getting a _correct_ read of a CD, at all costs. It supports CDDB, and
I believe it extracts to almost any format you can think of. It's also
free. Also check out this page (http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~aa571/daefaq.htm)
for lots of information.

As an aside, I'd recommend getting a player that can deal with FLAC, if
possible. Free, Lossless, Audio Compression. What more could you want?

Colin

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,comp.multimedia,microsoft.public.multimedia.windows.mediaplayer (More info?)

"Colin B." <cbigam@somewhereelse.nucleus.com> wrote in message
news:42b07b79@news.nucleus.com...
> In rec.audio.tech rob <rmdiv2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

Free, Lossless, Audio Compression. What more could you want?
>

Windows Media Audio Lossless.
It's free, it's lossless and plays everywhere.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,comp.multimedia,microsoft.public.multimedia.windows.mediaplayer (More info?)

Everywhere meant as WMP7+, which is a few thousand times more than machines
with FLAC players...
Until Xyph will step their pride down and write a good directshow filter.

"Todd H." <bmiawmb@toddh.net> wrote in message
news:8464wfnzjz.fsf@ripco.com...
> "Zarax" <zarax999@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> "Colin B." <cbigam@somewhereelse.nucleus.com> wrote in message
>> news:42b07b79@news.nucleus.com...
>> > In rec.audio.tech rob <rmdiv2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Free, Lossless, Audio Compression. What more could you want?
>> >
>>
>> Windows Media Audio Lossless.
>> It's free, it's lossless and plays everywhere.
>
> Everywhere? Want a chance to revise that?
>
> --
> /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Todd H
> \ / | http://www.toddh.net/
> X Promoting good netiquette | http://triplethreatband.com/
> / \ http://www.toddh.net/netiquette/ | "4 lines suffice."

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,comp.multimedia,microsoft.public.multimedia.windows.mediaplayer (More info?)

In article <3hbqvrFggbcsU1@individual.net>,
Kurt Albershardt <kurt@nv.net> wrote:
>> Windows Media Audio Lossless.
>> It's free, it's lossless and plays everywhere.
>
>Free as in free beer maybe, but not free as in free speech.
>
>What happens when/if MS decides that it wants to bring your ripped
>tracks under its DRM scheme? What happens if MS decides that it wants a
>higher royalty on its WMA licensing and your favorite player company
>decides not to pay the new price?

On a tangentially-related topic: I saw an article in today's San Jose
Mercury News, which stated that the big music companies are:

[1] Setting their sights on deterring "casual copying" (i.e. ripping
and burning of commercial CDs), and

[2] Are about to start using CD copy-protection technologies on *all*
of their CDs in the U.S. and in Europe.

I do acknowledge their concerns over casual piracy, but the plans
described in the Merc give me a bad case of the chills, for a number
of reasons.

One is that the copy-limitation techniques are, to a greater or lesser
degree, proprietary. Although they may work tolerably well in a
Windows PC, I'm really concerned that I may find new discs incapable
of being played at all in my workstation at work (Linux), my laptop
(ditto), and my DVD player... in short, they may not play at all in
any computer-based device which can't download and install some sort
of access-control software from Microsoft. And, as Kurt points out,
there's always the risk that Microsoft or the music companies could
"change the rules" retroactively, reducing a consumer's ability to
play the music long after the disc had been paid for.

Another concer is that United States law grants consumers the specific
privilege of making copies of copyrighted music CDs, under certain
conditions (i.e. using CD recorders which implement SCMS, have had a
royalty paid, and which require the use of royalty-paid "consumer
audio CD-R" blanks, and in a noncommercial context only). These
anti-ripping techniques seem likely to make such legally-authorized
copying impossible.

--
Dave Platt <dplatt@radagast.org> AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,comp.multimedia,microsoft.public.multimedia.windows.mediaplayer (More info?)

In article <3hbvl1Fgc0ecU1@individual.net>,
Kurt Albershardt <kurt@nv.net> wrote:

>Unless the companies can all agree on some standard,

According to the article in the Merc, there are at least three methods
being used by different vendors.

> methinks we might
>be ready for some sort of law requiring code escrow or other means of
>ensuring the consumer's right to access that which s/he has paid for. I
>wonder how long it will be before one of these schemes falls victim to a
>lawsuit, bankruptcy, or other business calamity.

There was one technique, tried a few years ago, which I figured was
*really* cruising for a lawsuit. I don't think it ever happened, but
the technique was (I believe) withdrawn from the market when it proved
embarrassingly easy to defeat.

The technique was one that Sony (I think) tried. They'd master the CD
as a multisession disc, but with the second session's lead-in being
badly malformed. A standard Red Book CD player (a single-session
device by definition) would never look for the second session and
would play the disc just fine. Computer CD-ROM drives would try to
find the second session, fail, declare the disc to be unreadable, and
eject it.

Or, so the theory went. It turned out to have a couple of flaws.
Simply making the second session completely unreadable (with e.g. a
Sharpie brand permanent marker) allowed most CD-ROM drives to read the
disc. Embarrassing, and it's why they withdrew the technique.

The other problem with it was that a fair number of CD-ROM drives
didn't eject the disc - they got "hung", trying over and over to read
the defective session header, and wouldn't respond to software
commands *or* to the front-panel eject button! This could require the
use of a paperclip in the eject hole, to mechanically eject the CD.

This latter was the vulnerability, because there are a significant
number of drives which don't have the eject buttons... slot-loading
drives in some PCs, and (heh, heh) the slot-loading CD drives in some
automobile CD players.

Can you imagine the reaction if people bought a CD, inserted it into
their CD player's dash, it wouldn't play, it wouldn't eject, and they
had to take the car back to the dealership and have the dealer pull
the CD player out of the dash to force it to disgorge the disc?

Can you say class-action lawsuit?

My own idea is to pick out a bunch of albums that I or my wife would
be interested in, take them up to the counter in the store, and then
say "Oh, these won't play in our computer. Please tell your manager
that you just lost a $100 sale because you're selling defective
merchandise" and walk out.

If enough people do this (maybe whistling "Alice's Restaurant" on the
way out the door) maybe they'll think it's a Movement.

--
Dave Platt <dplatt@radagast.org> AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,comp.multimedia,microsoft.public.multimedia.windows.mediaplayer (More info?)

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 00:50:17 +0000, Dave Platt wrote:

<snip>
>
> My own idea is to pick out a bunch of albums that I or my wife would
> be interested in, take them up to the counter in the store, and then
> say "Oh, these won't play in our computer. Please tell your manager
> that you just lost a $100 sale because you're selling defective
> merchandise" and walk out.
>
> If enough people do this (maybe whistling "Alice's Restaurant" on the
> way out the door) maybe they'll think it's a Movement.


Yep - I like that!

<sings> "You can get anything you want..." ;-)

At the end of the day, though, how much will DRM help protect against
music piracy? People will still copy music via analogue. They will still
distribute it to all their friends. OK, it stops the bulk fraudsters
making bit-perfect copies but Joe & Alice Bloggs don't often care whether
the music is bit-perfect or not. As an example, my father-in-law can quite
happily listen to c&w ripped at 64kbps all day. (poor sod...). Do the DRM
people really believe that the bulk fraudsters are incapable of copying
and selling analogue copies now?

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info
Web: http://projectedsound.tk

Archived from groups: rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 12:16:56 GMT, mick <mick@mixtel.co.uk> wrote:

>At the end of the day, though, how much will DRM help protect against
>music piracy?

You forget the other angle. A LOT of the whole "piracy" nonsense is
nothing more than hype, and copy protection schemes are part of the hype.
(That's why they're all so ridiculous--they aren't really thinking about
this.) The music industry has to keep up the image of how victimized they
are, so they can continue to push for free money from lawmakers (like they
got with "Music" CD-Rs).





_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,comp.multimedia,microsoft.public.multimedia.windows.mediaplayer (More info?)

Kurt said:

>Unless the companies can all agree on some >standard, methinks we might
>be ready for some sort of law requiring code >escrow or other means of
>ensuring the consumer's right to access that >which s/he has paid for.

How about letting the marketplace sort it out? Government almost never
gets it right and it's not any sort of right to be able to copy someone
else's work without paying them. Then there's the fact that none of
the software is owned by consumers, they are simply given permission to
use it.

I
>wonder how long it will be before one of these >schemes falls victim to a
>lawsuit, bankruptcy, or other business >calamity.

One could always copy it to a variety of formats and save them until
the market sorts it out.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,comp.multimedia,microsoft.public.multimedia.windows.mediaplayer (More info?)

In article <pY4se.62744$PR6.44033@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
Logan Shaw <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote:

>> Another concer is that United States law grants consumers the specific
>> privilege of making copies of copyrighted music CDs, under certain
>> conditions (i.e. using CD recorders which implement SCMS, have had a
>> royalty paid, and which require the use of royalty-paid "consumer
>> audio CD-R" blanks, and in a noncommercial context only). These
>> anti-ripping techniques seem likely to make such legally-authorized
>> copying impossible.
>
>Yes, the law protects the buyer's right to do that, but does it
>require the vendor to make it easy for the buyer to make a
>bit-perfect copy with the equipment that the buyer may already
>have handy? I don't think so.

No, it doesn't. My concern is more of a philosophical one than a
legal one, on this issue.

>That said, I'm still against crippling CDs.
>
>Plus, with the increasing use of iTunes and iPod and all that type
>stuff, doesn't it seem that if people try to put a CD in their
>computer drive and put the song in iTunes, and they can't, that
>they will stop wanting to buy CDs and will just look for the
>song online somewhere? That's what I would do if my primary
>listening system were iTunes or Windows Media Player or whatever.
>And lots of people these days don't even *have* a stereo and just
>use the computer instead.

Yup, that's definitely a possible reaction to all of the CD-copy-
protection techniques. It may push buyers to a different marketplace.

However, if it does, it could increase the pressure towards a shift
I've become concerned about - the possibility that music sellers may
cease offering their music in a high-fidelity format (e.g. CD or
better) and may offer it only in lower-fidelity, Walkman-grade
lossy-encoded formats.

Back in the late 1970s and early 1980s, I stopped buying LPs almost
entirely, when the physical quality control of the U.S. record
industry got so bad that I ended up having to return most LPs for
exchange at least once (and often twice) to get a copy which didn't
have grossly-objectionable physical defects and noise levels which
made it unpleasant to play. I didn't start buying music again until
CDs were widely available and the first round of mastering problems
were dealt with. I guess I'm afraid that things are headed back in
the other direction - the bad is driving out the good once again.

--
Dave Platt <dplatt@radagast.org> AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,comp.multimedia,microsoft.public.multimedia.windows.mediaplayer (More info?)

As long as there will be WMP the end user is very unlikely to pay any format
license from MSFT.
If/when MS decides to apply higher royalties your device manufacturer will
pay for them.
The problem here is that some people likes to criticize Microsoft no matter
the topic because "it's cool" in some restricted circles.
Unluckily for them MPEG and MP3 royalties are higher than MSFT ones over
WMA/WMV and not the opposite, proving the whole arguing is a moot point at
best.

If you think CDs are too pricey just do what any smart customer would: wait
a couple of years and if they are good enough (rare thing today) to stand
the test of time you'll find them at nicely discounted prices.

End of this NG flaming.
"Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fradndK5mM6CQi_fRVn-uw@speakeasy.net...
> Kurt Albershardt wrote:
>> What happens when/if MS decides...
>
> Which matters nothing until the other formats put forth the effort to be
> as playable on as many different devices as the MS formats.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,comp.multimedia,microsoft.public.multimedia.windows.mediaplayer (More info?)

> And yes, I keep talking about DVD player/recorders because CD is a
> backwards
> compatible product now. I can burn CDs on my DVD burner at 42X and on my
> CD
> recorder at 52X. At that point, why would anyone have both? Of course,
> with Plextools I can see that my DVD burned CDs don't hold a candle to my
> CD
> burned CDs, but for the average person, as long as it plays, who cares?
> --

That's something that would need a thread on its own... As the CDFS is
designed to be VERY redundant and so quite error resistant it would be
interesting to do a lossless RIP on CD tracks burned with different devices
and then compare the files bit per bit.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,comp.multimedia,microsoft.public.multimedia.windows.mediaplayer (More info?)

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:42b3c91a$0$15763$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

> If they DON'T stand the test of time, you will find them in the
> remainder/bargain bins a lot sooner, and probably a lot cheaper.
> OTOH some of the biggies still sell near full price decades later.
>

Well, i can usually find the music i listen at half the price (Mark Knopfler
just rocks) except for the very latest albums.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,comp.multimedia,microsoft.public.multimedia.windows.mediaplayer (More info?)

I have decided to (lossless) rip all my CDs with EAC and FLAC. I did
some research and came up with what I believe are the settings that
will give me the best possible results. Nevertheless, I am a novice
with these programs so before I start my big rip job I would like to
have some input from you guys. The settings for FLAC are:

--best -T "artist=%a" -T "title=%t" -T "album=%g" -T "date=%y" -T
"tracknumber=%n" -T "genre=%m" -T "comment=EAC 0.95beta2 / FLAC 1.1.2
--best" %s %d

The settings for EAC are here:

http://xrl.us/ggcm

Any input is highly appreciated.

Regards,
Rob




> I don't know that it "proves" anything as much as it's a statement of the
> current situation. Let's not make seemingly monumental leaps of logic here.
> But the fact that even my DVD player is both Mpeg and WMA playback
> compatible says that regardless of the licensing fees, it's obviously viable
> enough for the DVD player manufacturers to license the technologies. My
> current DVD player also handles SACD and DVD-Audio. Worth the price to me
> and obviously worth the licensing fees the manufacturers pay. If MS wanted
> to dump WMA and manufacturers still had licensing time left on their
> contract, it wouldn't disappear overnight. And since something like a DVD
> player is becoming ubiquitious, it behooves any manfacturer to support any
> and all formats available. Hell, the newest DVD players also support
> upscaling to 720p/768p and 1080i. Matrox has video processing chips that
> kick butt, as does NVidea and others. The cost is cheap enough to continue
> supporting formats that are no longer licensed and even those that haven't
> been invented yet.
>
> And yes, I keep talking about DVD player/recorders because CD is a backwards
> compatible product now. I can burn CDs on my DVD burner at 42X and on my CD
> recorder at 52X. At that point, why would anyone have both? Of course,
> with Plextools I can see that my DVD burned CDs don't hold a candle to my CD
> burned CDs, but for the average person, as long as it plays, who cares?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,comp.multimedia,microsoft.public.multimedia.windows.mediaplayer (More info?)

Zarax wrote:
>
> The problem here is that some people likes to criticize Microsoft no matter
> the topic because "it's cool" in some restricted circles.

The "problem" is that some of us have been in this business long enough
to understand what proprietary closed formats can do to our data. File
formats and network protocols work best when they are open. This
fosters innovation and competition, which few of us would argue are
unhealthy.




> Unluckily for them MPEG and MP3 royalties are higher than MSFT ones over
> WMA/WMV and not the opposite, proving the whole arguing is a moot point at
> best.

MPEG at least has a semi-open standards process with multiple companies
participating. Let's not forget that part of the MP3 success has been
due to the parallel evolution of compatible open-source codecs (which
may still infringe technically, but the marketplace effect is that of a
free codec.)

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,comp.multimedia,microsoft.public.multimedia.windows.mediaplayer (More info?)

none <Vampyres@nettaxi.com> writes:

> I doubt car theft is though. The reason you'd make a copy of your
> CD's for car use is heat. Never had one warp from the extreme heat
> inside a car in July?

No, but i'd like to

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,comp.multimedia,microsoft.public.multimedia.windows.mediaplayer (More info?)

"Dave Platt" <dplatt@radagast.org> wrote in message
news:11b1j69jse31e29@corp.supernews.com...

> If enough people do this (maybe whistling "Alice's Restaurant" on the
> way out the door) maybe they'll think it's a Movement.

Aside: for those who may be unaware, Arlo Guthrie did a new version of
Alice's Restaurant a few years ago. It's pretty funny, but I can't say why
without ruining it.

Anyway I downloaded it from emusic.com ... it was well worth the 25 cents
.... :-)

Tim

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

rob wrote:
>
> I want to rip all my CDs to a lossless format. The big question is what
> program should I use. wma seems to be the most supported lossless codec

Supported by what? It's a proprietary codec, not what I'd choose to
archive anything inportant with.

<http://flac.sourceforge.net/>




> I have CDs that
> have some scratches so I am looking for a program that handles such CDs
> well. Here are my requirements:
>
> 1) Album, song, artist, etc information must be automatically retrieved
> from a db, hopefully one that doesn't have too many errors and one that
> has many records (I have many unusual CDs).
>
> 2) The program has to handle scratched CDs well. Preferably, the
> program reads the content of the CD at least twice, compares the two
> results and then takes corrective actions (reads again and if
> unsucessful interpolates values)
>
> 3) I don't care how long it takes to rip one CD (well, hopefully less
> then 2 hour/CD) as long as I don't have to interact with the program
> when it's doing its thing.

<http://exactaudiocopy.de/> as Chris mentioned. Works well with FLAC,
and does all of the above.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 14 Jun 2005 21:20:27 -0700, "rob" <rmdiv2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Chris,
>
>Thanks for the input. What do you mean with crosspost? Are you saying I
>should not post to several groups at the same time? I thought that's
>exactly what I should do if the question is appropriate to different
>groups instead of posting seperate questions to each group.
>
>I've heard of exact audio copy. Do you think it does an equally good
>job regarding the album database compared to MS mediaplayer 10?

Since you've responded in this newsgroup (and, I don't know the
answer to your question!), I've misjudged you. I'm sorry;
just a geezer who values some old outmoded models for society.

But to continue in my geezery mode, Just Say No to MS WhatEver
Version XX.

Thanks for the Insurrection, and now returning you to the Channel
of your choice,

Chris Hornbeck

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Kurt,

Thanks for your reply. I have a few questions, though.

1) You say flac has better support then wma. If I look at all the
software and hardware out there there seem to be fewer SW/HW that
support flac then wma. So why would you go with flac?

2) wma might be a proprietary codec from MS. Nevertheless, MS is so big
and has so huge financial power that wma might be more likely to be
around 10 years from now then flac. So why would you go with flac?

3) I am concerned about DRM (Digital Right Managment). As far as I know
I can make backup copies of all my CDs (I have many). Therefore, I
don't want to see any error message x years down the road (after my CDs
are not readable anymore) telling me I can't copy my files to another
computer one more time. Does flac have any advnatage over wma in this
regard?

4) I will use my lossless (wma) files mainly for archiving. For my ipod
(or any other device) I still will use some lossy (at high quality
setting) codec. Which codec (wma/flac) has better support to
automatically convert to a lossy format? Again, I don't care how long
the conversion takes as long as my interaction with the program is
minimalized.

Regards,
Rob

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

rob wrote:
>I am kind of confused now....
>
> Regards,
> Rob

Rob, don't worry about it...some folks are just a bit uptight...

BTW, I recommend EAC highly! It's the BEST! ;-)

--
--Scot
www.RonnieJamesDio.org
www.SMCProductions.org
www.CraigGoldy.org
www.TonyIommi.org
www.ScotClayton.org
http://scotclayton.blogspot.com/

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

rob wrote:
>
> 1) You say flac has better support then wma. If I look at all the
> software and hardware out there there seem to be fewer SW/HW that
> support flac then wma. So why would you go with flac?

It's open source. It runs on damn near any OS you can find. Because
the source code is public, I have reasonable faith that it will still be
available in the future, regardless of who buys whom and of what sort of
computer I am using a the time. FLAC is gaining hardware support, BTW.





> 2) wma might be a proprietary codec from MS. Nevertheless, MS is so big
> and has so huge financial power that wma might be more likely to be
> around 10 years from now then flac. So why would you go with flac?

See above.



> 3) I am concerned about DRM (Digital Right Managment). As far as I know
> I can make backup copies of all my CDs (I have many). Therefore, I
> don't want to see any error message x years down the road (after my CDs
> are not readable anymore) telling me I can't copy my files to another
> computer one more time. Does flac have any advnatage over wma in this
> regard?

Yes -- it's open source and royalty free.




> 4) I will use my lossless (wma) files mainly for archiving. For my ipod
> (or any other device) I still will use some lossy (at high quality
> setting) codec. Which codec (wma/flac) has better support to
> automatically convert to a lossy format? Again, I don't care how long
> the conversion takes as long as my interaction with the program is
> minimalized.

That's not up to the codec, it's up to the apps you use. FLAC files can
be easily converted to MP3/MP4/ogg/etc. using something like Foobar 2000
(or any number of command-line setups.)

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"rob" <rmdiv2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1118806538.219748.204230@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Dear All,
>
> I want to rip all my CDs to a lossless format. The big question is what
> program should I use. wma seems to be the most supported lossless
> codec so I think that is what I will go for.

At least you can burn CDs with .wma files using WMP that will play
back successfully in the vast majority of standard consumer CD
players.

The problem is that other software media players or editors will likely
not be able to access or use the .wma files.

> Unfortunately, I have CDs that have some scratches so I am looking for
> a program that handles such CDs well.

When ripping, that won't necessarily be solely the function of the software
program, but will depend as much on the drive being used to do the rip,
the condition of the CD, and the buss speeds.

> Here are my requirements:
>
> 1) Album, song, artist, etc information must be automatically retrieved
> from a db, hopefully one that doesn't have too many errors and one that
> has many records (I have many unusual CDs).

I realize this is the trend, but allowing software to access a remote internet
database for gathering data about the files being ripped, could be hazardous
in a number of ways... from reporting your activities to another database to
getting false results and possibly even opening the door to spyware entering
your PC.

> 2) The program has to handle scratched CDs well. Preferably, the
> program reads the content of the CD at least twice, compares the two
> results and then takes corrective actions (reads again and if
> unsucessful interpolates values)

I can't help much in this area. I have used EAC (exact audio copy)
until I decided to go ahead with putting some serious pro software
on my internet box to do this. A lot of pro software that rips with great
accuracy, doesn't pull any meta data from the CD and isn't designed
to be accessing the internet. However, the pro software will extract
the full, data-rich CDaudio format... that being .wav files at 16bit,
44.1Khz. IE, no loss what so ever.

> 3) I don't care how long it takes to rip one CD (well, hopefully less
> then 2 hour/CD) as long as I don't have to interact with the program
> when it's doing its thing.

That time frame is generous... you can usually rip at 8X normal speed
and still get fine results as long as the drive and the FSB can accomodate
the speed.

> Any suggestions are highly appreciated.

The two most popular free ones have been mentioned. But if there's a
chance you may want to manipulate the files in any way, you may need
something in the not-so-freeware category and transcribe the needed
information by hand.

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s.com
Morgan Audio Media Service
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_______________________________________
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

David,

Thanks for that response. Honestly, I haven't thought about this aspect
yet but what you are saying makes a lot of sense.

Thanks,
Rob

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
> "rob" <rmdiv2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message...

>>People explained me that if somebody replies to a question posted to
>>multiple NGs the answer goes to each NG where the question was sent to.
>>If I would post to each NG separately the answer would go to only one
>>NG but not the others.

> That's correct. Groups are collections of people that come together
> with common interests... therefore if you post to five groups (which
> is the maximum allowed by some newreaders and most ISPs), then
> the responses of total strangers will show up in each group, unless the
> respondent is sharp enough to actually remove the unrelated groups
> from his response. If the original poster is subscribing to each group for
> gathering his responses, this can't happen.

While you do have a point here, you are missing two important things,
in my opinion:

1. 5 or 6 groups is too many, period, no matter what technique you use.

2. If the groups are at ALL related, then multiposting can create
some annoying situations, like people having already answered your
question satisfactorily, then others taking the time to answer
a question that has already been answered and doesn't need another
answer. Also, any good Usenet client will track the original
post across all the groups. This means that if someone subscribes
to multiple groups in the list, they will see your article twice
or more. This is totally plausible if the groups are related,
as in the case of the post that started this thread. That post
included rec.audio.pro, rec.audio.misc, and rec.audio.tech. It's
totally possible that someone could read all three and have to see
the article three times.

> It's considered poor netiquette to crosspost to diversified groups because
> the multitude of responses that can end up appearing in possibly unrelated
> groups due to not editing the TO: line before responding,

There is no TO: line, nor is there a To: line. It's a Newsgroups: line,
because Usenet is not e-mail. :-)

> may be quite diverse,
> even perhaps in contradiction to the opinions of some of the respondents
> from other, unfamiliar groups. This can lead to flame wars and ill will
> between people who have never come together before.

This is why it is important, if you do cross-post, to very clearly
announce that you have crossposted (not just in the Newsgroups:
header) and be sure not to say anything that is inflammatory or that
will lead to inflammatory stuff.

In some cases, it can be helpful, also, to set the "Followups-To:"
header. This puts your post in multiple groups at once, but it
tells the Usenet clients of anyone who replies to you to put
post to a different (usually shorter, quite often just one group)
list of groups. If you do this, the same rule about putting a
conspicuous warning applies; otherwise, people may think you are
intentionally trying to trick them into replying to a group they
weren't expecting.

> This is why Chris figured that you'ld never
> see his response. He (as most will) assumed that you were subscribing
> to only one of the groups you crossposted to, therefore would never see a
> reply from rec.audio.pro.

Huh? All crossposted posts show up in all the groups in the
Newsgroups: line. And that also applies to all the replies to
the post, which get the same Newsgroups: line as the post
they are a reply to. That is, unless the poster manually
changes it or unless the Followups-To: header was been used
on the one being replied to.

In other words, the only reasons for the original poster not to
see Chris's response are:

1. Chris has an oddball Usenet client that resets the
Newsgroups: header in a way most Usenet clients don't, or
2. Chris doesn't like crossposting and intentionally removed
all but rec.audio.pro so that he himself wouldn't be
crossposting when he made his reply.

In normal cases, the people in all the groups would see
all the replies.

- Logan