Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Lossless Ripping (wma) & Scratched CDs

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
June 15, 2005 12:35:38 AM

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

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.

Any suggestions are highly appreciated.

Regards,
Rob
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 1:02:51 AM

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/&gt;




> 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/&gt; as Chris mentioned. Works well with FLAC,
and does all of the above.
June 15, 2005 1:20:27 AM

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

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?

Thanks,
Rob
Related resources
June 15, 2005 1:56:50 AM

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
June 15, 2005 2:09:33 AM

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

Ricky,

Thanks for the input. Actually, I thought it's just the other way
around. Before I had people complain that I was asking the same
question in different groups separately. But according to your post I
am supposed to post the same question to each appropriate group
individually.

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. I am kind of confused now....

Regards,
Rob
June 15, 2005 2:40:13 AM

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

Scot,

Thanks for your reply. I read some good comments about EAC before. I
just wanted to get some more confirmation before spending countless
hours ripping CDs just to find out that the program I used wasn't the
best, i.e. I spent more countless hours updating song/album titles,
re-ripping problem CDs, etc.

Thanks,
Rob
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 2:54:33 AM

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.)
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 2:56:00 AM

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

rob wrote:
>
> 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?

EAC can retrieve track names & times from pretty much any CDDB-compliant
DB you want. What happens if MS decides to start charging for access to
their DB?
June 15, 2005 3:43:15 AM

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
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 7:51:30 AM

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

On 14 Jun 2005 20:35:38 -0700, "rob" <rmdiv2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Any suggestions are highly appreciated.

1) Don't crosspost. It's rude.

2) Exact Audio Copy.

3) Because you're crossposting, you won't even see this.
Hence the rudeness issue.

Chris Hornbeck
"Foster Dulles went inside to order Princess Beatrice
a Molotov cocktail. When it was served, she drank it down
in one gulp" -JLG _Sympathy for the Devil_ 1969
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 8:36:32 AM

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
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 8:40:21 AM

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

"rob" <rmdiv2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118809227.913931.10260@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> 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.
>

He means if you're going to post to multiple groups do a separate post for
each one. Don't put 5 or 6 different NGs names in the "To:" field.
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 10:00:10 AM

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
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 10:20:29 AM

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

"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. I am kind of confused now....


Hi Bob,

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. In that case, a post to each
individual group will garner energetic results and perhaps even extended
conversations whithin the individual groups by the people who are used
to dealing with one another specifically in those respective groups. Some
great information can come from the conversations that may subsequently
develop among members of a group that are comfortable interacting with
one another and have been doing so for years.

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, 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.

Microsoft groups for example, are very closed and rely on a small group
known as MVPs to respond. The comp.multimedia group is independent,
like this group... but I'd venture to say that there aren't too many folks there
who really understand what a data-rich audio is, like this group does well.

Anyway, I think you'll have a grip on crossposting shortly. The wise and
experienced members of each group will understand this and will probably
edit their posts before replying. 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.

Good luck...

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
Morgan Audio Media Service
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_______________________________________
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 11:22:01 AM

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

Ricky Hunt wrote:
> "rob" <rmdiv2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1118809227.913931.10260@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>>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.

> He means if you're going to post to multiple groups do a separate post for
> each one. Don't put 5 or 6 different NGs names in the "To:" field.

No!!!!

That's multi-posting. It's not a solution. It's even worse, IMHO!

The answer is:

If you're going to cross-post, be very judicious about it.
If you're going to cross-post, don't include more than 2 or 3 groups.
If you're going to cross-post, warn everyone clearly in the text
of your messages that you have cross-posted.

There is no right way to post the same question to 5 or 6 groups.
That's because it's just too many newsgroups to be posting the
question to in the first place.

- Logan
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 11:37:35 AM

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
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 11:57:54 AM

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

rob wrote:
> 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?

The problem with WMA is that you have a single point of failure.
Let's say that in 5 years MS decides lossless audio isn't a
priority for their latest player. Or let's say that they invent
a better lossless codec. It's quite possible they might just
unilaterally decide to kill the WMA lossless format. For all
you know, you could do a Windows Update one day (or upgrade to
the latest OS) and find that the codec no longer can read your
files or that the codec no longer exists.

However, with flac, there are tons of programs that support it,
and it is impossible to have someone make a unilateral decision
that it will be removed or no longer supported, because there is
no one entity that's in charge of all the software that supports
flac. If the flac web site were to disappear, others would have
copies of the source code, and, because of the license, they
would be free to create another web site and resurrect the
project if there is enough interest that someone bothers. This
kind of thing has often happened with open source software; for
instance, one of the two main developers of the popular general
purpose compression library "zlib" decided not to be involved
with the project anymore, and his zlib site has grown out of date.
Now one of the other people related to the project has taken
over and made zlib.net the main web site.

> 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?

If you look at the list of goals on the flac projects page, you
will see a list of 7 goals for flac. For example, "FLAC should
be lossless" and "FLAC should allow at least realtime decoding
on even modest hardware". The same page has two anti-goals (things
that flac wants to avoid). One of them is "Copy prevention of
any kind."

In other words, one of the stated goals of the flac project is
for the flac format not to ever have any kind of restrictions on
how you can use your data that you put (or someone else) puts
into it.

> 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?

99.999% of all software that does format conversion for audio
is going to do it by first converting the source compression
format to plain vanilla PCM, then converting the PCM into
the destination compression format. So, with any software
written by anyone that has half a clue, as long as the software
supports the format, converting between any two given formats
is just as easy as converting between any two other formats.

- Logan
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 1:41:28 PM

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

In article <1118809227.913931.10260@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> rmdiv2000@yahoo.com writes:

> 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.

It may be appropriate to ask the question to several newsgroups, but
it's often inappropriate to promote discussion in several newsgroups
at a time. If you're clever enough to configure your newsreader to put
a line in your message header that directs replies to the one
newsgroup that you read regularly, then do that. That way, all
replies, regardless of where they come from, will go to where you can
read them, but won't start flame wars that will also be carried by
newsgroups who would rather not see them.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 2:22:27 PM

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 so I think that is what I will go for.

<I'm going to slough this issue as much has already been
said about it>


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

IME scratched CD handling is as much a CDROM drive issue as
anything else. Someone else said Plextor, right?

> 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).

That's known as CDDB support, which is fairly universal.

> 2) The program has to handle scratched CDs well.

See former comments about drive issues.

IME the two best CD rippers out there are CDEX and EAC. Both
are freeware and excellent, but they seem do work best with
different drives.

> 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)

That's not how most software works. They are more dynamic -
rereading as required, on-the-fly.

> 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.

Some manual editing may be required for the best possible
results.
June 15, 2005 3:44:09 PM

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

Personally, I'd go through the work of polishing the CDs if you're
concerned. Generally, AFAIK, scratches branching straight out along the
disk will have no impact on the read, unless they're severe; scratches
following the curve of the CD tend to be worse on the reads. In that
case, I expect you'd need to polish it. I've never heard of an app that
averages out values on reads - I don't even know that that would apply,
given that you're working with digital information. Seems to me that
each read will be identical.

As to software, MusicMatch Jukebox is an easy option to rip. It
connects to an online db, and returns artist and track information. You
can customize how the rip filenames are written, too - which order the
fields will be in, how the files are numbered, etc.

Not sure how many plugins it has nowadays for various formats; If in
doubt, I'd rip to PCM wav, and then use an external app to convert to a
lossless format of your choice.

DW
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 4:05:59 PM

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

DW wrote:
> Personally, I'd go through the work of polishing the CDs if you're
> concerned. Generally, AFAIK, scratches branching straight out along the
> disk will have no impact on the read, unless they're severe; scratches
> following the curve of the CD tend to be worse on the reads. In that
> case, I expect you'd need to polish it.

Agreed, and I've done this with out of print discs.



> I've never heard of an app that
> averages out values on reads - I don't even know that that would apply,
> given that you're working with digital information. Seems to me that
> each read will be identical.

Reading at different speeds often produces different error
distributions. EAC and similar apps go back and forth over a difficult
section at different speeds and apply some specialized DSP algorithms to
try and extract an error-free track. Doesn't work 100% of the time, but
sometimes it can save your butt.




> If in doubt, I'd rip to PCM wav, and then use an external app to
> convert to a lossless format of your choice.

No problem for the essence, but your metadata will probably get lost in
that process.
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 4:48:29 PM

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

"rob" <rmdiv2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118812173.387910.245660@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Ricky,
>
> Thanks for the input. Actually, I thought it's just the other way
> around.

I used to to (and got yelled at for doing it) and it does make more sense to
do it that way. After all, once the answer comes on any newsgroup then the
thread can be over. The problem has come because now 75% of what gets posted
to any thread has nothing to do with the thread and generally degenerates
into a flame war or useless information that has nothing to do with the
original thread and certainly nothing the other NG's want to hear about. So
it IS the best way if everyone acted like they should but that'll be a cold
day in hell...
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 5:37:47 PM

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

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 06:00:10 GMT, David Morgan (MAMS)
<mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:

>
>> 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.
>


What pro software are you talking about David? I'm not aware of anything
that does a better job than EAC and only one other program that can equal
it - Plextools. They both extract to .wav files if you want them to and
can use either CD Text data on the CD or an Internet database. If you are
worried about hooking your machine up to the net then you can download the
Freedb database and store it on your local machine - that's what I do with
my studio computer.

I'd seriously suggest archiving to .wav files rather than messing around
with lossless compression. Hard drive space is so cheap nowadays that
lossless compression is becoming superfluous.

Cheers.

James.
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 5:37:48 PM

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

James Perrett wrote:
>
> I'd seriously suggest archiving to .wav files rather than messing
> around with lossless compression. Hard drive space is so cheap nowadays
> that lossless compression is becoming superfluous.

Offhand, I can think of two advantages FLAC offers over WAV: Metadata
support and error checking.

WAV files can't store artist, album, track, etc. the way FLAC and MP3
can -- at least not using any schema supported by consumer players.

Lacking a checksum, a one-bit error in a WAV file is undetectable and
will probably produce a pop/tick artifact.
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 5:37:49 PM

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

"Kurt Albershardt" wrote ...
> James Perrett wrote:
>>
>> I'd seriously suggest archiving to .wav files rather than messing
>> around with lossless compression. Hard drive space is so cheap
>> nowadays that lossless compression is becoming superfluous.
>
> Offhand, I can think of two advantages FLAC offers over WAV: Metadata
> support

RIFF (of which WAV is one codec) supports whatever metadata you
wish. http://www.neurophys.wisc.edu/auditory/riff-format.txt

> and error checking.

Error detection/correction is a function of the underlying file system
and device infrastructure.

> WAV files can't store artist, album, track, etc. the way FLAC and MP3
> can -- at least not using any schema supported by consumer players.

That is a function of the applications/devices. Not a limitation of the
RIFF/WAV file structure.

> Lacking a checksum, a one-bit error in a WAV file is undetectable and
> will probably produce a pop/tick artifact.

WAV files have the same error detection and correction as any other
computer files. If you think a one-bit error would cause an audible
artifact in a WAV file, what do you think it would do in an executable
like the newsreader application you are using right now? :-)
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 9:43:27 PM

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

"Kurt Albershardt" <kurt@nv.net> wrote in message
news:3hb621Fga4rtU1@individual.net...
> James Perrett wrote:
> >
> > I'd seriously suggest archiving to .wav files rather than messing
> > around with lossless compression. Hard drive space is so cheap nowadays
> > that lossless compression is becoming superfluous.
>
> Offhand, I can think of two advantages FLAC offers over WAV: Metadata
> support and error checking.
>
> WAV files can't store artist, album, track, etc. the way FLAC and MP3
> can -- at least not using any schema supported by consumer players.
>
> Lacking a checksum, a one-bit error in a WAV file is undetectable and
> will probably produce a pop/tick artifact.
>
>

OK, so now we are getting pretty far off base, but it's worth the OT
discussion for me to step in when I said I wouldn't.

We have a couple of problems. One is the OP asking about ripping CDs, which
means one thing, and then the discussion of lossless compression, which Kurt
brings up a good point on, that being data for archival purposes, something
that is totally different to the average person than the professional, and
then we are at an impasse. Why? Because we don't know enough yet about the
physical viability of data storage media in the first place, and, as Kurt
points out, Metadata headers may or may not be the way to be able to
retrieve data in the future. It's far more likely that some congruence of
technologies will ultimately give us the ability to do any type of digital
archiving for the future because the amount of data available to use in
Metadata isn't inclusive enough to allow for future storage retrieval of
vast amounts of information. More than likely Metadata headers will
ultimately become data storage pointers to massive databases that don't
store the actual raw data of a wave file or a "lossless" format at all.
Without the interaction of a living database the vast amount of material
will simply be lost over time because of the inability to actually translate
the data into something that our systems will be able to use. Even this
lack will be overcome within 5 years.

But for this young man, moving CDs to disk isn't going to be a long term
storage solution one way or the other. It will allow quick access provided
one has enough disk space but it's short term regardless of whether one may
try to archive said files in any proprietary format or not and even if it
suffices for 5 years or more. Proprietary formats will go the way of the
dinosaur while integration of databases and raw data will become pennies
worth of cost for hours worth of entertainment. And why not? It doesn't
require people to maintain for the most part. It doesn't require tens of
thousands of sq feet of storage space. Just those two things are 90% of the
costs.

There have been some good concepts provided in terms of long term digital
music storage in some of the rags of late. Most of it is fine for what it
is and understanding that any format will probably have to be re-archived in
the future, but only if the functions of data storage and retrieval cannot
be overcome. Metadata is fine for now, but like ethernet addressesses, it's
a finite situation. If it were to last more than 10 years without morphing
into something else I'd be amazed.

Look at it this way. 90% of all programmers in the 80s and 90s were
spending their time trying to get data from old flat file databases for use
in more widely used three-dimensional databases (while people were dying and
making a lot of that data worthless), and then fixing those old databases
for the Y2K bug. That means that only 10% of all programming has gone to
solutions for future implementation. It's a shame, but one cannot
accurately predict the future on all points. Lossless compression is pretty
much a dream and storage has become cheap enough that it shouldn't be a
problem from here on. Blu-Ray and other technologies will keep storage
cheaper than the value of the data stored. It will really be a matter of
whether one can read the data into some useful application and whether
anyone actually needs the data in the first place (two decidedly different
subjects).

How this works out in the future will probably come down to certain amounts
of data, such as Bobby Darin's recording of Mac the Knife at the Copa in
1952 being held in ONE PLACE ONLY, and truthfully, there's no reason to
expect it to be held in any other location once data acquisition speeds come
up to par as a norm for the majority of people. I am on RCN (used to be
Starpower here in the DC area) and tested (via BandWidthPlace.com) my
internet connection today and came up with 8 Mb/s. Probably a lot of this
internet music sharing will go away when a product is readily available from
a single source at a reasonable price and it won't be compressed and won't
have the intermediate judgements of what sounds OK enough for those
compression parameters.

I'd suggest people read Thom Friedman's The World Is Flat to get a grasp on
this. Once data transfer is solved, data storage is solved. I have no
problems with playing a file off the internet in it's raw data format if I
can listen to it unadulterated. If I want to listen I simply tell my
computer what I want to listen to and it finds it, wherever it is in the
world. I spoke about this 10 years ago and I still hold that this will be
the ultimate outcome of the technological advances we are making.

The pity is that we have no new young people who understand this too,
because it means we've lost the edge that we started out with 40 years ago
in computer technology.
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 9:43:28 PM

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

Roger W. Norman wrote:
> "Kurt Albershardt" <kurt@nv.net> wrote in message
> news:3hb621Fga4rtU1@individual.net...
>
>> WAV files can't store artist, album, track, etc. the way FLAC and MP3
>> can -- at least not using any schema supported by consumer players.
>
>
> More than likely Metadata headers will
> ultimately become data storage pointers to massive databases that don't
> store the actual raw data of a wave file or a "lossless" format at all.

I'll agree with respect to commercial recordings, but how would this
apply to the multitude of unpublished noncommercial recordings? Storing
the metadata with the essence makes a lot of sense there.



> Without the interaction of a living database the vast amount of material
> will simply be lost over time because of the inability to actually translate
> the data into something that our systems will be able to use. Even this
> lack will be overcome within 5 years.

Maybe. I'll bet PCM (as variants of RIFF) file formats are going to be
around for a long, long time.




> moving CDs to disk isn't going to be a long term
> storage solution one way or the other. It will allow quick access provided
> one has enough disk space but it's short term regardless of whether one may
> try to archive said files in any proprietary format or not

Using FLAC, I will most likely have all the tracks I care about from my
several thousand CD collection stored on hard drives within the next
year or two. Within five years, it should all fit on a single optical
disc or a solid state portable of some sort.




> Lossless compression is pretty much a dream and storage has become
> cheap enough that it shouldn't be a problem from here on.

Most lossless PCM compression schemes address another issue that hasn't
been mentioned here, and that's bitrate. Many of today's media (and
sometimes I/O architectures) fall short of the throughput requirements
for high samplerate PCM. Most offer the side benefit of error checking
in that if they play back, there is an implicit validity to the
retrieved data stream (and they can at least tell you if there are
problems with it.) OTOH small errors that might produce pops or ticks
in raw PCM can render compressed files indecipherable -- hardly the best
situation for a true archive.




> I'd suggest people read Thom Friedman's The World Is Flat

So would I!
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 11:00:38 PM

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

On 14 Jun 2005 22:40:13 -0700, "rob" <rmdiv2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Scot,
>
>Thanks for your reply. I read some good comments about EAC before. I
>just wanted to get some more confirmation before spending countless
>hours ripping CDs just to find out that the program I used wasn't the
>best, i.e. I spent more countless hours updating song/album titles,
>re-ripping problem CDs, etc.

EAC is probably the best for CD's that have an undamaged table of
contents (or whatever it's called), which is all "good" CD's and most
lightly-damaged CD's. But once you've got a good .wav file it really
shouldn't matter which program you used to rip the CD.
If a CD is badly damaged enough, EAC (and most other things) can't
read the TOC and won't read the data at all, but there are others
(I've got one I've used, but don't remember the name of it, and can't
find it offhand among all the stuff on this machine) that can take a
badly damaged CD with no TOC (such as the CDR I was recording when
power was lost) and generate a big .wav file of it (or as much as it
can read), that you can then reconstitute the tracks with something
like cdwave.com.

>Thanks,
>Rob

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 11:04:28 PM

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
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 12:03:33 AM

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

"Logan Shaw" <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote in message...

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

Smarty pants. ;-)
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 2:53:46 AM

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.
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 2:53:47 AM

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

"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."
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 2:53:47 AM

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

Zarax 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?
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 3:54:27 AM

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!
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 3:54:28 AM

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

Dave Platt wrote:
>
> 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.


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. I
wonder how long it will be before one of these schemes falls victim to a
lawsuit, bankruptcy, or other business calamity.
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 4:12:41 AM

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."
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 4:50:17 AM

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!
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 5:53:25 AM

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

Dave Platt 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.

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.

- Logan
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 11:28:27 AM

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

"Kurt Albershardt" <kurt@nv.net> wrote in message
news:3hbs3jFg8hd7U1@individual.net...
> Roger W. Norman wrote:
> > "Kurt Albershardt" <kurt@nv.net> wrote in message
> > news:3hb621Fga4rtU1@individual.net...
> >
> >> WAV files can't store artist, album, track, etc. the way FLAC and MP3
> >> can -- at least not using any schema supported by consumer players.
> >
> >
> > More than likely Metadata headers will
> > ultimately become data storage pointers to massive databases that don't
> > store the actual raw data of a wave file or a "lossless" format at all.
>
> I'll agree with respect to commercial recordings, but how would this
> apply to the multitude of unpublished noncommercial recordings? Storing
> the metadata with the essence makes a lot of sense there.
>
>
>
> > Without the interaction of a living database the vast amount of material
> > will simply be lost over time because of the inability to actually
translate
> > the data into something that our systems will be able to use. Even this
> > lack will be overcome within 5 years.
>
> Maybe. I'll bet PCM (as variants of RIFF) file formats are going to be
> around for a long, long time.
>
>
>
>
> > moving CDs to disk isn't going to be a long term
> > storage solution one way or the other. It will allow quick access
provided
> > one has enough disk space but it's short term regardless of whether one
may
> > try to archive said files in any proprietary format or not
>
> Using FLAC, I will most likely have all the tracks I care about from my
> several thousand CD collection stored on hard drives within the next
> year or two. Within five years, it should all fit on a single optical
> disc or a solid state portable of some sort.
>
>
>
>
> > Lossless compression is pretty much a dream and storage has become
> > cheap enough that it shouldn't be a problem from here on.
>
> Most lossless PCM compression schemes address another issue that hasn't
> been mentioned here, and that's bitrate. Many of today's media (and
> sometimes I/O architectures) fall short of the throughput requirements
> for high samplerate PCM. Most offer the side benefit of error checking
> in that if they play back, there is an implicit validity to the
> retrieved data stream (and they can at least tell you if there are
> problems with it.) OTOH small errors that might produce pops or ticks
> in raw PCM can render compressed files indecipherable -- hardly the best
> situation for a true archive.
>
>
>
>
> > I'd suggest people read Thom Friedman's The World Is Flat
>
> So would I!

Well, principally I was talking about commercial situations, but even that's
hard to predict because one has to wonder what commercial music will mean in
5 or 10 years. But in terms of metadata, yes, enough data can be stored for
the average person who's catalog, though large in some circumstances such as
yours, isn't really sufficient for having an Oracle database up and running
just to fetch music. But on the whole, since the possibility exists that
music won't be a physical product like an LP or a CD, you will truly be a
licensee and able to retrieve and listen to your licensed products wherever
you are via broadband at home or satelite receivers like XM or Sirius.
Essentially you can already do that with both of the radio services since
you can program in what your favorite music is and call it down any time you
want. At least it's heading that way, and it's something I predicted about
15 years ago on Compuserve's Midi Forum. I believe somebody acted on my
idea! <g>

For individuals who are cutting tracks and trying to get their music heard,
well, it's just going to be much the same as we are doing now. But even at
that I have literally hundreds of CDs of other people's tracks (and hundreds
of tracks for those mixes) that must be maintained and I've complained about
the requirements of becoming a damned librarian for years now. Think I'm
going to start bar coding everything and get it up in a database. I've even
considered a couple of those automated CD stacks that will eject the CD
you're looking for but they just don't hold enough CDs. It just all gets
pretty strange at times. I just finished moving almost 200 gigs of music
and video data from my old AMD1600+ to the A64. Guess I'm going to have to
slap a couple more 200 gig SATA drives and then add in my two removables for
80 gig backup drives. My attempt at DVD backups ended up with a lot of
expended time and 12 DVDs later I still had only one drive backed up. I
sometimes think it makes more sense to leave the CD archival idea alone and
just play the damned things! <g>
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 1:19:25 PM

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.
June 16, 2005 4:16:56 PM

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
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 4:16:57 PM

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
June 16, 2005 4:16:57 PM

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

On 6/16/2005 7:16 AM, mick wrote:
> 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?
>

Even with DRM, can't you play the CD on a player with a digital out
which is feed to a recorder to get a bit perfect copy?
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 4:16:58 PM

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

Dan wrote:
>
> Even with DRM, can't you play the CD on a player with a digital out
> which is feed to a recorder to get a bit perfect copy?

Usually, from what I hear. This defeats the majority of casual copying.
Of course then you get into the whole watermarking thing...
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 5:30:56 PM

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

On 15 Jun 2005 11:44:09 -0700, DW <dwhittier@shaw.ca> wrote:

>
> As to software, MusicMatch Jukebox is an easy option to rip. It
> connects to an online db, and returns artist and track information. You
> can customize how the rip filenames are written, too - which order the
> fields will be in, how the files are numbered, etc.
>

As I understand it, MusicMatch is fine if you have perfect CD's but not up
to EAC or Plextools with scratched or imperfect CD's.

Cheers.

James.
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 9:05:51 PM

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!
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 2:33:03 PM

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

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.
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 9:50:03 PM

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.
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 9:50:04 PM

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

"Zarax" <zarax999@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eMXr7Q1cFHA.3252@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> 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.
>
>

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?
--




Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
!