Favorite MP3 Ripper [Archive]

linux4life88

April 2nd, 2009, 02:17 AM

What is your favorite program to rip MP3's. I'm really looking for a quality MP3 ripper for Windows. I love Serpentine (I think that is how to spell it) in Linux to rip ogg vorbis files. I'm looking for something similar in Windows to rip MP3 files.

Amtal

April 2nd, 2009, 03:36 AM

Try CDex (http://cdexos.sourceforge.net/?q=download). Hasn't been updated in a while, but should still work fine.

pwnst*r

April 2nd, 2009, 04:01 AM

hands down, EAC. trust me on this one.

http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/

logos34

April 2nd, 2009, 04:18 AM

hands down, EAC. trust me on this one.

(He's right. Trust me.)

EAC really is considered the best. But Rubyripper (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Rubyripper) is probably second best for SECURE rips.

"mp3 ripper" is really two issues. The ripper calls another program (like lame) to encode the ripped wavs to mp3

Any good ripper uses cdparanoia at the higher settings

linux4life88

April 4th, 2009, 03:39 PM

EAC was the one I was trying to remember but I was drawing a blank when trying to find it. Thank you for the help.

billgoldberg

April 4th, 2009, 09:17 PM

Ripper X.

Isn't being developped anymore, but is the easiest one I found.

Ripped some cd's with it, easy and fast.

edit: missed the Windows thing. Ripper X is Linux only.

linuxisevolution

April 4th, 2009, 09:18 PM

I prefer Jack The Ripper.

click4851

April 4th, 2009, 10:30 PM

I like Grip w/lame

.....whoops didn't see the windows part, then EAC/lame for sure

chris4585

April 4th, 2009, 10:52 PM

sound-juicer

edit: Oh Windows?.. I don't use Windows

speedwell68

April 5th, 2009, 01:01 AM

sound-juicer

edit: Oh Windows?.. I don't use Windows

That is what I use, It is dead simple and creates a nice 128kbps file, just right for my 1gb iPod Shuffle. TBH I'd have no idea what you would use in Windows.

billgoldberg

April 5th, 2009, 01:08 AM

That is what I use, It is dead simple and creates a nice 128kbps file, just right for my 1gb iPod Shuffle. TBH I'd have no idea what you would use in Windows.

Windows Media Player.

Don't laugh, I used it back in the day.

looplu

April 5th, 2009, 01:09 AM

billgoldberg

April 5th, 2009, 01:12 AM

mp3 ? whats that :)

I only ever rip to lossless acc

Do you mean AAC?

Apples codec?

Try FLAC, it's better.

CK05

April 5th, 2009, 02:10 AM

hands down, EAC. trust me on this one.

http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/

Agreed. Awesome program.

pwnst*r

April 5th, 2009, 03:41 PM

Do you mean AAC?

Apples codec?

Try FLAC, it's better.

actually that's not Apple's codec. it just so happens it's what they use. they didn't develop it.

pwnst*r

April 5th, 2009, 03:42 PM

mp3 ? whats that :)

I only ever rip to lossless acc

for most people, using lossless on a portable DAP woudln't make much sense.

looplu

April 6th, 2009, 01:24 PM

Do you mean AAC?

Apples codec?

Try FLAC, it's better.

oupppppss lol , yeah, ... Abbreviations, bane of my life that and typos

FLAC, better? in what sense? i have shaded music files in that format , it seems ok, not saying its not.

to tell you the truth i'm far from being a musico, so i do expand a few AAC/mp3 tracks , but mostly I find the extra "quality" not worth the extra space needed

looplu

April 6th, 2009, 01:29 PM

for most people, using lossless on a portable DAP woudln't make much sense.

well thats true :)

billgoldberg

April 6th, 2009, 01:34 PM

oupppppss lol , yeah, ... Abbreviations, bane of my life that and typos

FLAC, better? in what sense? i have shaded music files in that format , it seems ok, not saying its not.

to tell you the truth i'm far from being a musico, so i do expand a few AAC/mp3 tracks , but mostly I find the extra "quality" not worth the extra space needed

Basically, if you want true CD quality from the files on your iPod or music server, you must use WAV or AIF encoding or FLAC, ALC, or WMA Lossless. Both MP3 and AAC introduce fairly large changes in the measured spectra, even at the highest rate of 320kbps.
source: http://www.stereophile.com/features/308mp3cd/index.html

But that's only for the true audiophiles, I use mp3 at 2xxkbps.

logos34

April 6th, 2009, 08:26 PM

FLAC, better? in what sense? i have shaded music files in that format , it seems ok, not saying its not.

to tell you the truth i'm far from being a musico, so i do expand a few AAC/mp3 tracks , but mostly I find the extra "quality" not worth the extra space needed

Just to clarify and add to what Billgoldberg posted, when you expand an aac or mp3 (or any lossy audio file) to wav or lossless like flac, you don't get ANY extra quality at all--you can't 'get back' or 'add' to what you don't have to begin with. Unlike lossless, which compresses down while remaining bit-for-bit identical to the original, lossy formats use an algorithm (based on a psychoacoustic model) to strip out stuff that is beyond the frequency range of human hearing or else masked by other sounds.

But I agree with you that the diff is hardly noticeable--even if it were possible to recover some bits (assuming you have a fairly decent quality lossy file to start with in the ~150k+ vbr bitrate range), you probably couldn't distinguish the two. ABX blind tests consistently show the transparency threshold of mp3s to be ~vbr V 2 (~192k). Other codecs are not far off. Anything at or above that rate is hard to distinguish from the original. So as much as I want to believe the claims of audiophiles (and maybe they're right--i.e. on $$$ equipment), under average conditions you can't tell high-quality lossy files from the originals/lossless.

that's my 2 cents

looplu

April 10th, 2009, 01:06 AM

J
that's my 2 cents

no thats pretty cool , its the algorithmic mathematics that I'm interested in more than anything , the "short binary" so when thats expanded i can't tell the difference , but i think thats more due to my primary receptors than anything else i.e my ears ..

this reminds me of "computer multitasking" they don't they just seem to