Yes, Audacity is a great suggestion. I use it for my "professional" stuff, too. The only caveat is that if you're going to output to MP3s, you also have to install lame. It's easy enough to do but it's just another step.
snipped-for-privacy@attt.bizz wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
Fortunately, ripping CDs is a 95% hands off process. I'm sure if you look around, you can find a program that automates the whole thing and all you have to do is keep feeding the machine CDs whenever it sticks its tongue out.
Looks like Audiograbber has a "continuous ripping" mode, which looks like it will make it easy to keep feeding the computer CDs. (I'm going to try that out when I get some new CDs.) It does grab track names from the CDDB, but sometimes there's multiple options or the well-meaning individual who entered the data didn't check his spelling.
Audiograbber also has a Line-in recording function, which is great for recording tapes and records.
Puckdropper
If one is put-off by that, they should maybe go back to the workshop. : ) Personally, I can barely stand the slow process. I've "transferred" maybe 2 or 3 cassettes so far.
That's really all you need to do with Media Player. You do have to sit there, though. I'm doing a couple of hundred, right now (I think my CD drive just crapped out).
No need to get special software. Media Player will do it all, *AND* grab an image of the CD case graphic at the same time (95% of CDs, anyway). It keeps it all in its database. You can also select the format (WMA, MP3, WAV, etc.) and bit depth (MP3s).
I installed Apple's iTunes (I'm going to an iPod, so need it) but it screwed up the process so I'm ignoring that step for now.
As Bill said, Audacity is a great program for that. ...and free.
snipped-for-privacy@attt.bizz wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
Audiograbber is free (now). There were shareware versions, but the free version has been out for many years. It doesn't have as many bells and whistles as apparently Media Player does, but I've used the free version for years and it works.
My point was you don't have to sit there and babysit the computer. It will do most of the work itself, and you're free to do something else.
Puckdropper
What codec does it use to encode MP3s?
"Puckdropper" wrote in message news:52aff394$0$12699$c3e8da3$ snipped-for-privacy@news.astraweb.com
Audiograbber leaves Media Player in the dust when it comes to ripping CDs. Basically, it lets someone who has made the effort to learn about what they are doing to exercise that knowledge. Media Player is meant for the others.
True for CDs but IIRC Leon was interested in LPs. Those are real time. Nevertheless, Audiograbber with the LAME codec would be a good program to use.
OK, specifically what does Audiograbber do that MP doesn't?
Sure, you can do something else but it's only about two minutes to rip a CD (depends on the CD - some won't read at high speed). It's just about enough time to get up and then sit back down. ;-)
I'll have to look (not sure it says). I don't have my CD drive attached now so it won't show me that stuff. It does give a choice of bit rates, though.
There are too many things to list all but here are some...
Those are the ones that come to mind but there are numerous others. Basically, Audiograbber (and others) let the user control what is being done; Media Player - like most MS stuff - assumes the user is mentally retarded.
Media Player does that.
Not sure why you'd want to do that at the source level. Don't know if it's possible with MP.
I *certainly* don't want to do that.
Can do that too, evidently. Not sure how but the help indicates that it works. I'd use Audacity for that anyway.
Horeshit. Just because you're a snob (and perhaps an audiophool) doesn't mean the software is useless.
Perhaps your MP is different than mine. On mine, all I can do is click the slider which then moves to the next bit rate that MS deems acceptable. IOW, I can't SLIDE the slider to, say, 160 which is my preferred bit rate. _____________________
The only way to do it IS at the source level. Unless one wants to re-encode the MP3. One wants to do it because some prefer one way, others another.
You're the one using it, I'm not. _______________________
If you have to ask, it would be impossible to explain in detail. Suffice it to say that the encoder determnes how the music sounds. ____________________________
Why not? Do you prefer having to constantly adjust the volume control? _______________________
I never said it was. I said - basically - that it was dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. It is, as is most all of MS offerings. That doesn't mean it is useless as it lets many people do things that they either could not do or would not want to do if it were otherwise; however, it also means that the results may not be as good as they could be.
Sitting in front of it ripping CDs now. The selections are 48K, 64K,
96K, 128K (default), 160K, and 192K. Do you need 97K?I don't throw away information, if at all possible. I can always do that later.
I'm not the expert.
Audiophoolery.
So you like compressed audio?
Utter nonsense. It does what it's supposed to do without the snobbery.
I think you may be misunderstanding the terms in the context used. It has nothing to do with throwing away information beyond that which is always dumped when encoding to MP3, it has to do with the WAY it is encoded. _______________
Normalization is not compression. _____________________
If you are happy with it, keep using it.
No, I didn't explain what I meant, well. If you're worried about quality, save everything. Rip to a WAV and save that. Any MP3, by definition, loses information.
Normalizing to what?
I am actually quite surprised it's a sophisticated as it is. It's not an audio processing program (Audacity is great for that), rather a ripping and library program, where it excels. ...surprising for M$.
I've used a USB dongle that connects directly between the turntables cartridge output and the computer (it does the RIAA conversion). Works fine, probably about $20 at the time. I have a 'higher end' turntable and cartridge so I didn't see the advantage of using one of those $100 computer turntables. Google is your friend.
=BR
I used 'final vinyl' and it allowed the entire record side to be copied, then automatically separated out the tracks, Worked good except for the occasional tracks that had 'artistic' silence in the song. YMMV
-BR
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.