Any suggestions are highly appreciated.

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

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.

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 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.>

Regards,> Rob

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?

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.

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....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.>

Thanks for the input. Actually, I thought it's just the other way> around.

I want to rip all my CDs to a lossless format. The big

Unfortunately,> I have CDs that have some scratches so I am looking for a

Here are my requirements:

1) Album, song, artist, etc information must be

2) The program has to handle scratched CDs well.

Preferably, the> program reads the content of the CD at least twice,

unsucessful interpolates values)

3) I don't care how long it takes to rip one CD (well,

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

"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."

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

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.

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

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

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

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?

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.>

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

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.>

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.>

So would I!

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.>

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.

Which matters nothing until the other formats put forth the effort to be > as playable on as many different devices as the MS formats.

If you think CDs are too pricey just do what any smart customer would:

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...> >

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?> --

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.>

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?

Which matters nothing until the other formats put forth the effort to be > as playable on as many different devices as the MS formats.

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.