Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Whipper: Accurate Audio CD Ripping

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 217 posts

Re: Whipper: Accurate Audio CD Ripping

#161

Post by einherjae »

sbaiddn wrote: post #65
einherjae wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a lengthy explanation in the wiki linked from the github page. But basically cd drives don’t give you a raw stream, and does stuff like error correction.

So the error are used to trip traditional tools like ddrescue like in the days of old?

The drive itself abstracts out the raw stream if I understood things correctly. Similar to how a PC floppy controller can’t do a low level disk image, because it does some interpretation of the signal before handing it over to the system.

One example mentioned was that drives generally don’t read the precise samples you ask for. https://web.archive.org/web/20160528213242/https://thomas.ap...

Re: Whipper: Accurate Audio CD Ripping

#162

Post by hulitu »

acidburnNSA wrote: post #97
cogman10 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why MP3? It's simply not a great codec to target. If you have a music server, then why not flac? If space is an issue, then why not Opus (which almost everything supports now) or HE-AAC which has nearly as much support as MP3. You can target the same MP3 bitrate and end up with a more transparent encoding. You can decrease the bitrate and have the same quality as your mp3 encode with a smaller bitrate. I honestly don…

Well, I've done a number of ABX listening tests (apt install abx) and to my chagrin simply could not tell the difference. I challenge everyone who feels strongly about this to actually bust out abx and do some listening tests comparing flac to LAME-encoded extreme MP3s and prove to yourself that flac matters at all on your equipment. And then share your results with us if you want! https://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpage…

It depends on what audio setup you do the listening. On laptop speakeakers it will be no difference.

Re: Whipper: Accurate Audio CD Ripping

#163

Post by bunabhucan »

ericbarrett wrote: post #147
Taywee wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FLAC is lossless. Any audio CD ripped and encoded to FLAC will be the exact same accuracy as WAV.

Does FLAC preserve the exact bytestream of the CD tracks? (As an analogy, PNG is "lossless," but it won't natively preserve the metadata of a raw digital camera image.) The audio will be preserved but there might be interesting details on the CD like easter eggs, copyright text, etc. and I'm not sure FLAC would capture those.

I found that some Easter eggs weren't archived by EAC due to the fact they subly broke the CD spec. An example would be the first song of some versions of White Ladder by David Gray have a song "before" the first song. You press play then press "rewind" and the timer goes to -0:01 ... -3:45 or whatever and a song plays before the regular song at 0:00. I was tricky to hear it with a CD player because the rewind behavior was kind of undefined.

https://eeggs.com/items/8745.html

Re: Whipper: Accurate Audio CD Ripping

#164

Post by Gigachad »

jszymborski wrote: post #90
accrual wrote: post #3

This is pretty cool, it's like a Python and *nix version of Exact Audio Copy (EAC) for Windows. I enjoy the ritual of perfectly ripping a CD. I can spend an hour or two scanning the artwork, verifying the track names, performing the rip, losslessly compressing (I prefer FLAC), generating .cue files, checksuming everything, then sitting down to experience the best possible digital copy of a physical item I can self pr…

Just in case anyone was wondering, EAC works without a hitch with WINE on Linux.

It’s also the only tool that private torrent trackers will accept. It’s been rigorously tested and accepted to be pretty much perfect, complete software.

Re: Whipper: Accurate Audio CD Ripping

#165

Post by acidburnNSA »

hulitu wrote: post #162
acidburnNSA wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I've done a number of ABX listening tests (apt install abx) and to my chagrin simply could not tell the difference. I challenge everyone who feels strongly about this to actually bust out abx and do some listening tests comparing flac to LAME-encoded extreme MP3s and prove to yourself that flac matters at all on your equipment. And then share your results with us if you want! https://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpage…

It depends on what audio setup you do the listening. On laptop speakeakers it will be no difference.

I did an abx test on reasonable caliber headphones. Try it! It surprised me.

Re: Whipper: Accurate Audio CD Ripping

#166

Post by lowbloodsugar »

SloopJon wrote: post #41
accrual wrote: post #3

This is pretty cool, it's like a Python and *nix version of Exact Audio Copy (EAC) for Windows. I enjoy the ritual of perfectly ripping a CD. I can spend an hour or two scanning the artwork, verifying the track names, performing the rip, losslessly compressing (I prefer FLAC), generating .cue files, checksuming everything, then sitting down to experience the best possible digital copy of a physical item I can self pr…

Years ago, I had most of my music ripped to AAC in iTunes, easily accessible, browsable, and shuffleable. I now rip each of my CDs to a single FLAC and cue sheet (using XLD on Mac), on the theory that it's the most accurate way to archive a disc. However, I haven't found anything that offers the same accessibility to such a collection as iTunes did. I look through folders, and drag a few cue sheets at a time into Foo…

Roon. The commentary is invaluable and links to related music.

Re: Whipper: Accurate Audio CD Ripping

#167

Post by lowbloodsugar »

dstaley wrote: post #150
dmitryminkovsky wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a commercially available digital format/medium that has higher res than CD? Like, there are 96kHz discs being sold out there? And there are labels out there mastering and producing these discs? Sorry this is news to me! I thought 96kHz encodes were upsamples or homemade rips from analog formats.

Most hi-res audio is being sold as digital downloads. I don't think there's a currently-sold physical medium that contains digital data that's higher quality than a CD.

SACD (DSD format) is higher than CD but still not as high as 24/96k available on sites like Qobuz.

Re: Whipper: Accurate Audio CD Ripping

#168

Post by lowbloodsugar »

mynameisash wrote: post #56

Somewhat related question: what's the gold standard for organizing ripped music, ideally with some sort of metadata lookup? Ever since Google Music shut down, I have my exported music in a folder, but it's badly organized and with duplicates. Too daunting a task for me to do manually - especially because some of the id3 tags somehow got messed up.

Roon.

Re: Whipper: Accurate Audio CD Ripping

#169

Post by KingLancelot »

dmitryminkovsky wrote: post #136
criddell wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Audiophile nerds have moved on to digital formats that are much higher res than CD or have gone 100% analog.

There is a commercially available digital format/medium that has higher res than CD? Like, there are 96kHz discs being sold out there? And there are labels out there mastering and producing these discs? Sorry this is news to me! I thought 96kHz encodes were upsamples or homemade rips from analog formats.

[dead]

Re: Whipper: Accurate Audio CD Ripping

#170

Post by plg »

SloopJon wrote: post #41
accrual wrote: post #3

This is pretty cool, it's like a Python and *nix version of Exact Audio Copy (EAC) for Windows. I enjoy the ritual of perfectly ripping a CD. I can spend an hour or two scanning the artwork, verifying the track names, performing the rip, losslessly compressing (I prefer FLAC), generating .cue files, checksuming everything, then sitting down to experience the best possible digital copy of a physical item I can self pr…

Years ago, I had most of my music ripped to AAC in iTunes, easily accessible, browsable, and shuffleable. I now rip each of my CDs to a single FLAC and cue sheet (using XLD on Mac), on the theory that it's the most accurate way to archive a disc. However, I haven't found anything that offers the same accessibility to such a collection as iTunes did. I look through folders, and drag a few cue sheets at a time into Foo…

I use Roon and love love love it

https://roonlabs.com/

Post reply on HN