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

211–217 of 217 posts

Re: Whipper: Accurate Audio CD Ripping

#211

Post by LeoPanthera »

LarryMullins wrote: post #209
dusted wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you export all raw images from your camera to PNG too? JPG is good enough, and single-pass CD rips are just fine too. No, i keep them in RAW and develop a few for albums and print and such.. No, JPGs and PNGs are not good enough, the loss is REAL when you try to actually develop the picture. I must admit I _REALLY_ don't get this "good enough" mentality.. Like.. Here's this way to get a more precise representati…

> I must admit I _REALLY_ don't get this "good enough" mentality.. Like.. Here's this way to get a more precise representation of the music you bought, and you'll go "nah, that's not for me, I prefer whatever random data I happen to get on the first go".. for what? why ? The purpose of music is to be perceived. There is no perceptible difference, therefore there is no difference. CD Paranoia/etc are a waste of time,…

> There is no perceptible difference

This is often not the case. We're not talking about subtle interpolation differences. Depending on the drive, and the disc, bad rips can be full of music skips, clicks, and pops. It's really annoying to find this out days later after you ripped something. Better to get it right first time.

Re: Whipper: Accurate Audio CD Ripping

#212

Post by thirdsun »

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…

Why not use ALAC and individual tracks? It's lossless and compatible with iTunes/Music.app and iOS devices (as well as basically any hardware or software player worth using).

Using whole files rather than individual tracks is just asking for problems with mainstream players in my opinion.

However if you're serious about your music library I recommend Roon. Not cheap but a great solution.

Re: Whipper: Accurate Audio CD Ripping

#213

Post by roboyoshi »

extra88 wrote: post #143
SloopJon wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very promising: supports macOS 10.8 and later, last updated in 2021, and it read my whole CD collection in just a couple of minutes. Thank you for the suggestion.

I wonder if it's still being developed. It's concerning that it's still an Intel-only build instead of a Universal build that can run natively on Apple Silicon hardware.

The developer is regularly putting out beta releases [1] for the 3.0; With the other comments I found, I assume it's a single person development - probably in spare time - and only using an Intel mac.

[1] https://www.swinsian.com/sparkle_beta/sparklecast.xml

Re: Whipper: Accurate Audio CD Ripping

#214

Post by roboyoshi »

anomie31 wrote: post #185
Gigachad wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Orpheus will rate appropriate XLD and whipper logs as 100% fwiw Also I could be wrong, but don't most trackers still accept rips that they consider inferior, but then they could be trumped by someone else that made an EAC rip?

From my experience an XLD rip can be equal to an EAC rip in terms of rating on the site (RED and OPS). I've always been ripping this way and always had a perfect score; It's not easy though. There is a lot of nuances that influence the score, so you need to do a lot of reading and checking.

Re: Whipper: Accurate Audio CD Ripping

#215

Post by rokweom »

IndySun wrote: post #153
rokweom wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>your cd rips are 8-12x more accurate than anything streamed of Spotify?... >...How did you calculate a factor by which lossless is better than lossy? >I specifically typed accurate, not better. Yeah OK, that's just wording. Which two factors did you specifically compare, that gave you the 8-12x figure?

The 'two factors' are not two factors. Frequency range, bit depth, and whatever lossy algorithm is used, all play a role. A lossless rip matches the original audio as stored on the CD. A lossy rip will commonly 'lose' between 8-12x of that information. Lossy audio, like mp3 and m4a, 'throw away' information that is otherwise maintained in a lossless audio file. Hearing the difference is not being questioned, but the…

Oh OK, so you're specifically talking about bitrate difference. I wouldn't agree that that 8x higher bitrate means the file is 8x more accurate, but I get your point now.

Re: Whipper: Accurate Audio CD Ripping

#216

Post by iggldiggl »

asveikau wrote: post #119
cogman10 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> MP3 was synonymous with digital music in most of our minds for so long I think this is probably the main reason for mp3's stickiness. > second, even if modern equipment handles all the better codecs, a lot of us still have memories of times it didn't in the past. Sure, and your dvd players didn't always handle x264. Things change :). It's been probably 10 years since new audio hardware had trouble with non-mp3 medi…

I've written code to parse metadata out of an M4A. I'm sure Apple does a good job of it given they've done that in iTunes for 20+ years, but it's a lot less documented and straightforward than ID3v2, as imperfect and hacky as that format is. As a result, I can pretty trivially edit ID3 from a shell script, but dealing with M4A metadata still feels like a black box. (After typing that, I realize that calling it a "bla…

My car's radio supports both MP3 and AAC-in-MPEG4, but with the latter it occasionally has trouble reading the metadata, though I haven't really figured out why exactly that might be.

Re: Whipper: Accurate Audio CD Ripping

#217

Post by IndySun »

rokweom wrote: post #215
IndySun wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 'two factors' are not two factors. Frequency range, bit depth, and whatever lossy algorithm is used, all play a role. A lossless rip matches the original audio as stored on the CD. A lossy rip will commonly 'lose' between 8-12x of that information. Lossy audio, like mp3 and m4a, 'throw away' information that is otherwise maintained in a lossless audio file. Hearing the difference is not being questioned, but the…

Oh OK, so you're specifically talking about bitrate difference. I wouldn't agree that that 8x higher bitrate means the file is 8x more accurate, but I get your point now.

You continue to misrepresent my responses. Are you trolling? I did not say and was not 'specifically talking about bitrate difference'. Frequency range, bit depth, and whatever lossy algorithm is used, all play a role, is plain to see.
Post reply on HN