Rip Music CD to MP3 AAC OGG FLAC - Sound Juicer - Ubuntu Linux 8.04

[rocketman221projects]

If you use flac and your original cd gets damaged or lost you can burn a new one from the flac files and it will be essentially identical to the original. If you have the cue file as well it will maintain the track spacing, cd text, etc. too.

[GenoSkill]

OGG Vorbis is the king of lossy audio compression. THE KING.

[imahavedat]

Even mp3 @ 320k has noticeable loss. I have some audio at 96kHz 24bit it sounds damn good. But i also tried ripping that to AAC vbr q=1.00. The original FLAC is 80mb lol but the AAC is 21mb, 96kHz @ 724k. The length of the song is 4.06. It sounds damn good too!

Plus windows media player 12 in windows 7 supports mp4/m4a amongst other formats. The sound is pure on my ipod nano. If you want i can up the song for you and take a listen.

[imahavedat]

I use dbpoweramp to rip my CDs and FLACs to AAC vbr @ q=1.00

The sound is very good considering its file size. Ive played back my music on various systems, audio players, to high end audio systems. You can barely notice the difference between the AAC and FLAC.

Try it out for yourself. I use dbpoweramp with the nero aac encoder. So far this program is the only one that im aware of which allows the quality set to 1.00

iTunes for example only allows 320k vbr. Does anyone know of any others?

[linuxguy2009]

FLAC is lossless just like WAV, it will sound exactly like the CD. The benefit of FLAC is that it is compressed, but without any loss in quality at all. Plus its taggable.

[TehEasterEggMan]

Your funny, lol.

"Uncheck that shit, some sexy shit like this"

Your awesome :)

[imthepod]

will u do a vid on cinelerra ?(how to use it)

[bikutorusan]

Whoa 30 MiB/song certainly isn't scalable if you have ~60,000 songs (amounts to almost 2 TiB). AAC is the stuff! Supposedly it is the sucessor to MP3 which is quite popular. Really, MP3 isn't "low quality" unless you make it low quality, but there are better formats out there, sure. Just not as widely supported. I say AAC should be used more widely to help pass over from MP3, especially on portable music players. But also even on one's huge harddrive if one has lots of music.

[gotbletu]

flac is for future proof since is lossless, thats why i use it. "MP3 Isnt low quality" Try turning ur mp3 songs real high on ur subwoofer & speakers then ull c the difference. If ur willing to use AAC might as well use OGG. Flac > OGG > AAC > MP3. So u see my reasoning.

[bikutorusan]

I can't hear any difference. I don't know what quality you've encoded your MP3 files in but I use "$ lame -V 2 --vbr-new" which usually gets me like 224-320 kbps (I'm a metal fan ;D) at 44100 Hz, and it's... pretty much not so easy to hear much difference at those bit rates, and i have perfect hearing at that. Regarding OGG: I WOULD use OGG! :O If only my iPod nano would support them. And I'm not so keen on having several versions (FLAC, OGG, AAC etc) of my music on disk if you see my reasoning.

[gotbletu]

If u cant hear the diff thats on u. U probally dont even got a real audio card to no the diff anyways. And if ur on ipod mp3 is enough, not like u bump it up too loud for ur ears. As for the ipod u can use rockbox to use ogg. I already no why u use mp3s u dont need to tell me is universal.

[bikutorusan]

I can't hear the difference because it's not normal for humans to be able to at the quality of my MP3s. "U prolly dont even got a real audio card to no the diff anyways." Yes I do, sir. As for rockbox, it doesn't support the 4th-gen nano, but I doubt it would've had that nice "flip-to-coverflow" feature anyway. :-/ Boy how I like that coverflow. :-)

[Trixilver]

Regardless of whether you can hear the difference or not, it's good knowing you have an identical rip of the CD, and not some half-assed MP3 shit that can nevery be anything else besides an MP3. And besides, it's VERY possible to hear the difference anyway (on a good system). Believe me, flac is very much worth it.

[bikutorusan]

The importance of having an identical rip of the CD is obviously miniscule if you can't hear the difference, unless it's all psychological as it appears to be in your case where you feel it's "good knowing" that the rip is identical. MP3 and, more importantly, AAC are key for me because I have tousands of albums which wouldn't fit on my HDDs if they were in FLAC, and because the quality is more than good enough at a 44.1 kHz sampling rate and 16-bit depth compressed to about 192-320 kbps.

[Trixilver]

Dude I'm not telling you to have your entire collection in flac. Most of my stuff is MP3 anyway and that's just fine, but the stuff I really care about is in flac. If you care about music enough you can tell the difference.

[bikutorusan]

Surely you aren't. What I'm saying is that if people hear a difference in compressed audio signals such as MP3 and AAC compared to uncompressed audio signals such as WAV and FLAC, the compression is too large. Compression equals higher quality by definition -- quality as in the valuable-information-to-bits ratio. But compression too large lessens the *percieved* quality. So I'm also saying there is really no need for uncompressed audio if you don't *compress too much*, unless you edit the music.

[PiercingKnight]

@gotbletu You're not going to crank it up too much on your ears but you might plug it in in your car. I need mp3 format for my iPod but this program rips them at 128kbps quality which is unacceptable. I want at least 192 for decent quality, players like windows media player, for instance, can rip mp3's as high as 320kbps. Would you happen to know of any program for ubuntu that can rip like 192 mp3s, cause man 128 just sucks.

[Paganel75]

@bikutorusan : If you cannot hear the difference between FLAC and MP3, then use MP3. Sorry if it may seem a little rude. You can also try to rip the album "The Who sell out" in a high MP3 quality, then compare with the same thing in FLAC (just hover your mouse on each if you are on any graphic interface of Linux). I realize it will not be a piece of cake to ripe once again my 300 or so CD, but the enhance of quality is definitely worth it according to my ears (including with a double blind test)

[bikutorusan]

@Paganel75 You can't say that in general, that "There is a noticeable difference between MP3 and FLAC." It depends on the bitrate of the lossy encoding! I believe it's fairly generally agreed upon (for MP3) that bitrates >= 192 kbps is indiscernible from the original recording. Especially for certain types of music.

But my advocacy is of promoting indiscernible lossy compression in order to save space. AAC seems like a nice format for that. Obviously, lossless encoding is perfect by definition.

[r1887]

put link in description next time!

[Jenga1995]

There is always google =P

[GenoSkill]

@bikutorusan OGG should be the fucking sucessor of MPCancer. also the ogg container supports the FLAC codec. AAC is for niggers

[bikutorusan]

@GenoSkill You had a point before you used racial slur. Thanks anyway.

[control2980]

Wow this is a cool video

[Trixilver]

By using underscores instead of spaces it makes the files easier to ID, especially if they end up on the web. For example, they end up looking like this: a%20filea%20namea%20witha%20sp­aces.mp3 or some shit. This is why you always see underscores in lots of files.

[gotbletu]

true if u were doing that for webservers but most of these files are on torrent or p2p. Which dont make sense, thats what i was refering to. p2p and torrent are by users not webservers, so is on there local hard disk, it doesnt make sense to do that.

[bikutorusan]

You want to use underscores instead of spaces because spaces are used to delimit strings of text on the command line and you have to escape them with "\"! All you linux users out there know what I'm talki... wait. YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. :D

[gotbletu]

of course i know why they use it. but u must be an idiot to use mp3s with underscore. and even more of an idiot to use cli with ur mp3 collections.

[bikutorusan]

I use the CLI a lot when I move files around, actually, and I am far from being an idiot. :-) I find it's much faster than clicking and dragging files using any GUI that I've tried, or even C-x C-v any day. Anyways, how about you calm down with calling people idiots and maybe realize that people have different tastes, which was (maybe surprisingly to some) my point to begin with. ;-) Btw, did they amp up the maximum allowed characters in comments? I feel like I've written a whole boatload. :-O

[MPG187]

Underscore, line? What the fuck!

Dont use that shit!

[gotbletu]

In Add/Remove. Click on Show All Available Application. You Need "Ubuntu restricted extras"

[zianissima]

I went to applications then I push add/remove applications. In UBUNTU forums I saw that I need install Gstremer I activated Gstremer but unfortunate I can not see mp3 format.

How can I install mp3 codec??

My mp3 songs can not play in my computer.

TY TY :)

[zianissima]

TY

your video has a very didactic steps. I can not convert my cd music in mp3, when you show option to convert music my sound juice ( ubuntu 8) is not mp3 option in all options. There are wav, flac, speex and ogg.

I have mp3 machine so I really need to convert my cd s to mp3.

Can you help me??

TY

My English is very irregular because My firth language is Spanish. Sorry for my English mistakes.

[gotbletu]

so you have no mp3 options?

1. can u play/listen mp3 songs on your ubuntu computer?

2. Did you install mp3 Codec?

[elementsquared]

Waste of internet. Noob.

[gotbletu]

Waste of sperm. Coon loL