Could anyone tell what are (is?) the best CD-to-MP3 rippers on the market.
Prize does not matter - it must be VERY fast and simple.
I tried a couple from the list on www.dailymp3.com but non of them can beat the Windows Media Player.
It's sad but I have to say that the Microsoft version is really fast and finds much more tag infos than all mp3 rippers I tested so far :-(
But I don't really want to encode to wma...

The must criteria for me is:

1. Find the tag (almost) for every CD (I don't like to type it in myself)

2. Must encode to directory structure <artist> / <album> / <songtitle>
(would be great if this can be configured.

3. Must be FAST (128kbit or 160kbit) - I have to rip a lot of CD's ;-)

Thanks for any hint.
Guschti

Exact Audio Copy, Lame. The only <i>right</i> way to rip and encode in the windows enviroment. It'll do everything you want. Speed however, is not what it focuses on, but it's worth it.

Matthew

There are really only two options for CD info I know of, CDDB and FreeDB. Both of them suck. I have to correct data for at least half of the CDs I put in.

Most can put files wherever you want.

You say it has to be fast and then you list bitrates. I'm not sure what that's about. Personally, I find fast to be irrelevant. If it's fast and bad, then you end up having to rerip, which makes it slow and annoying.

Also note that you're talking about at least three different processes here. There's ripping, which is getting the audio data off the CD. There's encoding, which is saving that audio data as an mp3, a wma, a wav, a flac, or whatever. Then there's getting the track information (I can't think of a comprehensive name for this). Many products do all three of these things.

Really, though, the best would be to use EAC and Lame. EAC is a ripper+info-er, and you can use lame as a plugin (of sorts) to encode. It's probably not the fastest, but it's the most accurate, and it's not slow.

If you really want to, though, you can probably get WiMP to encode to mp3. From here:

Encode MP3s with WiMP
Install an MP3 codec (compression/decompression, required for this operation). You can download it here. Once installed, navigate to the following string in regedit:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\MediaPlayer\Settings\ then to MP3Encoding and set the following:
"LowRate"=dword:0000dac0
"MediumRate"=dword:0001f400
"MediumHighRate"=dword:0003e800
"HighRate"=dword:0004e200
After reboot, you'll be in the MP3 business without third-party software.

"Best" does not equal "Fast". If you have a lot of CD's, I'd recommend doing them correctly rather than quickly or else you end up doing what I did and re-rip them because the empeg has such great audio quality that you'll be able to tell the difference. 160kps or 192kps at the very least, or go with VBR encoding so you get high resolution when you need it and low when it wont matter (to save space).

Exact Audio Copy and Lame is the way to go. I ripped w. Music Match at 160kps CBR twice, then at 192kps (with a CD collection that has over 400 CD's) before I switched over to EAC and Lame VBR's. Think of how much longer it took me because I was in a hurry..

I posted an EAC setup guide here a few weeks ago.

One thing that makes EAC faster than it seems is that you can pop in a CD, let it rip and then pop in a 2nd CD before the first is done encoding and rip that. A queue will build up allowing you to pop in CD after CD all day long and let it encode over night. With MusicMatch, I was only able to encode 3-4 CD's a day while at work, but with EAC I could do as many as would fill my HD. If EAC is running and has 20 songs in the queue, you can close down EAC, allow that current encoding to finish then when you re-start EAC (even after a re-boot), EAC will resume with the queue. So I ripped CD's all day at work, turned off the notebook, took it home and let it encode while I slept.

Oh, the mp3s sounded way better too and were often not that much bigger in size than a 192kps CBR file depending on the song.

Thanks so far for any information - it's amazing how fast people reply on this board and how kind they are!
In my first post I noted 2 bitrates - I added these just to point out that the enconding should be fast at these rates.

BTW: I know how the ripp, conversion, encode process works - I'm only looking for the best solutions on the market.

The biggest problem I find in _all_ application I tested so far is that CDDB and the Free version of this Database both are really not useful for large ripping amounts.
I wonder how Microsoft does it (they must have contracts with other companies...?). Whenever I use the Media Player it finds the CD-Information (even some weird Latin CD's...)

hmmmm - can't we abuse Mediaplayer to get the tags somehow ? :-)))

Thanks for any further tips!

Get your thoughts into Quality... not Quantity.
Waaaaay to much\many crummy rips\encodes out there.
Everyone is so lazy it sickens me. *sigh...
My choices have been the same for some time now.
EAC = Exact Audio Copy! =RIP!
FHG = Fraunhofer Encoder Professional.
Install FHG and use EAC as the frontend!! your done, and it will do all you request above... and do so well.

Actually, now that I think about it, WiMP uses AllMusic data. I don't think that there's any way you can get to that programatically for free.

I like Fraunhofer Pro for CBR files, but I think it's a bit outdated when it comes to VBR. The only people resistant to VBR are those with 1st Gen mp3 players that don't support it (same goes for the people that hate V2 ID3 tags). But, if CBR is your thing, Fraunhofer Pro is the way to go I spose (at least equal to lame.)

FWIW, MusicMatch uses Fraunhofer (not sure if it's Pro) and as I mentioned, I ripped my entire collection 3 times w. it before moving to Lame. Fraunhofer does seem to boost the bass a bit and people like that (kinda like how radio stations boost the bass and compression the dynamic range to raise the average volume.)

I use CDex and LAME. CDex can be found at www.cdex.n3.net.

I agree with CDeX and LAME. It does an excelent job with the EAC and encoding. Includes LAME and OGG encoding.

Actually, now that I think about it, WiMP uses AllMusic data. I don't think that there's any way you can get to that programatically for free.

I use Tag&Rename, to add AMG data to my mp3s after they're ripped. It's a handy lil' programm and just copies the artist/album/track/title/year/genre/review/coverart info from the webpage.

CDex does a good job with EAC? That's like saying Windows does a good job with Linux.

Exact Audio Copy and Lame is the way to go

I know everyone always says "use EAC, it gives you the best quality rips you can get". But I don't get it.

Until recently I was using Audiograbber for all my rips (and LAME to encode), because EAC just couldn't cope with my old CDROM. I now have a nice Plextor CDRW/DVDROM so I thought it was time to switch to the "best" ripper around.

Using Audiograbber on my PII300 with my new drive it can manage to rip at 15x - 25x (depending on where on the disk the track is). EAC manages 5x - 10x on the recommended settings and still only 10x - 15x on the "fast" setting.

Now I'm happy to sacrifice a bit of speed for better quality. However I have yet to find a single track where the WAV files generated by EAC and Audiograbber differ at all (i.e. I do a bit by bit compare and they are identical).

I would happily use EAC if it actually did produce different results to Audiograbber, but as long as Audiograbber does perfect rips anyway I don't see the point.

All of my CDs are in very good condition, I don't go around mishandling my disks. Does this explain why Audiograbber gives the same results but 3 times faster ?

All of my CDs are in very good condition, I don't go around mishandling my disks. Does this explain why Audiograbber gives the same results [as EAC] but 3 times faster ?

Yes. EAC is optimized for precision and accuracy, especially in the face of potential errors, not speed.

However, neither do I mishandle my disks, but they do simply age as you move them in and out of CD players. I'm not saying they oxidize or that the laser wears them out, but it's hard not to occasionally do something to damage them simply by handling them. And given that, it's better for me to use something that I know will give me the best possible results, even if it might be slower, rather than something that ought to give me the correct results, depending on a few criteria, about which I am significantly less confident. However, if you're confident that all your disks are error-free, then, of course, continue with whatever works for you.

EAC's secure mode is the best ripping around. It will read every piece of data twice and compare the two to make sure it is getting a perfect copy. If they don't match, it will keep reading it until they do, or until it gives up. Yes, that makes it twice as slow as the alternatives, but isn't peace of mind worth it.

If you don't do it that way, I can pretty much guarantee that you have a problems with one of your rips somewhere. No CD drive ever made rips perfectly, especially if the CD is dirty, scratched, or is of low quality (common with classical music CDs for instance). If you don't have some kind of double-checking like this you have no way of knowing if there is a problem.

Oh, there's a description of EAC's extraction modes here.

Andy, that's a good point that you bring up. I forgot the mention that the reason that everyone goes nuts over EAC is because it is supposedly the only program that can gaurentee perfect rips. It really does a good job with CD's that have been in a car (the load mechanisms on most car CD players do hell to CD's) and older CD that have been shuffled around a lot. I've even had a few brand new CD's that have triggered EAC's error correction due to less than perfect pressing.

I used AudioGrabber too and like it. I was having a few damaged CD's that weren't ripping correctly, so that's why I went to EAC. That was after paying the $20 bucks or so. (EAC is free, as is Lame).

On the subject of damaged CD's, I highly recommend the "Skip Dr." device. It buffs a small layer of the plastic away on damaged CD's (much like you can buff scratches out of a car's paint). I've had great results with it. The $30 I spent on it saved about 50 CD's so far.

I would have to say that EAC/Lame is the best. When I first got my empeg all I wanted was to get all my cd's into it, bad idea. I used music match and or audio catalyst to rip them once at 128cbr and then redid them at 192cbr, and when I was done I still just had a lot of nasty sounding mp3's (especialy the pink floyd) so one by one I have been using EAC to redo all of them and wow what a difference. It is slower but well worth it when your done. On my pc at home (amd k6-2 500mhz) it takes about 45 min to an hour or more for one cd but at work on that pc (amd athlon 1.7ghz) It only takes about 10-15 min. per cd. So I just need a faster pc

Im with "SE_Sport_Driver" on the skip dr. it fixed a handfull of unreadable cd's for me too.

...and for all the linux/*nix/*BSD heads, cdparanoia is the equivalent of EAC. It's kinda paranoid about ripping the correct data.

IMHO, the data in freeDB is getting much better. I seem to be finding fewer CDs that aren't known, and more that are 100% correct*.

* Correct in this context meaning with a reasonable interpretation of Artist/Album title/year, even if it isn't what we'd personally prefer in some circumstances (mix albums, classical, compilations etc).

Of the dozen or so CDs that I have acquired for/since Christmas, all but one were 100% correct, and that one just had a typo error in the title.

In reply to:

---

Exact Audio Copy and Lame is the way to go

I know everyone always says "use EAC, it gives you the best quality rips you can get". But I don't get it.

Until recently I was using Audiograbber for all my rips (and LAME to encode), because EAC just couldn't cope with my old CDROM. I now have a nice Plextor CDRW/DVDROM so I thought it was time to switch to the "best" ripper around.

Using Audiograbber on my PII300 with my new drive it can manage to rip at 15x - 25x (depending on where on the disk the track is). EAC manages 5x - 10x on the recommended settings and still only 10x - 15x on the "fast" setting.

Now I'm happy to sacrifice a bit of speed for better quality. However I have yet to find a single track where the WAV files generated by EAC and Audiograbber differ at all (i.e. I do a bit by bit compare and they are identical).

I would happily use EAC if it actually did produce different results to Audiograbber, but as long as Audiograbber does perfect rips anyway I don't see the point.

All of my CDs are in very good condition, I don't go around mishandling my disks. Does this explain why Audiograbber gives the same results but 3 times faster ?

---

This is exactly my experience

Woo hoo ! I'm a member !

100 dumb ass posts. And they're mine. All mine.

Call the BBS Police - BLATENT BLATENT post count boosting, .......unlike this post .

Cheers, Sim

However I have yet to find a single track where the WAV files generated by EAC and Audiograbber differ at all (i.e. I do a bit by bit compare and they are identical).

I would happily use EAC if it actually did produce different results to Audiograbber, but as long as Audiograbber does perfect rips anyway I don't see the point.

All of my CDs are in very good condition, I don't go around mishandling my disks. Does this explain why Audiograbber gives the same results but 3 times faster ?

"However I have yet to find a single room in my house where using a full fire extinguisher differed at all from an empty one (i.e. I count the number of things on fire before and after and they are identical).

I would happily keep a full fire extinguisher if it actually did produce different results to an empty one, but as long as nothing's on fire anyway, I don't see the point.

All of my furnishings are not on fire, I don't go around setting light to them. Does this explain why an empty fire extinguisher gives the same results but is 3 times lighter?"



Peter

Yup - Audiograbber & LAME for me. No issues whatsoever (excluding my first 20 CD's, when I had my CD settings wrong and every track had a blit at about the 5 second mark. Akk!)

My only annoyance is that I can't persuade Audiograbber to remember a different address to grab freeDB info from, as most of my network is not ever connected to any public infrastructure and I want to use a local copy.

Clever clogs !

Ok, I'm sold. I'll persist with EAC.

Now I just need to find a CD scratched enough to return C2 errors, given the scratch free state of my CDs I might actually have to manufacture one...

...now where is that Brittney album ?

I always took the albums missing in freedb as my way of paying back the guys who had to type in all the original data... I mean someone has to be the first one on every album don't they?

The only site worth its salt would be the one that banned the word "various" completely, and insisted upon an artist name - every track.

I might actually have to manufacture one...

...now where is that Brittney album ?

You may borrow anything from my daughter's collection to experiment: What does she do with them!

I'm in the EAC/LAME camp and I've often found CD's in Leeds public library that none of my CD players will play, but I can get perfect playback from the MP3 through EAC. But it's a slow, slow process.

I would only mention that the CD was so invincible, we were told, that it would play with jam spread on it!

One way around the slow encoding speed of LAME (slow when comparing LAME --alt-preset standard to almost any other encoder) is to do your encoding as a seperate step.

IE: Rip several CDs to WAV and then encode the CDs while you do something worth while like sleep.

I've been doing it this way as I find the most labour intensive part is the ripping and ensuring the Album/Artist/Track/Genre/Year info is correct, but this is also the least time intensive, while the encoding requires zero labour but lots of CPU.
That way the 30 minutes encoding time become irrelevent.

Oh, for the record I'm using AudioGrabber & LAME APS

Various reasons why CDDB/FreeDB sucks