> Justin Smith wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 10:25 PM, Justin Smith > > <noisesmith@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Arthur <arthura@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > > >> > Roger E wrote: > >> > > Another happy Amarok user here. I always fix the tags with > >> > > Easytag before adding them to the collection. With proper > >> > > tags the search works perfectly. Easytag can fetch tags from > >> > > cddb also, and rename files from tags. > >> > > If only Amarok had a replay gain function like fb2k I reckon > >> > > it would be perfect. It does take over half an hour to scan > >> > > my 10000 tracks, but hey, you only need to do that once. > >> > > Oh yes, I experienced this Problem as well. 10k tracks may still work, but at a certain point amarok(as most audioplayers) just get unusable. I know that amarok supports different database backends, but I honestly just don't know how to administrate such a beast. mpd is the only one I know that can handle huge collections out of the box and creates the library a lot faster than amarok(with standard db). > >> > I also think that amarok is great, but I have a very fast > >> > computer. I don't fix tags with easytag (but I do think that > >> > it's a great program), I rip with rubyripper and everything is > >> > ready to dump into my music folder as is. If you folks don't > >> > know about rubyripper, please check it out. I found out about > >> > it when I was running archlinux and I hope that there are > >> > binaries for every distro soon. No, I am not affiliated with > >> > rubyripper in any way. > >> > > >> > Enjoy, > >> > Arthur > >> > >> From the wikipedia page for the program: > >> One has to wonder though: can 3 bytes actually be heard in a wav > >> file that produces 180.000 bytes per second? > >> > >> The answer is a definitive yes, and if you are (un)lucky, they may > >> just blow your speakers too. And I presume by 180,000 bytes per > >> second they mean 176,400. > >> > >> Since it is a ruby application, presumably it wouldn't even be > >> possible to have a binary for it if you wanted one (or is it mixed > >> ruby/c?). > >> > Don't know, I installed from a .deb package. It works. > >> It does look like an interesting application, but their > >> alogorithms are either very naively implemented or the wikipedia > >> page explains them poorly. > >> Try this page for a hopefully better explanation, and if it doesn't help, the forum surely will: http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Rubyripper > > > > I can only say, try it. I have been very pleased. I am a composer > > and my ears still function. I have hafler audio equipment and I > > can't hear the difference between my cd's and a rubyripper rip. > > YMMV, but it may please you as much as it's pleased me. I have > > tried many other rippers. > Arthur >From what I read some years ago, cdparanoias concept or implementation is flawed, and rubyripper tries to make a highlevel-workaround. That may be not as good as writing a better cdparanoia, but it's better than just using it as-is. It's the only 'secure'-ripper I know of in linux. Regards, Philipp _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
