Ripping my CD's, have some questions

heiney9

audiobliss wrote: »

Foobar2k recognizes the track numbers and lists them in that order just fine, regardless of the file name. However, I still want the songs to be listed in that order in Windows Explorer. Perhaps your idea on that front will work.

I was expecting there to be some way to get that result using ID3 tags, but I must admit I'm not familiar at with them.

ID3 tags are exactly why track numbers show up in media players like Foobar. Windows doesn't use nor recgonize ID3 tags, it never has so you have to figure out another way to "name" (notice I didn't say tag) your files in Windows. Whatever you "name" them in windows is not an imbedded tag for when you play them in a media player.

I'm really not understanding what the issue is? I rip my stuff right into a folder and then play it in media monkey. I have no idea why you'd be viewing or playing a file from Windows Explorer.

Even if you want to burn something either the burning software lets you drag and drop files in whatever order (based on the ID3 info from your rip) or you facilitate the burn from Foobar or MediaMonkey. Why does Windows Explorer need to be used?

heiney9

wayne3burk wrote: »

I wasn't aware that foobar recognizes the track number without the number as part of the title..

I'll have to give foobar a test drive

thanks,

All media players use info form the ID3 tag which is embedded during the ripping process so it's imortant to get that info correct. One can go back and edit it, but if name your files in Windows that is strictly for identifying the file in Windows...........that info doesn't translate into a media player like Foobar or MediaMoney or Windows Media Player..........it's all based on the ID3 tags embedded during the ripping process.

H9

audiobliss

Thanks for the info, heiney9. As I'm trying to figure out how to get this to work, in the back of my mind I'm not really sure why I want it that way. You've convinced me. There really is no point in having the songs sorted like that in windows explorer. I guess my only reasoning was that I usually open my music to play from windows explorer. I generally rather open a folder corresponding to the artist, then the folder with that album in it, and then select the song(s) from that album I want to play, rather than use a media player's built-in album function. Mainly I suppose because I've yet to find a media player other than iTunes that manages your collection how I like.

heiney9

audiobliss wrote: »

Mainly I suppose because I've yet to find a media player other than iTunes that manages your collection how I like.

MediaMonkey is awesome and free. I prefer over Foobar or Winamp by a wide margin.

H9

ESavinon

Just download Vortexbox into a old computer.

audiobliss

heiney9 wrote: »

MediaMonkey is awesome and free. I prefer over Foobar or Winamp by a wide margin.

H9

I used the free version of MediaMonkey a while back for a bit. It felt a little bloated and slow to me, and I didn't particularly like the album section. However, I'll have to revisit it once I get my music re-ripped and all my ducks in a row again. Perhaps I'll think more highly of it another time around.

heiney9

audiobliss wrote: »

I used the free version of MediaMonkey a while back for a bit. It felt a little bloated and slow to me, and I didn't particularly like the album section. However, I'll have to revisit it once I get my music re-ripped and all my ducks in a row again. Perhaps I'll think more highly of it another time around.

I have to LOL at that statement simply because earlier you mentioned i-Tunes which is by faaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrr slower and more bloated than MediaMonkey :biggrin:. i-Tunes is really poor in that regard, IMO.

I have found zero issues with MM as far as speed or being bloated. It's ablility to catalog my music collection is amazing. It's an extremely powerful program and I could see if someone was just looking for a player to play store bought mp3's perhaps Foobar or Winamp is less bloated.

The things MM can do simply amazes me. My audio library is very important to me and I use it with my music server so MM is invaluable to me as a tool and it doubles as a great player for the office rig.

H9

SCompRacer

heiney9 wrote: »

I have found zero issues with MM as far as speed or being bloated.

As a user of both Media Monkey and the wifes iTunes, I agree. I am glad I took your brother Blakes advice and bought MediaMonkey Gold and dBpoweramp ripping software.

Matter of fact, after some iTunes mishaps, the wife wants to learn Media Monkey as it will export to her iPod in mp3.

heiney9

SCompRacer wrote: »

As a user of both Media Monkey and the wifes iTunes, I agree. I am glad I took your brother Blakes advice and bought MediaMonkey Gold and dBpoweramp ripping software.

Matter of fact, after some iTunes mishaps, the wife wants to learn Media Monkey as it will export to her iPod in mp3.

I am not that thrilled with i-Tunes, I use it simply because I have an i-Pod Touch and it's necessary. Thinking of selling the Touch and getting an Android based phone that does all the things I use the iPod for only cheaper and easier. I mostly use the i-Pod Touch for the iPeng app which control the Squeezebox Touch. Android based phones have an identical app.

H9

FTGV

I recently downloaded the free version of J River as an alternatve to iTunes.Like it so far but I need to figure out how to get album art.

audiobliss

Oh, I definitely agree with the consensus on iTunes. Extremely bloated, finicky, and unresponsive. I was just using it as an example of an album management system I like. Perhaps because before I got so picky with digital music I started out on iTunes and became accustomed to its interface.

What're your thoughts on dBpoweramp for ripping? I've used the demo version for converting file formats before, but never for ripping. Is it comparable to EAC? Or am I better off sticking with EAC?

I guess I need to research more into the capabilities of MediaMonkey. I feel like I might would need separate software for ripping my CD's, managing my albums, converting/burning to .WAV, and sending to my iPod. But it seems as though MediaMonkey has a lot of those bases covered. Is dBpoweramp's only use for ripping and converting?

heiney9

I use dB poweramp now instead of EAC. Not sure on the other capabilites of dBpoweramp as I really haven't looked into it.

I feel like I might would need separate software for ripping my CD's, managing my albums, converting/burning to .WAV, and sending to my iPod. But it seems as though MediaMonkey has a lot of those bases covered.

MM will do all that and more all in one program. Not sure why you want to rip to .WAV unless you mean copying actual files to play on a cdp. I still do make a cdr here and there for friends...........all done effortlessly from MM.

The greatest thing about MM is it's report feature meaning I can create a report of my music library import it into i-Tunes and load it on my i-Pod and when in the cd store I can pull it up on the i-Pod and see if I already own that music. I have been buying a lot of dups lately.

H9

audiobliss

Yes, I was referring to burning CD's for friends or for playing in the car. Sounds like MM's pretty awesome. I will definitely look into it and dBpoweramp again.

Thanks so much for the info!

audiobliss

Just out of curiosity, why the move from EAC to dbPoweramp? What do you prefer in the latter over the former?

LessisNevermore

audiobliss wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, why the move from EAC to dbPoweramp? What do you prefer in the latter over the former?

I have the same question as well. Also, what's the deal with dBP, is it modular-each bit bought separately, or what?

audiobliss

I'm looking at it on their website, under the "Purchase" section, and it appears that for $38 you can purchase the "dBpoweramp Reference R14" which seems to include the CD ripper and writer, though I'm not sure on the converter. If it including the ripping and converting aspects, I'd be very tempted. But I'm not very interested in paying for both separately.

EDIT: Looking HERE where it breaks down the difference in the versions, it seems they all include the format converter.

audiobliss

Just as an fyi, I, too, am now using dBpoweramp for ripping CD's. I d/l'd the free version to give it a try, and the overall process seems to be simpler, smoother, and faster, with no reduction in user control and quality of the rip.

Also, I love how when dBpoweramp installed, when I hover my cursor over a music file in windows explorer, dBpoweramp provides me with TONS of information about the file. Also, ripping with dBpoweramp, somehow how track numbers are associated with my music files in windows explorer, if I were to decide to sort by those.

m00npie

audiobliss wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, why the move from EAC to dbPoweramp? What do you prefer in the latter over the former?

I won't speak for Brock, but for me... simplicity in setup and highly efficient over EAC. All the same functionality + more in about a third of the time to rip both .mp3(LAME) and .flac (Lossless). Worth the cost in my opinion.