Re: [LAU] Decent and attractive audio player

> Justin Smith wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 10:25 PM, Justin Smith
> > <noisesmith@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> >> On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Arthur <arthura@email-addr-hidden> 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@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Mon, 28 Apr 2008 08:34:40 +0200