From owner-freebsd-multimedia Sun Jan 28 7:51: 2 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-multimedia@freebsd.org Received: from cx344940-a.meta1.la.home.com (cx344940-a.meta1.la.home.com [24.6.21.74]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 909EB37B400 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 07:50:44 -0800 (PST) Received: (from cjsabatier@localhost) by cx344940-a.meta1.la.home.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) id f0SFr2v64945; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 09:53:02 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from cjsabatier) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.4.0 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 09:53:02 -0600 (CST) Organization: @Home Network From: Conrad Sabatier To: Espen Oyslebo Subject: RE: Cd-paranoia Cc: multimedia@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-freebsd-multimedia@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 28-Jan-01 Espen Oyslebo wrote: > Anyone get cd-paranoia to work under free-bsd? I used to run linux, and > cd-paranoia was imho by far the best cd `ripper' because it would extract > excellent quality audio even from my sheiz-creative ide cd-rom drive. It's > the only program I really miss after I `upgraded' to FreeBSD 4.2 stable a > couple of weeks ago. > > If not, what is the `best' substitute under FreeBSD. Since programs are often > hard to rate on a worst --> best scale, a nice summery of pros/cons of the > different tools would be appreciated. I prefer cdd, myself. It cannot be built from the ports collection at this time, as it's in need of some updating and is marked as "BROKEN", but if you install from the latest package, it works just fine. A very reliable CD ripper. If cdd can't rip it, nothing can. :-) You'll also want the sox package, to convert the raw pcm data cdd gets to waves. > One more thing whilst I've got your attention: Lame vs Blade (mp3 encoder)? > And is there a significant quality improvement from 128 --> 192? how about > 192 --> 256? I use gogo, myself. Very, very fast. Does variable bit rate (which I've just discovered makes an incredible difference in quality, albeit at a considerable cost of space), etc. And yes, different bit rates do make a difference. I use 160 kbits with variable bit rate encoding, for excellent results. One thing I've noticed, too, is that older recordings often sound better at *lower* bit rates, perhaps because the inferiority of the older technology doesn't show through as much. The best advice is to experiment with different settings and see what you get. It's fun! :-) -- Conrad Sabatier cjsabatier@home.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-multimedia" in the body of the message