RE: Ripping Level Question (help?)

[garym]

Re: Ripping Level Question (help?)

I rip all my CDs to flac. I have also converted my whole flac library to mp3 (vbr Quality -V 1) for use in my portable devices.

Note: My library does not contain any dialog CDs, podcasts, audiobooks etc.

i do exactly like the same. FLAC for home. MP3 for portable devices. And yes. Converter is many times faster than ripping.

[monsterjazzlick]

Re: Ripping Level Question (help?)

i do exactly like the same. FLAC for home. MP3 for portable devices. And yes. Converter is many times faster than ripping.

OK, Cheers Gary.

[monsterjazzlick]

Re: Ripping Level Question (help?)

mville knows me well on this topic! Yes, I don't care about saving space at all. But porcasts, audiobooks, etc. are not music that I care about having bit perfect copies of. Good quality MP3 is more than enough for that stuff.

Gary, When I come to rip my lecture CDs I will use mp3. Cheers.

[Oggy]

Re: Ripping Level Question (help?)

Thanks very much Oggy, I tried the SD Card in two other music playing devices and it works fine. I emailed Sony on Thursday evening but they have not replied. Each time it is sent to them for repair, it is returned with a new fault! Quite unbelievable really.

80 x mins to rip the original double-CD of "Bitches Brew" is good going. Actually, I remember there only being a few wrong items of info. on there (unlike many other CDs to date!). Here are the two arts I used for the original CD front and rear:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1664[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1665[/ATTACH]

Completely different art for BOXSET version was used.

Incidentally, do you have the bonus track CD (it has a Wayne Shorter track ["Fieo"] placed at the end)? Cheers,

Paul

Hi Paul,

I used the same front cover, and it has no bonus track, the same six track version, as your jpeg.

It took 80 minutes, in total, to rip Bitches Brew and the other 7 CDs.

Oggy

[monsterjazzlick]

Re: Ripping Level Question (help?)

To answer your question, if it was a new Bitches Brew, boxset, with bonus tracks, I would still use, Year 1970. If the boxset was the only version I had, I probably wouldn't put 2001 anywhere, if I did, it would go in Comments.

If I had two copies, and wanted both, I would probably use Bitches Brew and Bitches Brew [Remaster]

This is where choices, and pure personal preferences, comes into the equation.

The main reason I use this, is because, unless I have several unique (different sounding) masterings, the year the CD, was released has no interest to me, and I think in terms of original LP release date.

The benefit of using this method:- I prefer to display the covers in alphabetical order, by Artist, and then chronologically, by Album. So for my Miles Davis, CDs, under D, they display, Kind Of Blue, Porgy And Bess, Sketches Of Spain, E.S.P. Miles In The Sky, In A Silent Way, Bitches Brew, On The Corner.

With your knowledge of Miles, you will notice one error in this order, Porgy And Bess, should be before, Kind Of Blue, but because they were both the same year, alphabetically, Kind comes before Porgy. This is the flaw in the plan, as the player / app, doesn't work with 1959 03 09 and 1959 08 17.

I could fudge, Year, to display correctly, chronologically, and put the release date in Comments: I guess that is one of my choices!!

Hopefully this helps explain why, I make the choices that I do, but also, just how personal, these choices are. Because I can superimpose, the Artist and Album name, on the bottom of the cover, on my app, I try and keep the filename as short as possible, whilst reflecting what it says on the cover. Basically, the CD covers, are for me, the modern day equivalent, of LP sleeve, spines.

Hi Oggy,

OK, so the four boxset CDs I have are: "The Complete Bitches Brew Sessions"; "The Complete In A Silent Way Sessions"; and "The Complete Jack Johnson Sessions". I am quite happy with their titles (ie. "The Complete"). This way, there is no clash with the original CD version titles (eg. "Bitches Brew") - I hope you would agree.

I am now avoiding using the "comments" tag for reasons explained separately.

But, as you correctly picked up on, my issue is concerning the YEAR. If I understand correctly, you mean even though the BOXSET version of "Bitches Brew" was not released until 2001, you would still write 1970 as the YEAR (because that was the year the ORIGINAL recording [of the double-album] was released)? Even though the BONUS TRACKS (ie. 'out-takes') were not RELEASED until 2001, this fact is disregarded and you still place them all under the YEAR of 1970. I think this might be so because you are taking into logical consideration the fact that the BONUS TRACKS (ie. 'out-takes') were obviously recorded in and around the same year as 1970?

If I am correct, then that is all well and good. However - for me - what throws a spanner in the works is that on: "The Complete In A Silent Way Sessions", it includes material of which appears on different albums, both of different release dates! For example, two tracks ('Mademoiselle Mabry' and 'Frelon Burn') are from: "Filles De Kilimanjaro" - which was released (as an album in it's own right) in 1968. Similarly, tracks 'Ascent' and 'Directions' were released in 1981 on: "Directions" (again, as an album in it's own right):

And so, do you ignore this fact in favour of following your own tagging legend? I am assuming that you would simply place EVERYTHING relating to: "The Complete In A Silent Way Sessions" under the YEAR 1969 (ie. the YEAR of the original single-album release)?

Many thanks,

Paul

[Oggy]

Re: Ripping Level Question (help?)

Hi Oggy,

OK, so the four boxset CDs I have are: "The Complete Bitches Brew Sessions"; "The Complete In A Silent Way Sessions"; and "The Complete Jack Johnson Sessions". I am quite happy with their titles (ie. "The Complete"). This way, there is no clash with the original CD version titles (eg. "Bitches Brew") - I hope you would agree.

I am now avoiding using the "comments" tag for reasons explained separately.

But, as you correctly picked up on, my issue is concerning the YEAR. If I understand correctly, you mean even though the BOXSET version of "Bitches Brew" was not released until 2001, you would still write 1970 as the YEAR (because that was the year the ORIGINAL recording [of the double-album] was released)? Even though the BONUS TRACKS (ie. 'out-takes') were not RELEASED until 2001, this fact is disregarded and you still place them all under the YEAR of 1970. I think this might be so because you are taking into logical consideration the fact that the BONUS TRACKS (ie. 'out-takes') were obviously recorded in and around the same year as 1970?

If I am correct, then that is all well and good. However - for me - what throws a spanner in the works is that on: "The Complete In A Silent Way Sessions", it includes material of which appears on different albums, both of different release dates! For example, two tracks ('Mademoiselle Mabry' and 'Frelon Burn') are from: "Filles De Kilimanjaro" - which was released (as an album in it's own right) in 1968. Similarly, tracks 'Ascent' and 'Directions' were released in 1981 on: "Directions" (again, as an album in it's own right):

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1666[/ATTACH]

And so, do you ignore this fact in favour of following your own tagging legend? I am assuming that you would simply place EVERYTHING relating to: "The Complete In A Silent Way Sessions" under the YEAR 1969 (ie. the YEAR of the original single-album release)?

Many thanks,

Paul

Yes, I do what you suggest, apart from a 40th anniversary, that slipped through the net, and displays rather more randomly than I would like! Luckily the editing couldn't be much easier.





These screenshots show how I display Artist, Album, chronologically, showing the optional Artist and Album name. You can see in The Beatles example, that I fudged the Hamburg release date, to display it, before Please Please Me.

Ultimately, it's a matter of choosing the best option for our own needs, this may, or may not work for someone else.

[monsterjazzlick]

Re: Ripping Level Question (help?)

Yes, I do what you suggest, apart from a 40th anniversary, that slipped through the net, and displays rather more randomly than I would like! Luckily the editing couldn't be much easier.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1673[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1674[/ATTACH]

These screenshots show how I display Artist, Album, chronologically, showing the optional Artist and Album name. You can see in The Beatles example, that I fudged the Hamburg release date, to display it, before Please Please Me.

Ultimately, it's a matter of choosing the best option for our own needs, this may, or may not work for someone else.

Oggy, Ha ha, there's always the one that got away!

The screenshots of those 6 x CD arts on one page - is that how they appear on your playback device? So if 4 x Beatles albums make up 1 x BOXSET, then all 4 x CD arts appear all together, at once?! They look really great! Were they all done in that 'Picture Manager' s/w, or are you using 'PhotoShop'?

OK, I will sleep on your kind advice, thanks. I really did plan on closing the door on all the Miles stuff the weekend, but the damn day got totally sidetracked on another problem! I spent about 4 hours on it and Gary kindly offered some help along the way (it's discussed [under separate cover] in my "Removing Comments Tag" thread [*34]). Cheers, Paul

BTW - If you like Miles then here is one I made about 7 x years ago. Tracks and samples created in 'Steinberg Cubase' (from 3 x Miles albums of the 1980s):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnXM1LQKNqo

[Jailhouse]

Re: Ripping Level Question (help?)

So converting a file is much faster than ripping it?

Certainly. A CD drive is far slower than a hard drive, let alone the SSDs available these days.

I have been converting Beatport AIFF files to FLAC. A single conversion session of a half-dozen files with a total of about 30 minutes of music takes less than five seconds, compared to about 1-1/2 minutes if ripping a CD of the same length; that's roughly 36 times faster. And this on a PC with a second-tier processor (in terms of speed) I've had for nearly 8-1/2 years now.

[Oggy]

Re: Ripping Level Question (help?)

Oggy, Ha ha, there's always the one that got away!

The screenshots of those 6 x CD arts on one page - is that how they appear on your playback device? So if 4 x Beatles albums make up 1 x BOXSET, then all 4 x CD arts appear all together, at once?!

OK, I will sleep on your kind advice, thanks. I really did plan on closing the door on all the Miles stuff the weekend, but the damn day got totally sidetracked on another problem! I spent about 4 hours on it and Gary kindly offered some help along the way (it's discussed [under separate cover] in my "Removing Comments Tag" thread). Cheers, Paul

You can display 6, 24, or 35 on a page. I will find some better covers, particularly of Bitches Brew, on "a rainy day!"

If I had gone up one line, it would show Kind Of Blue, and Porgy And Bess, chronologically the wrong way round, because same year release and alphabet rule.

There comes a time when it is more important to listen to music, rather than letting OCD, rule your life!!

[monsterjazzlick]

Re: Ripping Level Question (help?)

Certainly. A CD drive is far slower than a hard drive, let alone the SSDs available these days.

I have been converting Beatport AIFF files to FLAC. A single conversion session of a half-dozen files with a total of about 30 minutes of music takes less than five seconds, compared to about 1-1/2 minutes if ripping a CD of the same length; that's roughly 36 times faster. And this on a PC with a second-tier processor (in terms of speed) I've had for nearly 8-1/2 years now.

Thanks JH, OK, I never looked at it like that. Yes, of course, the CD drive will be slow! Gee, 5 seconds to whizz through all that music is practically the same as instantaneous! I wonder if one day in the future people will be complaining that "5 seconds" is too long?! Paul

[monsterjazzlick]

Re: Ripping Level Question (help?)

There comes a time when it is more important to listen to music, rather than letting OCD, rule your life!!

Yes, this is where I am at at the moment! All spare time is spent ripping and posting on this forum. Not that I don't love posting questions and chatting, but it would be nice, one day, to actually LISTEN to one of my hard earned FLACs! Paul

[Jailhouse]

Re: Ripping Level Question (help?)

If I had gone up one line, it would show Kind Of Blue, and Porgy And Bess, chronologically the wrong way round, because same year release and alphabet rule.

There comes a time when it is more important to listen to music, rather than letting OCD, rule your life!!

I have a few instances of this kind of thing happening. If I really want to listen to the albums in strict chronological order, I can set up a foobar playlist that way.

[Jailhouse]

Re: Ripping Level Question (help?)

Thanks JH, OK, I never looked at it like that. Yes, of course, the CD drive will be slow! Gee, 5 seconds to whizz through all that music is practically the same as instantaneous! I wonder if one day in the future people will be complaining that "5 seconds" is too long?! Paul

They already do.

[monsterjazzlick]

Re: Ripping Level Question (help?)

If I really want to listen to the albums in strict chronological order, I can set up a foobar playlist that way.

JH, that's a good idea! Paul

[monsterjazzlick]

Re: Ripping Level Question (help?)

They already do.

Ha ha, you can always rely on the British citizens for a good old moan!