Talk:CD ripper

Brasero

I removed Brasero from the list of BSD/Linux rippers. I use a recent version of Brasero regularly. Nether its Wikipedia article, the help, or my experience with this program indicate it to have any functionally not related to the burning or copying disks. The ability to copy an entire audio disk to another optical disk or disk image does not constitute ripping. -- 74.226.218.11 20:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The talk and article edits by 74.226.218.11 are me -- Inadvertently got logged out. -- Bdentremont (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

LAME a CD ripper backend?

I don't think so. Even if it is not what was meant, it should be removed.

Also, a ripper is not limited to convert the extracted WAV to a lossy format...

Pascal D.

I removed LAME from the list of back-ends. (Enzo1982 12:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC))

List of CD ripper software

I added a reference to Audio Grabber, a ripper I use for CD's that works quite well and is fast it used to be shareware but now its freeware. I was sure the Dmc was not being provided as freeware, but noticed the distinction on the DMC wikipage.. --Rofthorax 09:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I recently removed "Amazing CD Ripper" and some other commercial and non-widespread rippers, because I think they are not as relevant to users as Open Source or Freeware tools. Now a user from 87.103.183.2 readded "Amazing CD Ripper". I think it would be better to have a not too long list of relevant Freeware and Open Source programs only. --Enzo1982 10:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the list of Windows CD ripper software I wonder if we should include iTunes, MusicMatch, Winamp and WMP as they are not mainly CD rippers. Also dbPowerAmp (limited MP3 encoder) and Easy CDDA Extractor (lower ripping speed in free version) are not really free. In my opinion we should limit the list to real Freeware and Open Source applications. That would give:

• Audiograbber
• BonkEnc (Open Source)
• CDex (Open Source)
• Exact Audio Copy (EAC)

I think a shorter list of relevant software would be much more convenient to users than the current list. --Enzo1982 10:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Why call it rip?

Why is the term 'rip' used for this process? Where did the terminology originate ? - Bevo 15:53, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The best clue so far I've found is at http://jargon.watson-net.com/jargon.asp?w=rip - Bevo 16:17, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bitrate?

What is the optimal bitrate to rip at...128?

That's about a standard bitrate. Of course, the higher it is, the better quality it is. Umma Kynes 20:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend 256, these days. Superm401 - Talk 08:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Cdparanoia portability

Cdparanoia has been written for Linux only. It is most unlikely that the original source code compiles and runs on other platforms. If it does, then this is a result of implemented Linux compatibility on these platforms but not a result of the portability of cdparanoia. In any case, this does not justify to call it portable to UNIX like platforms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.158.112.144 (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Cdparanoia works on FreeBSD. It doesn't require the linux compatibility layer, so it was either modified to work on there, or compiled natively on there. I'm not sure which. Information on the FreeBSD port can be found here. BlueJayofEvil (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The existence of a patch that makes it portable to FreeBSD is not a reason to call the original software portable. The cdparanoia source only includes support for Linux SCSI generic and it requires GCC vendor specific enhancements. Schily (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

ripperX?

The image on the main article shows a program called "ripperX" and is mentioned as being a GNU/Linux ripper. However, there is no mention of "ripperX" in the article or in the lists of rippers. It looks like an old program judging by the picture. Is this an old or obsolete ripper? If so, where is there no historical mention of it? Another possibilty worth considering is replacing the picture with a different one of another ripper? BlueJayofEvil (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent revert

This edit undid a change in line with WP:LEDE and invoked the GNU/Linux naming controversy unnecessarily by naming the OS when not required. It should be reverted. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand!

"The first CD ripper for Unix systems was cdda2wav, it was considered superseded by cdparanoia in 1998, cdparanioa is superseded by cdda2wav since 2002."

This sentence makes no sense. --77.109.213.122 (talk) 09:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Play3401 First CD Ripper?

The page currently states that "The first CD ripper was CD-GRAB, written by A.L. Downloading Services in 1993. ... The first CD ripper for Unix systems was cdda2wav, it was considered superseded by cdparanoia in 1998." The cdda2wav page states that cdda2wav was released in 1996.

However, in 1993, I released play3401, a CD Ripper for NeXT computers running a version of BSD. See for example here.

Given that this software was publicly released no later than February 3, 1993, it may even have been the first CD Ripper for any operating system. In 1995, it saw its fourth release supporting a wide variety of CD hardware.

As I was the original author of play3401, I obviously am not the person to make an edit for this, if any. So advice on proper procedure by a more experienced Wiki Editor would be much appreciated. --CarlEdman (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

cdparanoia is not superseding cdda2wav, cdparanoia was a hack on a cdda2wav version from 1997 that was maintained until 2001, but without updating the cdda2wav base code. Cdda2wav includes the enhanced cdparanoia library code since May 2002. Cdda2wav exists since 1993 (see cdda2wav man page and source). Schily (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

DOS

Any software for DOS ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Huh, found Mpxplay. --Jerome Potts (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)