Get the top HN stories in your inbox every day.
accrual
SloopJon
Years ago, I had most of my music ripped to AAC in iTunes, easily accessible, browsable, and shuffleable.
I now rip each of my CDs to a single FLAC and cue sheet (using XLD on Mac), on the theory that it's the most accurate way to archive a disc. However, I haven't found anything that offers the same accessibility to such a collection as iTunes did. I look through folders, and drag a few cue sheets at a time into Foobar 2000.
Any tips?
xprueg
I found Swinsian[1] after I ditched iTunes, It works quite good and I’m very happy with it.
While I rip all tracks separately the FAQ states: „Swinsian also supports albums ripped as a single file together with a cue file, and FLAC, Ogg Vorbis and WavPack files with embedded cue information„.
There is a free trial, maybe this works for you.
SloopJon
Very promising: supports macOS 10.8 and later, last updated in 2021, and it read my whole CD collection in just a couple of minutes. Thank you for the suggestion.
rsync
"... on the theory that it's the most accurate way to archive a disc ..."
I won't argue with this but I think there needs to be a qualifier - the most accurate way to archive a disc while using compression ...
Given that an audio cd is encoded in WAV/PCM and we have a WAV file specification, I think ripping to a WAV file remains the gold standard:
"... digital audio extraction software can be used to read CD-DA audio data and store it in files. Common audio file formats for this purpose include WAV and AIFF, which simply preface the LPCM data with a short header ..." [1]
I like the idea that ripping to a WAV file means I never have to rip that disc again.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Disc_Digital_Audio
azornathogron
FLAC is lossless, so there shouldn't be any difference in accuracy between the WAV and the FLAC. Of course, this is why people often choose FLAC for archival of ripped CDs.
Edit: I only mention this because I can't think why the extra "while using compression" qualifier is relevant except for information loss during compression.
Taywee
FLAC is lossless. Any audio CD ripped and encoded to FLAC will be the exact same accuracy as WAV.
Moru
An audio CD can be done in a way that your wav will not represent the full data on the disc. If you want an exact copy, you need to do a disc image with preserve empty space or something similar. The CD can contain both audio tracks and data tracks. Some audio tracks can be hidden from normal play and a ripper might miss those too.
So if you really want to save an exact copy of the CD, you will have to find something better than wav to save the data. There are a few programs that can do an image to ISO format, that might be what you want. I guess it's a bit harder to find a player that can handle the audio tracks from an ISO though.
(Memory is a bit vague on formats and names but this is the general idea.)
pontifier
I've done a little bit of testing with flac and wav files. It is actually possible to convert a flac file back into an identical, bit exact wav file.
2OEH8eoCRo0
You rip one CD to one unsplit FLAC file? I use EAC to rip each track to FLAC with a cue sheet for the CD and Plex to play it.
It seems like a lot of extra steps to play music but when my library started getting huge it was becoming a pain to organize and sync between devices.
nofreelunch
You can use foobar to index your music files and assign a hotkey to run a search of your music library. I have found that foobar is faster at locating files than browsing my [excessively large] music collection.
bombcar
Hard drive space is cheap. Do both.
jcollins1991
hate to say, but this is my way... EAC to flac and leave it on a NAS, then XLD to apple lossless on my macbook and sync to my iPhone... working great for me so far
thirdsun
Why not use ALAC and individual tracks? It's lossless and compatible with iTunes/Music.app and iOS devices (as well as basically any hardware or software player worth using).
Using whole files rather than individual tracks is just asking for problems with mainstream players in my opinion.
However if you're serious about your music library I recommend Roon. Not cheap but a great solution.
leonroy
I did the same - ripped all my albums to iTunes but after it slowly became more unpleasant to use for my use case I moved to Roon.
It’s expensive but Roon does this at a level far beyond iTunes: https://roonlabs.com/
jancsika
For your setup-- if I do original CD -> accrual's rip -> burned CD, does burned CD == original CD for all values of original CD?
I'm mostly thinking of those interstitial lead-in thingies on live and concept albums. E.g., if you let a CD play from track 1 to track 2, there may be 5 seconds of crowd noise leading in to track 2. CD players would show this as track 2 at timing "-5", then count down to zero to get to the actual beginning of track 2.
If the user skipped directly to track two, this interstitial thingy wouldn't be played.
Edit: wording
Also: same question for what.cd ripping process. IIRC they broke the tracks down into different files.
saba2008
Single file + CUE sheet solves lead-in thingie problem, by storing both timestamps (time when player should start showing 'Track 2', and time which servers as zero for track-relative timestamps)
It pretty much mirrors actual CD structure of TOC (containing all necessary timestamps and metadata) and continuous sequence of frames with audio data
kevin_thibedeau
Cdrdao preserves all lead-in data for rips in DAO mode. I split tracks to separate files with lead-in of the following track included at the end. Combined with Lame's gapless encoding support you can have seamless playback of CDs that blend tracks.
joe-user
> For your setup-- if I do original CD -> accrual's rip -> burned CD, does burned CD == original CD for all values of original CD?
I was curious about this as well, and the answer was "no". I meticulously followed EAC setup guides for three drives in EAC, I used the recommended gap settings, the results were completely verified by AccurateRip, I was storing the results as a CUE sheet and single WAVE file, all drives would produce the same file, I was using EAC to burn the CUE sheet and WAVE file back to new Verbatim CD-Rs, re-ripping was done with the same setup in EAC, and the files still didn't match. I've been meaning to dig deeper and compare the files in binary, but haven't gotten around to it.
112233
Depends. AFAIK subchannels are not dumped verbatim, so things like CD-TEXT and CD+G images or toc/timing hacks may get lost or mangled.
dsr_
I think it's great when the artists sell me a complete FLAC of their album, so I don't need to do any of that.
Otherwise, I prefer methods that get me CD->FLAC transfers in a few minutes.
Etheryte
Always makes me sad remembering what was lost when What.CD went offline.
JTon
And Oink before it. But the torch has been passed to the next community, not all has been lost
Etheryte
While not all has been lost, I strongly feel that every time the community migrates from one platform to another, the long tail of small time users gets cut off. Ties are severed, people fall out of reach, etc. I initially joined a few sites that popped up after What, but since I didn't find any of the users there that I used to talk to regularly, I don't visit much ever anymore.
teawrecks
Woah Oink. I had forgotten what it was called, but I learned so much about digital quality and was exposed to so much new music that I still listen to today.
filmgirlcw
I miss OiNK all the time. So much music that wasn’t available anywhere else. Sigh.
giardia
The pink palace! I miss it.
auxym
And oink, waffles, Pedro's. It was the golden age of piracy.
ThePowerOfFuet
Oink.
TacticalCoder
> This is pretty cool, it's like a Python and * nix version of Exact Audio Copy (EAC) for Windows.
And it's now packaged with many Linux distro. At some point it wasn't packaged with Debian and I simply couldn't get it to build so... For a while I ran Fedora on an old PC only to get whipper! Nowadays whipper* ships on even Debian / Devuan so life is good.
thriftwy
Linux has cdparanoia for decades now, which doea all that stuff and I'm not sure what's new about Whipper.
medler
Whipper uses cdparanoia under the hood, but it adds features like metadata fetching, gap detection, and so forth.
More details here: https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Whipper
thriftwy
I remember tools such as Asunder and grip adding passable GUIs around cdparanoia.
jszymborski
Just in case anyone was wondering, EAC works without a hitch with WINE on Linux.
from
Highly recommended for anyone using EAC (from a mirror of the what.cd wiki): https://web.archive.org/web/20161123061955/http://whatcdinfo..., https://web.archive.org/web/20161123062018/http://whatcdinfo...
Or XLD: https://web.archive.org/web/20161123023617/http://whatcdinfo...
Gigachad
It’s also the only tool that private torrent trackers will accept. It’s been rigorously tested and accepted to be pretty much perfect, complete software.
anomie31
Orpheus will rate appropriate XLD and whipper logs as 100% fwiw
Also I could be wrong, but don't most trackers still accept rips that they consider inferior, but then they could be trumped by someone else that made an EAC rip?
gjsman-1000
I suggest looking, maybe, at ALAC as well, even though it is generally slept on.
It is open source now just like FLAC, and actually has built-in support in Windows and many Linux music players despite being an Apple format, making it somewhat more universally compatible than FLAC (which isn’t supported in iOS or macOS).
opan
In my school days I was able to add FLAC support to an iPod Touch 4th gen with a quick Cydia module(?) download. I'm skeptical of your claim that macOS doesn't support FLAC. I'm sure mpv and other programs can play it fine. Do you just mean support in the default-installed macOS software? That seems like pretty limiting criteria. I wouldn't expect something like Windows Media Player to cover all that much either.
gjsman-1000
I’m talking about stock macOS, yes.
> something like Windows Media Player to cover all that much either
Well, in Windows 11, Windows Media Player does support ALAC. Heck, it will even rip your CDs and encode them in ALAC.
acidburnNSA
That's a nice package. I use some of the components on the command line to get my CD data to the music server.
Extract data to wav:
cdparanoia -B
parallel lame --preset extreme {} -o {.}.mp3 ::: *.wav
rm *.wav
beet import .
sudo su - mopidy -s /bin/bash -c 'mopidy --config /etc/mopidy/mopidy.conf local scan'
Done. Next step is to go into Mopidy-Iris UI and hit play and it plays all around the house thanks to snapcast. Garsh darn glorious.
cogman10
Why MP3? It's simply not a great codec to target. If you have a music server, then why not flac? If space is an issue, then why not Opus (which almost everything supports now) or HE-AAC which has nearly as much support as MP3. You can target the same MP3 bitrate and end up with a more transparent encoding. You can decrease the bitrate and have the same quality as your mp3 encode with a smaller bitrate.
I honestly don't understand why mp3 is such a sticky codec. It's long been surpassed by others.
acidburnNSA
Well, I've done a number of ABX listening tests (apt install abx) and to my chagrin simply could not tell the difference.
I challenge everyone who feels strongly about this to actually bust out abx and do some listening tests comparing flac to LAME-encoded extreme MP3s and prove to yourself that flac matters at all on your equipment. And then share your results with us if you want!
https://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/xenial/man1/abx.1.html#...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABX_test
But yeah I should put the command to encode to flac there for people who prefer it!
cogman10
I don't disagree that given a high enough bitrate, MP3 will become transparent. More my point was why not use a more efficient codec (like opus) if you are trying to save bits (128kbps is transparent for stereo music vs the 200+kbps for lame extreme).
If you aren't trying to save bits, then why use a lossy codec at all?
That's more my point. MP3s will be smaller than flac, for sure, but opus or he-aac files can be even smaller (half the size or more).
asveikau
The commenter suggested not only FLAC but also Opus, which is a lossy codec that compresses better than MP3. So you could save some disk space.
But generally I agree with you, if you're happy with how your setup works and sounds, MP3 is no great sin.
As for what the commenter said, firstly, MP3 was synonymous with digital music in most of our minds for so long; second, even if modern equipment handles all the better codecs, a lot of us still have memories of times it didn't in the past. Third, I think some of the tooling around metadata is not as developed or ubiquitous for, say, an ogg container. There are ogg comments, but ID3 is better supported.
hulitu
It depends on what audio setup you do the listening. On laptop speakeakers it will be no difference.
hulitu
The dinamics of mp3 is much lower.
rsync
"Why MP3? It's simply not a great codec to target. If you have a music server, then why not flac?"
I still encode to plain old 128k mp3. Here's why ...
First, I keep the WAV originals and those are what I listen to on my music system, in my music server, etc.
Second, if I am using the mp3s it is because I am going to some unknown place to interface with some unknown tool to play these - let's just make life simple and use something that will work everywhere - even the dumb creative audio bluetooth adapter that was in that airbnb that one time ...
Finally, 128k mp3 is typically a 10:1 compression ratio and makes size and space "budgeting" easy. It's easy to remember.
One other thing:
When I export my ripped CD wav collection to mp3 I also compress the filenames - I flatten to ASCII 256 and truncate the filenames to 64 characters, etc. LOTS of car audio interfaces just puke when they hit weird unicode characters or can't display long filenames ... it creates all manner of havoc.
ripdog
I'm really sorry for dogpiling on your setup here, but why keep wav files rather than flac? Flac files are lossless compression, so you can always get the exact same wav out of them, they take less disk space and they can hold Metadata. Flac support is also really common these days.
TacticalCoder
But the whole point of software like whipper or EAC is that they crosscheck your rips with an online DB of rips (and you know, when your rip's checksum match, that it's 100% correct because there's no way you and x other people would have read the same wrong rip, misreading the exact same errors).
As I understand it cdparanoia does not such check. It's "paranoid" by its own but you're not verifying that your rip is 100% perfect.
But then if you then convert it to mp3 and discard the lossless files anyway, I take it you don't care much about data integrity.
whipper and EAC do serve another purpose than cdparanoia (I think, btw, that whipper is something uses cdparanoia under the hood) and I'm pretty sure that people who do care about bitperfect rips do not then go and convert their files to mp3s.
FWIW a .flac file (now a .wav but a .flac: that is lossless and compressed) is about twice the size of a 320 kbps mp3 I think.
Seen that songs are tinier than tiny files compared to modern standards I'm totally fine playing the .flac files I ripped using whipper.
It's both my audio "source" and my backups.
acidburnNSA
Ok that's a good argument. I downloaded whipper and tried it out on a few CDs. So far so good. Flac and exact copies, here I come!
sickcodebruh
Discovering music in the pre-gap before track 1 was my childhood equivalent of discovering a magickal incantation. In a world before mass use of the Internet, those who knew many of these secrets were our High Priests and Priestesses. I love the ease with which modern music can spread around the world but I miss the opportunity for surprise and discovery.
coopl
Wait what? How does this work? Which CDs had music stored before the start of the first track?
exitb
Every audio CD has a list of tracks with their respective start times, so you can jump to specific songs. The first song also specifies a start time, which does not have to be zero. If it isn’t, the player will skip some of the audio, but you can still reverse back into it.
It’s funny how a CD is more like a tape with contiguous content and an index, rather than a file system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_albums_with_tracks_hid...
didntreadarticl
WHAT THE FUCK
I bought hundreds of CDs from 1990 through to about 2005, some of them on that list, and I never had a clue about this technique.
I knew about hidden tracks at the end after a silent gap - e.g. Nevermind had a hidden track after 10 minutes of silence at the end, was fun to schedule it on a CD jukebox in a bar...
dirkt
It's actually more like an analog record than a tape. It's even layout in a spiral (instead of circles, like for a DVD, or like tracks on a floppy or harddisk).
lozf
"Blumenkraft" by OTT, but only on the CD, not the download from https://ottsonic.bandcamp.com
kevin_thibedeau
All of them. Audio CDs subdivide tracks with index marks. They are rarely used for general purpose and few hardware or software players expose index navigation now. However, every track has a lead-in at index 0 and the main program at index 1. When you skip tracks you start playback at N.1. You only hear N.0 when playing through from the previous track. There is no limit to what can be in the lead-in and some discs would hide bonus "tracks" in 1.0 which is often skipped over by hardware players but can be manually navigated to with the index buttons.
nofreelunch
[dead]
victorvosk
I love how this software would have been legend in the 90s/00s but now you are just a weird audiophile nerd for messing around with physical CDs.
criddell
Audiophile nerds have moved on to digital formats that are much higher res than CD or have gone 100% analog.
dmitryminkovsky
There is a commercially available digital format/medium that has higher res than CD? Like, there are 96kHz discs being sold out there? And there are labels out there mastering and producing these discs? Sorry this is news to me! I thought 96kHz encodes were upsamples or homemade rips from analog formats.
dstaley
Most hi-res audio is being sold as digital downloads. I don't think there's a currently-sold physical medium that contains digital data that's higher quality than a CD.
aforwardslash
Yes, obviously, its called SACD and its a couple of decades old. Even DAT is better than cd, if you're only comparing sampling rate. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD
bagels
Aac on an SSD or on the internet?
KingLancelot
[dead]
croes
In the 00s you just used Exact Audio Copy
orangepurple
Still used in Russia constantly. It's the gold standard.
dirkt
We just used cdparanoia back then (on Linux, on Windows you used EAC). Actually, this Python app uses the cdparanoia library for the ripping itself.
andy_ppp
So why would ripping CDs result in less than perfect copies - I thought digital information would almost always be read correctly?
LeoPanthera
Unlike DVDs, CDs don't have sector information. They're just a long continuous spiral of bits, so there is no easy way to tell exactly where on the spiral the head is pointing, especially as many CD players, when you tell them "go to here", will miss slightly.
To compensate for this, data CDs include intermittent data on the spiral that says "you are here", but audio CDs don't do this. The only way to ensure that you haven't either skipped over a piece, or duplicated a piece, is to rip the CD in overlapping chunks, and then compare the overlaps.
LarryMullins
The real question is why you'd ever need a bit-perfect copy of an audio CD when CD players never gave bit-perfect playback in the first place and nobody could tell the difference.
Edit: honestly I don't get it. Do you export all raw images from your camera to PNG too? JPG is good enough, and single-pass CD rips are just fine too.
Niksko
I mean, that's literally what RAW files from cameras are, and there are uses for them. I don't know if a multi pass CD rip is quite as useful as a RAW image, but your analogy is not as strong as you think it is.
dusted
> Do you export all raw images from your camera to PNG too? JPG is good enough, and single-pass CD rips are just fine too.
No, i keep them in RAW and develop a few for albums and print and such.. No, JPGs and PNGs are not good enough, the loss is REAL when you try to actually develop the picture.
I must admit I _REALLY_ don't get this "good enough" mentality.. Like.. Here's this way to get a more precise representation of the music you bought, and you'll go "nah, that's not for me, I prefer whatever random data I happen to get on the first go".. for what? why ?
If you really want to have a different product on every playback, I guess vinyl is the way to go :P
ghusbands
Some CDs are very scratched. Some CDs are CDRs with dye that hasn't aged well. Some CDs just don't read well (poor manufacturing tolerance, perhaps). Some drives silently return bad data on error. Some drives return a lot of errors towards the last tracks even when there is no problem. Drives vary on where they think tracks start and end (generally a uniform offset per drive). Sometimes, reading audio before the claimed start of the CD takes extra trickery. There are many more issues, besides. By ripping multiple times to verify and comparing to a global database of checksums (and in some cases doing error correction), you can be sure of getting exactly the intended audio.
PragmaticPulp
Audio CDs and data CD-ROMs use different encoding modes.
Data CDs have an extra layer of error correction. Audio CDs have less error correction because small bit errors are not a big deal for your listening experience. Most CD players quietly interpolate over small errors in a way that you probably don't even notice.
CGamesPlay
I read the linked rationale and still don’t understand why this is even a problem.
dirkt
As early CD players were intended for audio playback, your CD player can lie to the software. It doesn't tell if it's reading at the exact beginning of a sector (because timing information is multiplexed into the audio stream, and some CD players were not byte-exact when interpreting this), and it also doesn't tell you when it silently corrects some errors. Because for a human listening to the audio won't notice.
But of course it makes a difference if you want to make high-fidelity copy.
That's why there always have been copy apps (cdparanoia on Linux, EAC on Windows) that do overlapping reads, and then detect and compensate these problems.
I_AM_A_SMURF
I never understood that either, maybe redbook doesn't have a strict error correction like data CDs have? That's the only thing I can think of but that seems weird though.
kevin_thibedeau
Audio CDs have weaker error correction. An audio player has to stream data off the disc without any retries. When a block of data can't be corrected it's passed along with the knowledge that the corruption is localized and usually not noticeable.
rlv-dan
Transferring from disc to system via a laser is analogue and error prone. What if there is a scratch? What if the cd wobbles?
flatiron
I remember back in the day using https://xiph.org/paranoia/ for ripping. Tons of burned cds that eventually were tossed in favor of Spotify.
IndySun
This type of ripping, comparing to other rips (paranoia) for bit-for-bit error correction integrity is part of XLD for Mac et al. However, even as a full time audio person, I consider paranoia overkill, and in someways backwards - I want my rip to be my unique rip and not precisely anyone else's - though of course, it most likely is anyway.
You do realise, assuming you ripped to a lossless audio format, your cd rips are 8-12x more accurate than anything streamed of Spotify?
mckirk
> 8-12x more accurate than anything streamed of Spotify
Maybe in theory. In practice, the difference will be very hard to hear (for most people, in most scenarios). Have you ever done an ABX test to determine whether you would be able to tell the difference between lossless and Spotify's quality?[1]
I did, a while back, and while I was able to tell the difference somewhat reliably for music I knew well (and only for that kind of music), the effort and time I had to spend on finding the minute differences, even with high-end equipment, convinced me that for everyday listening, Spotify was completely fine for me.
IndySun
You make a valid point, except I really did mean to and did type 'accurate' and not sound quality. I do concur with your example of how they can sound the same compared with lossy.
haunter
>bit-for-bit error correction integrity is part of XLD for Mac et al
AccurateRip is a pretty important feature imo. Like at least I know someone else in the world made a rip which was exactly the same as mine regardless of the optical drive we used. Overkill? Maybe but there is some kind of "safeness" to it
flatiron
My audio now is usually played via AirPods. So any lossless rip is lost on me since it’s compressed anyway.
layer8
But you could avoid it being compressed twice, which can introduce additional artifacts.
rokweom
>your cd rips are 8-12x more accurate than anything streamed of Spotify?
How did you calculate a factor by which lossless is better than lossy?
IndySun
>your cd rips are 8-12x more accurate than anything streamed of Spotify?...
>...How did you calculate a factor by which lossless is better than lossy?
I specifically typed accurate, not better.
sandreas
Here is a sortable and filterable drive accuracy listing and more information about audio cd ripping:
sbaiddn
Can someone explain to me why this is needed vs an imagining tool (say ddrescue)? Is there no tool that actually makes a bit perfect copy yet?
einherjae
There’s a lengthy explanation in the wiki linked from the github page. But basically cd drives don’t give you a raw stream, and does stuff like error correction.
sbaiddn
So the error are used to trip traditional tools like ddrescue like in the days of old?
einherjae
The drive itself abstracts out the raw stream if I understood things correctly. Similar to how a PC floppy controller can’t do a low level disk image, because it does some interpretation of the signal before handing it over to the system.
One example mentioned was that drives generally don’t read the precise samples you ask for. https://web.archive.org/web/20160528213242/https://thomas.ap...
haunter
ddrescue can't read audio tracks, Audio CDs doesn't have a file system in the traditional sense either etc.
It's not meant for copy Audio CDs but CD-ROMs
That's why CDRDAO or CDDA Paranoia exist for decades.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160528213242/https://thomas.ap...
joshenders
Well, ddrescue can definitely “read audio tracks” and is perfectly suited for making archival copies of Audio CDs but it sounds like the problem you’re actually trying to solve is interpreting the data as Red Book CD-DA and decoding it into chunks you call files ;)
sbaiddn
Why does ddrescue care about "file systems"? Again, I was under the impression that ddrescue does bit by bit copying that I can then mount (and tell it the "filesystem" required).
Is this false?
I have also noticed that, sometimes, ddrescue has trouble ripping dvds, chocking out or producing a low quality rip, that will play perfectly on the same hardware with VLC
ectopod
ddrescue works with blocks and bytes. Audio cds are different. They contain a single physical bit stream interpreted as several interleaved logical bit streams representing e.g. audio, position, metadata, error correction. They are not a sequence of bytes. Cdroms and dvds put a block and byte abstraction on top of this so ddrescue can do something with them.
meindnoch
Good for personal use, but in the scene you must use a recent enough version of EAC or XLD.
anomie31
Orpheus allows whipper and gives it the same rating as EAC and XLD when the cache is defeated fwiw
undefined
medwards666
My go-to audio CD ripper is this: https://www.exactaudiocopy.de/
emersion
My go-to CD ripper is https://github.com/cyanreg/cyanrip
chuckufarley
I only discovered Cyanrip somehow quite recently and rate it as highly as Whipper, which I've used since its Morituri days. Appreciate Cyanrip's desire to be suckless but still enjoy Whipper being able to produce TOC/CUE sheets. MKTOC can always prove handy too if one cares about Right Offsets..
mynameisash
Somewhat related question: what's the gold standard for organizing ripped music, ideally with some sort of metadata lookup? Ever since Google Music shut down, I have my exported music in a folder, but it's badly organized and with duplicates. Too daunting a task for me to do manually - especially because some of the id3 tags somehow got messed up.
aDfbrtVt
Picard has worked really well for me.
bismark
You could check out https://beets.io/
anomie31
That will be a contentious subject, there really is no golden standard. I subscribe to The QF Bible personally, and I have configured Picard as such (feel free to ask how if you're interested) https://musichoarders.xyz/reference/bibles/the-qf-bible/
lowbloodsugar
Roon.
Get the top HN stories in your inbox every day.
This is pretty cool, it's like a Python and *nix version of Exact Audio Copy (EAC) for Windows. I enjoy the ritual of perfectly ripping a CD. I can spend an hour or two scanning the artwork, verifying the track names, performing the rip, losslessly compressing (I prefer FLAC), generating .cue files, checksuming everything, then sitting down to experience the best possible digital copy of a physical item I can self produce.