[LAU] Decent and attractive audio player

[hollunder at gmx.at]

> Justin Smith wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 10:25 PM, Justin Smith
> > <noisesmith at gmail.com> wrote: 
> >> On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Arthur <arthura at cox.net> 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