so i downloaded a top 1000 of the past 30 years but i hate how now on my xbox 360 i get a list of like 800 different artists with only a few tracks in each one. is there any way i can automatically copy the artist to be included into the title track? example, currently... Artist:"the rolling stones" album:"1000 top hits" title:"anglie" it'd like to automatically change to > Artist:"1000 top hits" album:"1000 top hits" title:"the rolling stones - anglie" anyone know of an easy way to do it without manually copy and pasting info from 1000 songs?
my favorite tagging app is called mp3 tag&rename. well worth the $30, but the trail version works unrestricted for 30 days. give it a try.
What does mp3 tag&rename do that something like mp3tag does not? For the problem at hand, almost any tagger will do the trick easily. I can't think of one tagger I have used that will not take care of that problem. However, a free app like mp3tag, can't use paid for tag databases. I rip with ddPoweramp. I know the difference between free and paid for databases. I wouldn't blink to pay to have access to those databases from a tagger. I would bulk copy the artist to the comment before you overwrite the artist name. Once removed, it will be tricker to take it from part of the title than to copy it from another field.
I'm sure mp3tag is a good tagger, and like you said, they pretty much all do the same thing. I just like Tag&Rename because it is easy to use yet has tons and tons of nice features and tools. Most of the free ones work good but are pretty basic. Just a personal preference I guess. I've been using it for years and have never been disappointed. Unless their trail version has changed, last time I checked it works unrestricted for 30 days which is pretty cool, as most trials have limited features.
I guess I should check it out. However, between mp3tag and media monkey, I can't think of anything I can't do with tags and file names easily. I am lazy and prefer to throw money at projects as long as it is not too much money and I get value for my money. Does it do album look-ups? mp3tag will do lookups using 3 different free databases. I would pay for a complete listing. My ripper has access to a near complete listing. If the CD has been copyrighted it is in there. justinmc, you do not want to use an autotag function. Not only will it take for ever, you will get the original albums as tags instead of what you want.
i don't know what free-DB or CDDB sources tag&rename uses, but its always found everything i've thrown at it. although when i rip my CDs with EAC the LAME plugin tags them automatically, so i don't really have to use the lookup feature very often.
EAC uses freedb. Little to none of what I rip is in freedb. mp3tag uses freedb, Amazon and musicbrainz which are free. I have an extensive music library. Probably none of the last 20 CDs I bought can be purchased new in the US. I had to either buy them used or import them. Even what my ripper uses doesn't get the imports. I hate typing it the tag data.
i just checked and tag&rename uses freedB and amazon.com. even though EAC may not be able to tag your mp3s, its still the best ripper. out there and i'd rather have to type the tag in manually than use another ripper/compressor. to my knowledge its still the only app that can do a true 100% bit accurate rip of an audio CD. i guess you could rip with EAC then use a tagger afterwards to tag the album so you can avoid entering the info manually.
not really. i know dBPoweramp has their accuraterip or whatever they call it, but i had tried it when it first came out and ripped a CD to wave files and compared them with ones from EAC with a oscilloscope and some other tools and I still found errors and missing frames. I work for warner bros doing on set production sound and post production sound editing and EAC is the only thing we trust.
I only know what I read. I would knock accuraterip since the new EAC uses it. You are the first person that has made a credible case against PA. I use PA because it is easy and the tag database is the best I know of. I have a large audio library. Less than 10% of what I have is in that database. Maybe once or twice a year will I have a disk not in the database. It even has burned indie disks in it. I believe if the CD was copyrighted it is in there. I am curious, why would EAC use accurip if it did not work? If it did work why would't the rip you made showed errors? These seem not to make sense to me. I am lazy and really do not care about audio I can't hear. Even though I will be needing a hearing aid soon I am surprised at what I do pick up. I can hear differences in bit rates up to about 160 compressed with advanced compression techniques. I am sure I can not hear the difference between the rips. I will say on the hydogenaudio board where they routinely compare wave files for fun, I have only heard persons give PA the edge over EAC. Just because some one says something does not make it true. As I stated before I don't care not even enough to ask which is better EAC or PA because the difference will not matter to me. However, if you feel strongly you ought to post a query on hydogenaudio board.
to be honest with you i did not know that the newer versions of EAC use accraterip. the version of EAC i use is V.095, which is supposedly the most stable. that is interesting that the new versions of EAC use a new type of ripping...perhaps thats why everyone that likes EAC always says to use this older version (V.095 is from 2003). and of course the quality of your audio cd rip doesn't mean jack if it isn't matched up with a good compressor. unless things have changed, LAME is pretty much the best out there. i can't remember what version i use, i think its 2.92 or something like that. yeah you can most definately tell a difference when it comes to compression quality for mp3s. comparing a 128 bitrate to a 192 bitrate file is like night and day. those are just my opinions, and i've been ripping mp3s for years and years and i guess perhaps i'm a little stubborn to give credit to newer stuff simply because there are certain older versions of programs like EAC and LAME that are rock solid and sound great. but use whatever works for you. it sounds like you have a pretty good method of converting your audio CDs to mp3s, so kudos to you. i'm glad your not one of those idiots that uses itunes for everything and think that it is the best for everything. like you said just because someone says something doesn't mean its true. the methods that i use for my audio stuff are methods that i've red online, researched, and tinkered with myself to find the best combination. hey BTW did you check out tag&rename?
The read is the critical part. The quality of the pressings suck and it is common to get bad reads. The ripper is critical since it will encounter bad reads. This also means playing CDs will not give you as much quality as playing well ripped music. What makes PA good is it uses burst mode which is fastest but if the read is poor it will change modes automatically and will continue to do so until it gets a good read or give up. EAC has only a subset of PA's read modes and the mode is set for the session, while PA will rotate modes for a bad block. The next block starts out in burst mode again. I don't resurface a disk unless I can actually hear the problem. Most bad reads are not noticable. Lame constant bit rat has been stable forever. The VBRs have been stable for over 2 years. In this case it means no artifacts have been found to fix. David Chen keeps twiddling with the code cuase he is bored. I use VBRs since they have the best quality for size. Its mp3s are all free of artifacts vs the apple and M$ encoders which the list of artifacts keeps growing. They don't fix them and more are being found. Apple knows it is more cost effective to spend money on propaganga than fixing something. Apple Zombies don't really care about quality they just want to be cool. Helix is a very fast mp3 encoder that is nearly 'clean'. I hate itunes with a passion but I will say it is easy and will rip/play/burn a 'good' copy every time. 'Good' means playable not necessarly good quality. I haven't checked it out. I can't check it out at work. The cyper robot does not like that site. I am thrilled AD has indicated they have technical info. I am a programmer and we are allowed to view techie sites. I have had no time at home to check it out.
i actually don't like burst mode. i've found that secure mode is much much better, however much slower. burst mode rips a CD in a few minutes, where as secure mode takes about 20 minutes to rip a CD. I would never use CBR, VBR is much superior. Since a audio waveform is constantly changing, VBR allocates the proper amount of compression needed per frame of audio. for example 192 CBR and 192 VBR are completely different. a novice might think, "well it doesn't matter because VBR will still use a maximum of 192 per audio frame so how is the quality different?" But 192 VBR means the average bitrate is 192. it might go as low as 64 in some frames or as high as 256 in others. so yeah, big big difference between CBR and VBR. i hate itunes simply because i passionately hate apple. i hate their computers, their ipods, their apps, their phones, everthing. i'm way too tired to go into why, but simply they suck and are inferior in many many ways to PCs.
I will disagree with you again. It is good to have these sanity checks, other wise you might get into a confortable rut. VBR is Variable Bit Rate AVR is Average bit rate. The reason VBRs are variable is it uses pschoacustic modeling. That removes information your brain will not process. The compression is not consistant, thus the BR varies from second to second. The waves forms are different but they still sound the same. ABR also uses pschoacustic modeling. The reason for its existance is, you can make an OK approximation of an ACC or constant bit rate vairable quality audio file. ACC also uses pschoacustic modeling but varies the high pitch truncation to add more data if the compression is more effective. AAC has a constant BR but variable quality. They are a garbage format and do not convert well to anything. They are used by all that sell music downloads. The the music industry does not want downloadable music to be higher than 128. By adding pschoacustic modeling the tunes sound OK and are way better than a 128 CBR mp3 which sound dead. Extream quality VBRs are widly accepted as 'transparent' to a wave file. They are the most efficient format for digital HiFi. The drawback to pschoacustic modeling is extreamly difficult to implement and tends to create artifacts. This is where LAME 'shines'. It is free of artifacts and has been for years. It is still the only encoder that can make that claim.
