Finally, after all these years!
-
Ever since high school, something like 2000/2001, I've been an almost religious MP3 tagger. Aside from where I got said MP3's (mostly torrents, back in the day), tagging MP3's can be a lot of work. Especially when files.are.named.like.this.mp3, or_this.mp3, or worse, このような.mp3. So back when I started programming, 10 years ago, I thought to myself I could make something to make it easier. Something that would either read tags and rename the file, or read the file name and tag accordingly. I wrote something half-assed back then, but never what I had in mind. Then came Spotify and Bandcamp and I hardly ever needed MP3's anymore. But last week I started ripping my considerable CD collection into 320kbps MP3's and this project popped into my head. So after 10 years I finally did it! :D I can specify a file name template, like "C:\Music\{artist}\{album}\{disc}\{track} - {title}.mp3" and all MP3 files inside C:\Music get tagged with the appropriate tag (given the file name follows the template). Likewise, I can add an output template and my MP3's will be renamed and/or moved to the new folder. It can even fetch track titles from Discogs. Ten years too late, and that was already ten years too late, but it gives me a satisfied feeling nonetheless :D
Best, Sander Azure DevOps Succinctly (free eBook) Azure Serverless Succinctly (free eBook) Migrating Apps to the Cloud with Azure arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript
Quote:
ripping my considerable CD collection into 320kbps MP3's
Aren't your CD's recorded at 44.1k? What will you achieve by upsampling?
Mircea
-
Sander Rossel wrote:
I wanted to roll out my own because that's what real programmers do
But real engineers survey the market, and then decide to "make or buy". Your time is valuable; don't waste it reinventing the wheel.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
Your time is valuable; don't waste it reinventing the wheel.
All work and no pay makes Jack a dull boy! ;)
Best, Sander Azure DevOps Succinctly (free eBook) Azure Serverless Succinctly (free eBook) Migrating Apps to the Cloud with Azure arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript
-
Quote:
ripping my considerable CD collection into 320kbps MP3's
Aren't your CD's recorded at 44.1k? What will you achieve by upsampling?
Mircea
I have no idea what that means. As far as I understood, 320kbps is near-lossless audio quality, as opposed to 192 or even 128. Of course I could go FLAC, but that's way too much MBs per minute.
Best, Sander Azure DevOps Succinctly (free eBook) Azure Serverless Succinctly (free eBook) Migrating Apps to the Cloud with Azure arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript
-
I think filebot could have done it for you. free download. just sayin' congratulations in any case.
Real programmers use butterflies
And miss out on this achievement? Nah :D However, now I could take a look at filebot (I just needed to write it, not actually use it) :laugh:
Best, Sander Azure DevOps Succinctly (free eBook) Azure Serverless Succinctly (free eBook) Migrating Apps to the Cloud with Azure arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript
-
Sander Rossel wrote:
In any case, I wanted to roll out my own because that's what real programmers do :cool:
To quote @CPallini... Real Programmers are Klingon Programmers
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
leSSov vIleghbogh suvwI' tIlegh. I don't think it translates back to English :laugh:
Best, Sander Azure DevOps Succinctly (free eBook) Azure Serverless Succinctly (free eBook) Migrating Apps to the Cloud with Azure arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript
-
I have no idea what that means. As far as I understood, 320kbps is near-lossless audio quality, as opposed to 192 or even 128. Of course I could go FLAC, but that's way too much MBs per minute.
Best, Sander Azure DevOps Succinctly (free eBook) Azure Serverless Succinctly (free eBook) Migrating Apps to the Cloud with Azure arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript
I ripped all mine to 128, I tried 320 but I couldn't tell the difference except for having way bigger files. I also temporarily put them on a USB stick to play in the car - usually at 64kbps because the sound quality is basically the same when you are driving around I can get hundreds of tracks on an 8GB stick. PS. I use Mp3Tag for all the tagging and/or renaming. it works very well and saved me from writing my own.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
-
I ripped all mine to 128, I tried 320 but I couldn't tell the difference except for having way bigger files. I also temporarily put them on a USB stick to play in the car - usually at 64kbps because the sound quality is basically the same when you are driving around I can get hundreds of tracks on an 8GB stick. PS. I use Mp3Tag for all the tagging and/or renaming. it works very well and saved me from writing my own.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
Yeah, I did the same, especially because I used to have a 500 GB HD back in the day, which was full (with games and music). For my MP3 player it's nice to have everything in 128 kbps as well. However, I can't quite pinpoint it, but I notice a difference when I listen to a high quality recording or my own 128 kbps, especially on my headphones. So since storage is no longer an issue, I decided to make my own collection high quality as well.
Best, Sander Azure DevOps Succinctly (free eBook) Azure Serverless Succinctly (free eBook) Migrating Apps to the Cloud with Azure arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript
-
And miss out on this achievement? Nah :D However, now I could take a look at filebot (I just needed to write it, not actually use it) :laugh:
Best, Sander Azure DevOps Succinctly (free eBook) Azure Serverless Succinctly (free eBook) Migrating Apps to the Cloud with Azure arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript
You have completed this journey. No more need be explained.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
I have no idea what that means. As far as I understood, 320kbps is near-lossless audio quality, as opposed to 192 or even 128. Of course I could go FLAC, but that's way too much MBs per minute.
Best, Sander Azure DevOps Succinctly (free eBook) Azure Serverless Succinctly (free eBook) Migrating Apps to the Cloud with Azure arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript
Your music was once an analog signal. When they made the CD they cut it in little pieces 44100 times per second, recorded the value at each point and wrote it on the CD. Now you come and record 320000 values each second. Your ripper program is going faithfully repeat the same value 7 times without any benefit for music quality. This is the executive summary for a tl;dr see Digital Audio Basics: Sample Rate and Bit Depth | PreSonus[^]
Mircea
-
Yeah, I did the same, especially because I used to have a 500 GB HD back in the day, which was full (with games and music). For my MP3 player it's nice to have everything in 128 kbps as well. However, I can't quite pinpoint it, but I notice a difference when I listen to a high quality recording or my own 128 kbps, especially on my headphones. So since storage is no longer an issue, I decided to make my own collection high quality as well.
Best, Sander Azure DevOps Succinctly (free eBook) Azure Serverless Succinctly (free eBook) Migrating Apps to the Cloud with Azure arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript
Quote:
especially on my headphones
Ah! There's your problem right there! I never use headphones and play everything on my computer speakers (or the aforementioned car) so the quality difference really doesn't show up. ;-)
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
-
Almost as if you haven't heard about Mp3tag - the universal Tag Editor (ID3v2, MP4, OGG, FLAC, ...)[^]
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello Never stop dreaming - Freddie Kruger
MP3Tag is AWESOME! I wish it could do a certain routine for all subfolders in a folder, like: grab tags from Discogs, rename files to a certain pattern, save the m3u playlist, and move on to the next subfolder. All things it does very well, but only manually.
Cheers, विक्रम "We have already been through this, I am not going to repeat myself." - fat_boy, in a global warming thread :doh:
-
leSSov vIleghbogh suvwI' tIlegh. I don't think it translates back to English :laugh:
Best, Sander Azure DevOps Succinctly (free eBook) Azure Serverless Succinctly (free eBook) Migrating Apps to the Cloud with Azure arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript
Sander Rossel wrote:
I don't think it translates back to nice English
FTFY ;) ;P
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
Quote:
ripping my considerable CD collection into 320kbps MP3's
Aren't your CD's recorded at 44.1k? What will you achieve by upsampling?
Mircea
The 320kbps does not refer to the sampling rate, but the data transmission rate. I just calculated the transmission rate for a particular flac file and it is 1961kbps. Encoding a file with the mp3 codec does not change the sampling rate, but instead modifies the data based on how we hear sound in order to reduce the data size without reducing the apparent sound quality much.
-
The 320kbps does not refer to the sampling rate, but the data transmission rate. I just calculated the transmission rate for a particular flac file and it is 1961kbps. Encoding a file with the mp3 codec does not change the sampling rate, but instead modifies the data based on how we hear sound in order to reduce the data size without reducing the apparent sound quality much.
I stand corrected! 320kps is the bit rate while 44.1k is the sampling rate. What's the difference? Each sample is 16 bits wide and considering that there are 2 channels that makes the bit rate 32 * 44.1k = 1411.2kbps. MP3 compresses it down to 320kbps. That should teach me not to post before researching :(
Mircea
-
Your music was once an analog signal. When they made the CD they cut it in little pieces 44100 times per second, recorded the value at each point and wrote it on the CD. Now you come and record 320000 values each second. Your ripper program is going faithfully repeat the same value 7 times without any benefit for music quality. This is the executive summary for a tl;dr see Digital Audio Basics: Sample Rate and Bit Depth | PreSonus[^]
Mircea
:confused: 44.1K samples per second is different than a 320kbps bit rate.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
-
Quote:
especially on my headphones
Ah! There's your problem right there! I never use headphones and play everything on my computer speakers (or the aforementioned car) so the quality difference really doesn't show up. ;-)
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
The difference also depends on the kind of music you listen to. Lo-fi basement black metal, not so much, but well recorded classical music, yes please! :D
Best, Sander Azure DevOps Succinctly (free eBook) Azure Serverless Succinctly (free eBook) Migrating Apps to the Cloud with Azure arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript
-
I stand corrected! 320kps is the bit rate while 44.1k is the sampling rate. What's the difference? Each sample is 16 bits wide and considering that there are 2 channels that makes the bit rate 32 * 44.1k = 1411.2kbps. MP3 compresses it down to 320kbps. That should teach me not to post before researching :(
Mircea
I wasn't going to say that in so much detail, but yes, kbps and sampling rate are different things :laugh: I don't really know what those values mean, but 320 kbps == good quality. I'm not touching any sample rates, although I do have a program that let's me set it, as well as kbps.
Mircea Neacsu wrote:
That should teach me not to post before researching :(
You are hereby forgiven ;p
Best, Sander Azure DevOps Succinctly (free eBook) Azure Serverless Succinctly (free eBook) Migrating Apps to the Cloud with Azure arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript
-
You have completed this journey. No more need be explained.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
I think you might be the only one who got the essence of my message :omg:
Best, Sander Azure DevOps Succinctly (free eBook) Azure Serverless Succinctly (free eBook) Migrating Apps to the Cloud with Azure arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript
-
Sander Rossel wrote:
In any case, I wanted to roll out my own because that's what real programmers do :cool:
To quote @CPallini... Real Programmers are Klingon Programmers
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
I stand corrected! 320kps is the bit rate while 44.1k is the sampling rate. What's the difference? Each sample is 16 bits wide and considering that there are 2 channels that makes the bit rate 32 * 44.1k = 1411.2kbps. MP3 compresses it down to 320kbps. That should teach me not to post before researching :(
Mircea
Mircea Neacsu wrote:
That should teach me not to post before researching
Don't worry... that is true for maaaaaaaaaaany people here and in the internet (me included... I have had my :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: moments too :-O :laugh: :laugh: )
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
