True, "ripping" generally implies two aspects: reading data from an audio CD and encoding it.
well NO not really, Ripping is extracting the audio from disk to hard drive. it does NOT also mean Encoding...... completely different process and completely unscientific for testing CPU!! Ripping is a PC term, on the Mac we always used the term 'Extract'...ever heard of Toast Audio Extractor...yeah Mac ONLY thanks from back in the day.
well NO not really, Ripping is extracting the audio from disk to hard drive. it does NOT also mean Encoding......
[....]
Ripping is a PC term, on the Mac we always used the term 'Extract'...ever heard of Toast Audio Extractor...yeah Mac ONLY thanks from back in the day.
You are wrong on both accounts. When iTunes got the abiliy to burn CDs and Apple put CD burners in their iMacs a long time ago they did that with an ad called "Rip, Mix, Burn" and Jobs explained how it worked in a stevenote. He did not take the encoding as a seperate process. Of course iTunes encode at the same time as it rips but Xool was talking about how the word is used by the layman.
And Apple using "Rip" in their commercial shows it was/is used by Apple as well. Any other word that is used is "Import" that is used in iTunes.
Actually the "Rip, Mix, Burn" commercial may have been a large factor in the disagreement between Eisner and Jobs AND for the iTMS. Eisner accused Apple for endorsing piracy and made Apple go into that debate and may have sparked the idea to have their own music store.
AFAIR did Jobs reuse Rip, Mix and Burn when he sold the iTunes music store and the iPod to somethng like "Buy, shuffle, transfer" or something. Anyone remember the exact slogan?
You are wrong on both accounts. When iTunes got the abiliy to burn CDs and Apple put CD burners in their iMacs a long time ago they did that with an ad called "Rip, Mix, Burn" and Jobs explained how it worked in a stevenote. He did not take the encoding as a seperate process. Of course iTunes encode at the same time as it rips but Xool was talking about how the word is used by the layman.
And Apple using "Rip" in their commercial shows it was/is used by Apple as well. Any other word that is used is "Import" that is used in iTunes.
Actually the "Rip, Mix, Burn" commercial may have been a large factor in the disagreement between Eisner and Jobs AND for the iTMS. Eisner accused Apple for endorsing piracy and made Apple go into that debate and may have sparked the idea to have their own music store.
AFAIR did Jobs reuse Rip, Mix and Burn when he sold the iTunes music store and the iPod to somethng like "Buy, shuffle, transfer" or something. Anyone remember the exact slogan?
Dude new skoolers like you should learn to take what Jobs says as hype and marketing jizz. We has been doing this sh!t way before Steve Jobs and his iTunes even existed. RIP MIX BURN is purely marketing hyperbole to explain it in, as u say layman's terms for ppl like the everyday Mac user or newbies or PC switchers.
Again for those who can't listen ...the process the PC geeks called ripping is technically known as Digital Audio Extraction. We all (in audio circles)used this term back when PC's were not as commonly used for audio. I mean like this was back in the System 7x days some 10 years go. The term use of the term Ripping is only a recent trend. Obviously Steve's oversimplification has confused a few ppl about the process.
Um, the fact you didn't use the same music files in each test kind of renders the results useless!! The speed of ripping or re-encoding can vary widely depending on the type of music and the type of CD used (if any). I take it you don't remember your high-school science where they teach that in order to test an hypothesis you should remove (as much as possible) all other variables that can affect results!! :-)
I can´t tell if you are joking or not (the use of 13375p34k could both symbolise a feeling of superiority or a parody of the same) so the following is written under the presumption you are serious:
Xool used ripping as the layman term, not as the exact technical term. For the layman ripping IS both extracting and encoding. Any search for "extract", "encode" and "rip" here would clearly show that. So he is not wrong.
Besides its pretty hard to claim that "on the Mac we always used the term 'Extract'." when the CEO of Apple in his public addresses use rip. Unless you with "we" and the use of paste tense means what language some kind of "hardcore" inner group used back in 1995. The last five years it has been "rip" (which all the other replies here also indicates)
I can´t tell if you are joking or not (the use of 13375p34k could both symbolise a feeling of superiority or a parody of the same) so the following is written under the presumption you are serious:
Xool used ripping as the layman term, not as the exact technical term. For the layman ripping IS both extracting and encoding. Any search for "extract", "encode" and "rip" here would clearly show that. So he is not wrong.
Besides its pretty hard to claim that "on the Mac we always used the term 'Extract'." when the CEO of Apple in his public addresses use rip. Unless you with "we" and the use of paste tense means what language some kind of "hardcore" inner group used back in 1995. The last five years it has been "rip" (which all the other replies here also indicates)
And here we have a CEO who is constantly targeting the consumer market with a history of simplifying such concepts. I mentioned it was marketing, and we should all know by now how marketing tends to sugar coat or blatantly ignore certain issues. Steve specializes in marketing to consumers, he ain't no technical authority and as such what he may say is not always what one should believe.
Um, the fact you didn't use the same music files in each test kind of renders the results useless!! The speed of ripping or re-encoding can vary widely depending on the type of music and the type of CD used (if any). I take it you don't remember your high-school science where they teach that in order to test an hypothesis you should remove (as much as possible) all other variables that can affect results!! :-)
Actually the same music file was used in all the tests. As noted in the final report the 16 minute file is the track "It's A Fast Driving Rave Up With The Dandy Warhols" by, you guessed it, The Dandy Warhols.
The preliminary tests didn't include standardized methods which is why I performed a second set of tests for my final report.
is itunes universal yet? i'm getting really slow rip times.
i'm transfering music from cds and i get crazy sppeds anywhere from 5.6x-18x
wtf is going on?
I performed my tests using universal apps but running off data that was stored on the Hard Disk.
Your rip speeds will also be affected by your CD drive speed as well as the location of the data on the disc. The data at the center of a CD does not spin as fast as the data on the outside edge and data is written from the center out, unlike a record which plays from the outside in. This means that when you rip a CD the first track should rip the slowest and the last track the fastest. However, if you copy the raw audio from the CD to your HD and then encode the file off the HD, the primary limiting factor should be your CPU.
Your rip speeds will also be affected by your CD drive speed as well as the location of the data on the disc. The data at the center of a CD does not spin as fast as the data on the outside edge and data is written from the center out, unlike a record which plays from the outside in. This means that when you rip a CD the first track should rip the slowest and the last track the fastest.
To clarify (? on second thoughts, to put it another way):
LPs were designed to have constant rotational speed. CDs were designed to have a constant "linear" speed when played back (as the pit lengths that represent the data are the same size wherever they are on the disc). This means that a CD player has to spin a CD faster when it is playing back a track at the centre of the disc compared to the outside of the disc.
A computer CD drive just spins the disc at a constant rotational speed. This means the the data comes off the disc faster the further from the centre that you get.
It is all in the codecs, the current codecs may run on intel, but I would think that as of yet, they are still PPC optimized, tweaked for best proformance on the vector engine, not MMX/SSE3, I think you should run the test again when the pro apps ship for intel, as a quicktime update will likly accompany them.
It is all in the codecs, the current codecs may run on intel, but I would think that as of yet, they are still PPC optimized, tweaked for best proformance on the vector engine, not MMX/SSE3, I think you should run the test again when the pro apps ship for intel, as a quicktime update will likly accompany them.
Why are people wilfully ignoring the provided explanation for variable rip speed from CD? It's got nothing to do with codec optimisations. Xool's tests performed by converting songs stored on HD prove that.
another data point: my MBP 1.83/7200 converts to 192k AAC at 22-23x, plays 1080p without error at 24 fps (haven't tried to play two at a time), haven't ripped any CDs yet
I've noticed random ripping speeds on other computers too. My theory is that some discs just can be ripped as fast. I mean, think of it, you have CD-R media that is rated for 1x-52x or whatever. 5 years ago (or whenever it was), you couldn't even buy 52x media (or it was pricy). I've had some discs that just rip slow, period. It's not just that they rip slow, if I copy data from them it is slow too. Is it not possible that some discs have slower read rates as well? Maybe I'm completely out to lunch but that is one of my theories.
Comments
Originally posted by Xool
True, "ripping" generally implies two aspects: reading data from an audio CD and encoding it.
well NO not really, Ripping is extracting the audio from disk to hard drive. it does NOT also mean Encoding...... completely different process and completely unscientific for testing CPU!! Ripping is a PC term, on the Mac we always used the term 'Extract'...ever heard of Toast Audio Extractor...yeah Mac ONLY thanks from back in the day.
Originally posted by Targon
well NO not really, Ripping is extracting the audio from disk to hard drive. it does NOT also mean Encoding......
[....]
Ripping is a PC term, on the Mac we always used the term 'Extract'...ever heard of Toast Audio Extractor...yeah Mac ONLY thanks from back in the day.
You are wrong on both accounts. When iTunes got the abiliy to burn CDs and Apple put CD burners in their iMacs a long time ago they did that with an ad called "Rip, Mix, Burn" and Jobs explained how it worked in a stevenote. He did not take the encoding as a seperate process. Of course iTunes encode at the same time as it rips but Xool was talking about how the word is used by the layman.
And Apple using "Rip" in their commercial shows it was/is used by Apple as well. Any other word that is used is "Import" that is used in iTunes.
Actually the "Rip, Mix, Burn" commercial may have been a large factor in the disagreement between Eisner and Jobs AND for the iTMS. Eisner accused Apple for endorsing piracy and made Apple go into that debate and may have sparked the idea to have their own music store.
AFAIR did Jobs reuse Rip, Mix and Burn when he sold the iTunes music store and the iPod to somethng like "Buy, shuffle, transfer" or something. Anyone remember the exact slogan?
Originally posted by Anders
You are wrong on both accounts. When iTunes got the abiliy to burn CDs and Apple put CD burners in their iMacs a long time ago they did that with an ad called "Rip, Mix, Burn" and Jobs explained how it worked in a stevenote. He did not take the encoding as a seperate process. Of course iTunes encode at the same time as it rips but Xool was talking about how the word is used by the layman.
And Apple using "Rip" in their commercial shows it was/is used by Apple as well. Any other word that is used is "Import" that is used in iTunes.
Actually the "Rip, Mix, Burn" commercial may have been a large factor in the disagreement between Eisner and Jobs AND for the iTMS. Eisner accused Apple for endorsing piracy and made Apple go into that debate and may have sparked the idea to have their own music store.
AFAIR did Jobs reuse Rip, Mix and Burn when he sold the iTunes music store and the iPod to somethng like "Buy, shuffle, transfer" or something. Anyone remember the exact slogan?
Dude new skoolers like you should learn to take what Jobs says as hype and marketing jizz. We has been doing this sh!t way before Steve Jobs and his iTunes even existed. RIP MIX BURN is purely marketing hyperbole to explain it in, as u say layman's terms for ppl like the everyday Mac user or newbies or PC switchers.
Again for those who can't listen ...the process the PC geeks called ripping is technically known as Digital Audio Extraction. We all (in audio circles)used this term back when PC's were not as commonly used for audio. I mean like this was back in the System 7x days some 10 years go. The term use of the term Ripping is only a recent trend. Obviously Steve's oversimplification has confused a few ppl about the process.
Xool used ripping as the layman term, not as the exact technical term. For the layman ripping IS both extracting and encoding. Any search for "extract", "encode" and "rip" here would clearly show that. So he is not wrong.
Besides its pretty hard to claim that "on the Mac we always used the term 'Extract'." when the CEO of Apple in his public addresses use rip. Unless you with "we" and the use of paste tense means what language some kind of "hardcore" inner group used back in 1995. The last five years it has been "rip" (which all the other replies here also indicates)
Originally posted by Anders
I can´t tell if you are joking or not (the use of 13375p34k could both symbolise a feeling of superiority or a parody of the same) so the following is written under the presumption you are serious:
Xool used ripping as the layman term, not as the exact technical term. For the layman ripping IS both extracting and encoding. Any search for "extract", "encode" and "rip" here would clearly show that. So he is not wrong.
Besides its pretty hard to claim that "on the Mac we always used the term 'Extract'." when the CEO of Apple in his public addresses use rip. Unless you with "we" and the use of paste tense means what language some kind of "hardcore" inner group used back in 1995. The last five years it has been "rip" (which all the other replies here also indicates)
And here we have a CEO who is constantly targeting the consumer market with a history of simplifying such concepts. I mentioned it was marketing, and we should all know by now how marketing tends to sugar coat or blatantly ignore certain issues. Steve specializes in marketing to consumers, he ain't no technical authority and as such what he may say is not always what one should believe.
Originally posted by s.metcalf
Um, the fact you didn't use the same music files in each test kind of renders the results useless!! The speed of ripping or re-encoding can vary widely depending on the type of music and the type of CD used (if any). I take it you don't remember your high-school science where they teach that in order to test an hypothesis you should remove (as much as possible) all other variables that can affect results!! :-)
Actually the same music file was used in all the tests. As noted in the final report the 16 minute file is the track "It's A Fast Driving Rave Up With The Dandy Warhols" by, you guessed it, The Dandy Warhols.
The preliminary tests didn't include standardized methods which is why I performed a second set of tests for my final report.
Do I win a cookie or something?
i'm transfering music from cds and i get crazy sppeds anywhere from 5.6x-18x
wtf is going on?
Originally posted by Elixir
is itunes universal yet? i'm getting really slow rip times.
i'm transfering music from cds and i get crazy sppeds anywhere from 5.6x-18x
wtf is going on?
I performed my tests using universal apps but running off data that was stored on the Hard Disk.
Your rip speeds will also be affected by your CD drive speed as well as the location of the data on the disc. The data at the center of a CD does not spin as fast as the data on the outside edge and data is written from the center out, unlike a record which plays from the outside in. This means that when you rip a CD the first track should rip the slowest and the last track the fastest. However, if you copy the raw audio from the CD to your HD and then encode the file off the HD, the primary limiting factor should be your CPU.
Originally posted by Xool
Your rip speeds will also be affected by your CD drive speed as well as the location of the data on the disc. The data at the center of a CD does not spin as fast as the data on the outside edge and data is written from the center out, unlike a record which plays from the outside in. This means that when you rip a CD the first track should rip the slowest and the last track the fastest.
To clarify (? on second thoughts, to put it another way):
LPs were designed to have constant rotational speed. CDs were designed to have a constant "linear" speed when played back (as the pit lengths that represent the data are the same size wherever they are on the disc). This means that a CD player has to spin a CD faster when it is playing back a track at the centre of the disc compared to the outside of the disc.
A computer CD drive just spins the disc at a constant rotational speed. This means the the data comes off the disc faster the further from the centre that you get.
sometimes its hitting 18x other times it just sits at 4 and 5x.
i'm wondering if theres a problem.
Originally posted by Elixir
well... i'm not impressed with this ripping speed at all.
sometimes its hitting 18x other times it just sits at 4 and 5x.
i'm wondering if theres a problem.
Hello???
Xool and I have both offered reasons for variable rip-speeds.
Originally posted by a_greer
It is all in the codecs, the current codecs may run on intel, but I would think that as of yet, they are still PPC optimized, tweaked for best proformance on the vector engine, not MMX/SSE3, I think you should run the test again when the pro apps ship for intel, as a quicktime update will likly accompany them.
Why are people wilfully ignoring the provided explanation for variable rip speed from CD? It's got nothing to do with codec optimisations. Xool's tests performed by converting songs stored on HD prove that.
Originally posted by Elixir
well... i'm not impressed with this ripping speed at all.
sometimes its hitting 18x other times it just sits at 4 and 5x.
i'm wondering if theres a problem.
Maybe a copy prtoected CD, or maybe it has scrathces?
-Percy