Old 15th June 2003, 21:54   #121
Reverend Ike
Evangelical Alumni
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 1,533
Dr. Satan - Actually, I understand your point.

I think your disagreement with DJ Egg was just semantics. If you would have posted ...

"Then the worry is that Winamp might loose sight of what I thought it was supposed to be - an audio player."

... then everyone would have let the comment pass. But the actual quote was ...

"Then the worry is that Winamp might loose sight of what it's supposed to be - an audio player."

... which makes it sound as if you were referring to some official mission statement carved in stone, carried down from the top of Mt. Nullsoft. I believe this is what DJ Egg understandably took issue with.

There is a subtle difference in phrasing, but a distinct difference in meaning.

I agree with you and others that specialization almost always results in higher quality than the all-things-in-one approach. It applies to software, office machines, and numerous other areas.

Speaking generally now (not in reply to DS), Winamp has never been "just" an audio player - if it had been, there would be never have been any capacity for the visualizations. And when AOL bought Nullsoft, I think everyone knew, realistically, that AOL would exert their influence, sooner or later, to some degree.

I like to envision "in a perfect world" scenarios as much as anyone. It would be nice if there could be a separate line of Winamps that was designed to be the perfect audio player and little else. But that would require additional development manpower, and that certainly doesn't appear to be in AOL's plans.

Unfortunately, reality dictates that we choose among the options available, and so each user decides whether Winamp (with all its perceived faults) is still better than all the others or not. It's like a group of people who find a lovely area to live, and then see little blemishes appear - traffic, noise, whatever. They complain to the powers-that-be and get nowhere. Then they complain about it when they talk to their neighbors. And after awhile, the neighbors - who still firmly believe the neighborhood is better than any other - will grow very weary of the constantly negative conversations. And after awhile, that group of people must choose between adapting (and curtailing their grumbling) or moving.

And using the same analogy for a related point ... if someone does decide to move from Winamp City to, say, Foobarland, they probably shouldn't be driving back to Winamp City every other day, over and over, to tell their ex-neighbors just how awful Winamp City is. It's kinda childish, and it's definitely bad form ...

Last edited by Reverend Ike; 15th June 2003 at 22:30.
Reverend Ike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2003, 22:12   #122
DJ Egg
Techorator
Winamp & SHOUTcast Team
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 35,821
Oh how we've missed you Rev

...and on an even happier note . . . w00t (fixed in_vorbis)
DJ Egg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2003, 23:05   #123
net-cruizer
Senior Member
 
net-cruizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: BC, CANADA
Posts: 367
The ripping quality with Winamp is awsome. So I don't understand what people are getting at by saying something about speed and acuracy, etc. etc.
And yeah, like someone stated, it uses Lame, and so do many others.
A long time ago, I used to use a ripper by XING which was really good but can't remember which codec it uses, and I also have Goldwave, which rips and fixes etc. etc. any format pretty much, it also uses Lame.
But I find Winamp to do an excellent job, easy access, fast, and the sound is perfect from what I've noticed.

I don't see what some people are complaining about. All the stuff that has been added to Winamp since 2.8x hasn't increased it's size or made it use any more resources. It still is a very lightweight, fast and excellent player. If any of the stuff isn't wanted, it's pretty simple to remove the stuff so it can't be seen, or even remove it totally by deleting certain dll's.
net-cruizer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2003, 23:13   #124
Reverend Ike
Evangelical Alumni
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 1,533
Just another boring Sunday sermon, Egg ...

Hey, it's the Winamp forums and people should primarily be here to support the software and offer constructive criticism. But it's not life or death - there's no need for blindly defending it, or hammering endlessly on one of its deficiencies, or turning a difference of opinion into a personal war. The users make their suggestions, the developers do what they feel is best, and then everyone moves on to the next version.

It's the Circle of Strife, from that classic "The Llama King" ...
Reverend Ike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2003, 00:47   #125
Budgie
Major Dude
 
Budgie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Hell frozen up
Posts: 1,217
Send a message via ICQ to Budgie
Quote:
Originally posted by net-cruizer
The ripping quality with Winamp is awsome. So I don't understand what people are getting at by saying something about speed and acuracy, etc. etc.
And yeah, like someone stated, it uses Lame, and so do many others.
A long time ago, I used to use a ripper by XING which was really good but can't remember which codec it uses, and I also have Goldwave, which rips and fixes etc. etc. any format pretty much, it also uses Lame.

It still is a very lightweight, fast and excellent player. If any of the stuff isn't wanted, it's pretty simple to remove the stuff so it can't be seen, or even remove it totally by deleting certain dll's.
XING = really bad quality MP3s. Xing codecs are legendary of being damn crap, literally. There used to be a ripper back in 1999 that used parts of audiograbber to rip and Xing codec to encode. Audiograbber is a crap program as well, no secure modes there. Goldwave's included ripper is ... crap, sorry. All just use plain CDDAE to rip. If you are lucky, and 1) your CD is clean and shiny new, 2) you have a good CD reader, the copy might just be fine. On scratched CDs, be sure the CDDAE ripping methods (aka "jitter correction modes") will fail to produce an error free copy.

Of course, most (Winamp-) users aren't aware of the pretty high attention good, error-free ripping requires. But if a ripper is unable to create perfect rips, then what's the point using it ...

The Winamp ripper is simple, and if it gives results that are personally fine with you, go ahead and use it .

And we all wouldn't bitch about additional components like the cd ripper in Winamp, if it had its own dll as a seperate plugin, rather than being a part of the media library dlls as it is in the current v2.92 (beta, though).

We will see if Nullsoft has the cd ripping component seperate by the time the final of v2.92 comes out . I bet I wouldn't be the only user who would appreciate that.


Please consider the Forum Rules before posting utter crap. Thank you!
Budgie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2003, 10:04   #126
DJ Egg
Techorator
Winamp & SHOUTcast Team
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 35,821
Budgie
It's part of in_cdda.dll
The "extract cd" button manifests itself in the library,
but the actual code is in in_cdda.dll
(see one of my posts above for details/workarounds/etc)
DJ Egg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2003, 10:22   #127
Budgie
Major Dude
 
Budgie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Hell frozen up
Posts: 1,217
Send a message via ICQ to Budgie
Oh, really?

Well then I take everything back what I said about the cd ripper embedding *blames himself for not reading stuff right *

But say DJ Egg, isn't it a bit ... unorganized ... to have the code in a seperate dll (that's how it should be), but then the GUI inside the media library? Just find that a bit chaotic .

Well thanks for your posts, they made things clear on that one .

*still waits for v2.92 final*


Please consider the Forum Rules before posting utter crap. Thank you!
Budgie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2003, 11:02   #128
Lion King
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,670
Quote:
Originally posted by Reverend Ike
I think it's safe to assume that a large number (most likely the majority) of Winamp users are less astute than most users who post here. They are the type of users who may not understand CD ripper quality differences, and who like the simplicity of not having to select a standalone CD ripper. The new built-in CD ripper is obviously for them, not for the diehard Winamp fanatic. It sounds like the developers have done a good job of creating an adequate CD ripper with a very small footprint.
1. this will help to flood the filesharing networks with bad rips and you'll need an advanced ripper anyway if you need to bypass some copyprotections

2. don't you think that those clueless people would rather want to know how to make a high quality rip than be given something that satisfies them based on their limited knowledge?
Lion King is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2003, 11:27   #129
DJ Egg
Techorator
Winamp & SHOUTcast Team
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 35,821
Could you guys please test the ripper and tell us whether the output quality is really as bad as you're making it out to be?

So far, I've ripped a fair few trax to ogg, aac and mp3 and honestly can't tell the difference between these and any I've ripped with CDex. The quality is pretty damn excellent. No pops, skips, scratches, hisses, nada! Crystal clear and crisp to my trained ears!

Also remember, this is the first ever version of the native cd ripper.
As I said earlier, more features WILL be added in time...
hopefully secure mode too. Just give it chance and show some faith.

I doubt if it will be made modular in time for 2.92 final, but maybe it will for 2.93 and beyond.


As for those concerned that the audio side of Winamp will not receive as much development attention any more....

fixed in_vorbis.dll
http://firehose.net/~christophe/in_vorbis.dll

fixed in_midi.dll
http://evildildo.com/blah/in_midi.dll

2.92's in_mp3.dll already has fhg vbri headers fix


Sorry for going on the defensive again, but hey, I just can't help it.
DJ Egg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2003, 11:31   #130
Dr Satan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Carlisle, Cumbria, England
Posts: 128
Send a message via ICQ to Dr Satan
@Lion King:

Going back to my point before, many people prefer simplicity & speed over quality of output. For me, 20 seconds extra (or whatever) at rip time justifies the improvment of quality of a song I'm going to play over and over again. If I'm passing it to a compressor, I want it to be the highest possible quality when it gets there. Passing a bad file to a compressor will only amplify in the output.

@Rev:

Fair points. I know winamp has never been an audio player, it's the reason I use it. I also use it for the skinning and the effects plugins I can download (including vis). I wasn't too keen on a lot of the other things that starting making it into winamp, I started to worry when the browser found its way in etc. Winamp3 was a mistake to be learned from, but it had many good ideas in there, and I'm really looking forward to them being included into winamp 2 (playlist queuing, freeform skinning etc). I thought the failure of winamp3 was partly due to cramming too much un-needed stuff in there, I don't want to see the same happen to winamp 2.
Dr Satan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2003, 12:02   #131
Lion King
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,670
Quote:
Originally posted by DJ Egg
Could you guys please test the ripper and tell us whether the output quality is really as bad as you're making it out to be?

So far, I've ripped a fair few trax to ogg, aac and mp3 and honestly can't tell the difference between these and any I've ripped with CDex. The quality is pretty damn excellent. No pops, skips, scratches, hisses, nada! Crystal clear and crisp to my trained ears!
the quality should be ok if you don't have scratched cds, have a half decent cdrom drive reading the cd not too fast and a working aspi layer

i can't test this because i don't have any scratched audio cds (seriously) and an old cdrom drive which isn't that fast

i dunno if high cpu load has an impact on it

btw. that poor old aspi layer that comes with win95b seems to work better with in_cdda than the nero aspi that i used in win2k

Dr Satan: my point was that some people aren't aware that they can get higher quality rips
Lion King is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2003, 14:12   #132
net-cruizer
Senior Member
 
net-cruizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: BC, CANADA
Posts: 367
Quote:
Originally posted by Budgie
It was hard to tell if that v2.92 was final or a leaked beta anyway, as there is no single hint inside the program, like an uberlarge scrolling text saying "WARNING - BETA VERSION INSIDE, USE AT YOUR OWN RISK!" .

The "about" screen just says v2.92 built June 2nd 2003. Sounds final to me, and prolly a lot of other software sites making reviews and supplying download links for v2.92 beta, without knowing it is a beta. Damn .
Yeah, it sure does seem like a final. Has all the info a final would, and even comes in the 3 versions, Lite, Standard and Full.
As far as I'm concerned it is, I don't see any new bugs.
net-cruizer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2003, 14:49   #133
net-cruizer
Senior Member
 
net-cruizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: BC, CANADA
Posts: 367
Quote:
Originally posted by Budgie
XING = really bad quality MP3s. Xing codecs are legendary of being damn crap, literally. There used to be a ripper back in 1999 that used parts of audiograbber to rip and Xing codec to encode. Audiograbber is a crap program as well, no secure modes there. Goldwave's included ripper is ... crap, sorry. All just use plain CDDAE to rip. If you are lucky, and 1) your CD is clean and shiny new, 2) you have a good CD reader, the copy might just be fine. On scratched CDs, be sure the CDDAE ripping methods (aka "jitter correction modes") will fail to produce an error free copy.

Of course, most (Winamp-) users aren't aware of the pretty high attention good, error-free ripping requires. But if a ripper is unable to create perfect rips, then what's the point using it ...

The Winamp ripper is simple, and if it gives results that are personally fine with you, go ahead and use it .

And we all wouldn't bitch about additional components like the cd ripper in Winamp, if it had its own dll as a seperate plugin, rather than being a part of the media library dlls as it is in the current v2.92 (beta, though).

We will see if Nullsoft has the cd ripping component seperate by the time the final of v2.92 comes out . I bet I wouldn't be the only user who would appreciate that.
Maybe the ripping quality for me is perfect. Ever thought of that???
Maybe your comp is screwed up and you get crappy results.
Or maybe I just don't give a fuckin rats ass.
Jesus christ, Winamp finally adds something that makes perfect sence, works great, and didn't bloat Winamp the slightest bit, and people are fucking whining about it.
You can't even tell it's in Winamp, it only adds one extra damb button.
Some bozos can't get it to work and they start saying it's crap.
What the hell do people want of Winamp, to stay exactly the same as it always has been. Everyone looks forward to updates, but complain when stuff is added. Well then what is supposed to be updated if nothing is added???
net-cruizer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2003, 15:46   #134
Reverend Ike
Evangelical Alumni
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 1,533
Quote:
Originally posted by Lion King
1. this will help to flood the filesharing networks with bad rips and you'll need an advanced ripper anyway if you need to bypass some copyprotections

2. don't you think that those clueless people would rather want to know how to make a high quality rip than be given something that satisfies them based on their limited knowledge?
I think the filesharing networks are already flooded with bad rips. Even if Winamp's built-in CD ripper produces "bad" rips (which is not proven at this point), I don't think the volume of rips these users add to the pool will make a noticeable difference. As for (2), the short answer is No. Sad to say, I think a large number of users of all players (Winamp or others) do not want to take the time or make the effort to learn what constitutes high quality. They want a quick and easy answer. They can't tell the difference between a 128-kbps MP3 and a CD. They have 4 copies of every song on their hard drive, and 3 of those copies are truncated, full of pops and clicks, or sub-128 quality. They pick an audio player, and use whatever ripper comes with it at its default setting. They are the masses.

On the other hand, those who do have an interest in quality will eventually stumble across a website or forum, get themselves pointed in the right direction, and will educate themselves. I don't think the inclusion of a generic CD ripper in Winamp prevents that process.

As far as the "final" beta, none of the observations prove anything. Any website that posted it for download wasn't "fooled" - all they have to do is visit Winamp.com to see that 2.91 is still the latest final release. They are just part of this stupid rush to be "first" even though that doesn't mean anything - just like tabloids rush to be first to print unsubstantiated rumors. And a version that runs bugfree on one system won't necessarily be bugfree on another. That's why a beta team is supposed to try to throw all types of system combinations at an application. And even they aren't infallible - like I said, the forum got to play "public beta tester" a time or two in the past, and we found several bugs that had eluded the beta testers during the previous month. As Yogi didn't say: "It ain't final 'til it's final" ...
Reverend Ike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2003, 16:34   #135
Dr Satan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Carlisle, Cumbria, England
Posts: 128
Send a message via ICQ to Dr Satan
Quote:
Originally posted by net-cruizer
Maybe your comp is screwed up and you get crappy results.
Or maybe I just don't give a fuckin rats ass.
Dr Satan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2003, 16:42   #136
will
Nullsoft Newbie (Moderator)
 
will's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Sheffield, England
Posts: 5,569
Quote:
Originally posted by Reverend Ike
They pick an audio player, and use whatever ripper comes with it at its default setting. They are the masses.
Which is why i love the fact that by default, the winamp ripper uses ogg

DO NOT PM ME WITH TECH SUPPORT QUESTIONS
will is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2003, 17:09   #137
Budgie
Major Dude
 
Budgie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Hell frozen up
Posts: 1,217
Send a message via ICQ to Budgie
Quote:
Originally posted by net-cruizer
Maybe the ripping quality for me is perfect. Ever thought of that???
Maybe your comp is screwed up and you get crappy results.
Or maybe I just don't give a fuckin rats ass.
Jesus christ, Winamp finally adds something that makes perfect sence, works great, and didn't bloat Winamp the slightest bit, and people are fucking whining about it.
You can't even tell it's in Winamp, it only adds one extra damb button.
Some bozos can't get it to work and they start saying it's crap.
What the hell do people want of Winamp, to stay exactly the same as it always has been. Everyone looks forward to updates, but complain when stuff is added. Well then what is supposed to be updated if nothing is added???
LMAO, take a chill pill, buddy

My computer ain't screwed up, fact number one. Fact number two, I was politely telling you facts, bare facts, maybe hoping you would get better (ripping-) results. I also said that if the current way of ripping music gives you satisfying results, use it the way you feel best. Did you actually read one single post at all?

And also, I did not whine about Winamp's CD ripper being bloated and not perfect. What pissed me off (in the beta, remember it's not final? ) is the fact that you will still have the GUI of the cd ripper inside Winamp even if you DO NOT chose to install it. That's all I fucking said.

Moreover, I love getting updates for Winamp. Updates are great, if done right. The CD ripper is not done correctly, at least that's what my personal opinion is. Heck, it might / will even change when the v2.92 final comes out, so who the fuck knows? And I frankly don't give a fuck what YOU think about it; I was simply stating my opinion here. If you like the CD ripper, then use it, goddamn.

All I was trying to do give you + others hints that Winamp's CD ripper does not produce error free copies, and so on. Ah whatever, read my previous posts here in this thread, I can't be arsed repeating the whole stuff again.

So read my previous posts all the way through before you post crap here, for fuck sakes. Thank you very much.


Please consider the Forum Rules before posting utter crap. Thank you!
Budgie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2003, 17:18   #138
Budgie
Major Dude
 
Budgie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Hell frozen up
Posts: 1,217
Send a message via ICQ to Budgie
Quote:
Originally posted by Dr Satan
Dr Satan, you just don't have a bare clue how much I agree here with you.


Please consider the Forum Rules before posting utter crap. Thank you!
Budgie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2003, 17:37   #139
Lion King
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,670
Quote:
Originally posted by will
Which is why i love the fact that by default, the winamp ripper uses ogg
they'd have to pay license fees to thompson if they had included lame

was aac default in the alphas that came with it?
Lion King is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2003, 17:47   #140
YtseJam
Forum King
 
YtseJam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Israel
Posts: 2,399
Send a message via ICQ to YtseJam Send a message via AIM to YtseJam
I just wanted to say that this sudden approch from the mods regarding this newly titled "beta" version is funny and kinda of out place and maybe even TOO LATE.
This thread has been here long before someone suddently showed up saying this was a beta... Most of the moderators here are in that "beta testers" list and should have said when this thread only got created that this was a beta release and not only now all of a sudden start with this "don't post complains, don't do this, don't do that, this is a beta version" and etc... I find this a little hypocritical.

That's it. Gone on with the rambling.

YtseJam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2003, 18:23   #141
Dr Satan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Carlisle, Cumbria, England
Posts: 128
Send a message via ICQ to Dr Satan
I'd like to see ogg do well in the audio world, but I have my severe doubts on the quality when compared to a good old VBR mp3. But it's free, which is impressive.
Dr Satan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2003, 18:30   #142
Budgie
Major Dude
 
Budgie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Hell frozen up
Posts: 1,217
Send a message via ICQ to Budgie
Time will show, but imho VBR MP3s are superior when it comes to filesize/quality compared to OGG. Well if OGG gets similar developers' attention as the LAME codec, it will be just right .


Please consider the Forum Rules before posting utter crap. Thank you!
Budgie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2003, 19:31   #143
li1997
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Narragansett, RI, USA
Posts: 78
Send a message via AIM to li1997
Quote:
Originally posted by DJ Egg


....
fixed in_midi.dll
http://foobar2000.org/in_midi.dll
....

The version numbers are messed up...

3.01 - build date Apr. 1 2003 (included with 2.92)
3.0 - build date Jun. 15 2003 (from the link above)

-L"k"
li1997 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2003, 19:46   #144
peter
ist death
 
peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 3,704
use this - http://evildildo.com/blah/in_midi.dll
peter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2003, 20:06   #145
amano
Major Dude
 
amano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: where the llamas come from!
Posts: 952
hmm. why not go with 2.93 as the new version number. the 2.92 beta is now so widespread and considered to be final, so an new 2.92 final would confuse some.

take it as it is. the thing got leaked and that's it.

eeeee eeeeeee eeeee eeeee eeeee
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 88
8eee8 8e 8 8 8eee8 8e 8 8 8
88 8 88 8 8 88 8 88 8 8 8
88 8 88 8 8 88 8 88 8 8eee8
amano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2003, 20:30   #146
dan1el
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 95
Any news on the final?
dan1el is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2003, 21:01   #147
DJ Egg
Techorator
Winamp & SHOUTcast Team
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 35,821
@nant

The version we had from the beta list was a release candidate.
When we got 2.91 rc1, it was up on the nullsoft servers the next day as 2.91 final.
When Artoo put 2.92 up on winampheaven, I guess most of us assumed it had been endorsed by someone at nullsoft. We have since found this to be false (or rather, some kind of misunderstanding), hence the change of tune.
ok?

As you can see, there's already a new in_vorbis and in_midi (big thanks to PP), and maybe more yet to come. So, as it stands, we're all discussing something that was never really meant to be. And some people are ranting about it.

What happens from here is out of any mods'/members' hands....
DJ Egg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th June 2003, 00:12   #148
Cornel001
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Bucharest
Posts: 10
Just to support Dr Satan early comments.
I use Winamp as default music (mp3 in fact) player.
(and I use too ZoomPlayer as default video player)
I'd just like more effort percentage for improving AVS (it just kills my CPU Duron700@770 yeah I know faster procs are cheap now), skinning , and related (already said on my wishlist, like playlist window resizing mode etc). And not video. Just my oppinion, don't start bitching at me.

Last edited by Cornel001; 17th June 2003 at 00:51.
Cornel001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th June 2003, 00:14   #149
Carnicero
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 62
Quote:
Originally posted by amano
hmm. why not go with 2.93 as the new version number. the 2.92 beta is now so widespread and considered to be final, so an new 2.92 final would confuse some.

take it as it is. the thing got leaked and that's it.
Anyone impatient enough to go out of their way to download a demo surely won't be confused by a 2.92 version number.
Carnicero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th June 2003, 01:05   #150
Calrobowiz
Senior Member
 
Calrobowiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Missouri, USA
Posts: 449
Quote:
Originally posted by Cornel001
I use Winamp as default music (mp3 in fact) player.
(and I use too ZoomPlayer as default video player)
You know video support on Winamp is much like a second lung. You may not need it, but aren’t you glad it’s there? Same thing with the new ripping capability.

Calrobowiz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th June 2003, 01:23   #151
rijswijk
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 63
hmmm wonder what the big deal is a 4 page rant about a unreleased version. what use does it have to complain about a leaked beta not intended to be used by the public LoL


now take on the day

btw video works better then realmedia hehe


bye .......... WinAmp Rocks
rijswijk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th June 2003, 03:58   #152
Reverend Ike
Evangelical Alumni
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 1,533
Quote:
Originally posted by amano
hmm. why not go with 2.93 as the new version number. the 2.92 beta is now so widespread and considered to be final, so an new 2.92 final would confuse some.
"Widespread": A few thousand copies from Winampheaven and probably a like number from other independent sites who stole their copies from WH. Download.com: v2.91 downloads = 23 million, v2.92 downloads = 0. Yep, it looks like almost everyone has upgraded now.

"Considered to be final": Only by a few people in this thread.

A career in tabloid journalism beckons ...
Reverend Ike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th June 2003, 06:50   #153
xtremeboat
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 20
Can anyone tell me how to rip to mp3? The only options I get are OGG and WAV. I have the Fraunhofer mp3 codec installed, and the LAME output plugin for Winamp. What am I missing?!
xtremeboat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th June 2003, 06:54   #154
Sawg
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
MP3 Encoding support was not included natively (licensing or something, who knows). There was a separate download of enc_lame.zip.

Extract it to the Winamp/plugins folder.
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th June 2003, 14:44   #155
xtremeboat
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 20
The LAME codec is awesome - great sound quality, thanks for your help! Nice interface, and its good not to have to fiddle with output plugins - just right click the playlist and extract. Great stuff Nullsoft.

Is the ripping independent of the EQ settings - or do I need to make sure its turned off?

Last edited by xtremeboat; 17th June 2003 at 15:12.
xtremeboat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th June 2003, 15:35   #156
matthewtwood
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: England
Posts: 60
Quote:
Originally posted by Reverend Ike
I think the filesharing networks are already flooded with bad rips.

Sad to say, I think a large number of users of all players (Winamp or others) do not want to take the time or make the effort to learn what constitutes high quality. They want a quick and easy answer. They can't tell the difference between a 128-kbps MP3 and a CD. They have 4 copies of every song on their hard drive, and 3 of those copies are truncated, full of pops and clicks, or sub-128 quality. They pick an audio player, and use whatever ripper comes with it at its default setting. They are the masses.

Yep. Noticed how difficult it is on Kazaa etc. to get a VBR file? The vast majority of files are CBR 128kbps MP3, simply because most people don't know how to do any different.

I don't think the Winamp CD ripper will flood the networks with bad rips though. It may not be secure but at least it uses a decent codec. What DOES flood the networks with bad rips is people using Xing or that crappy 56kbps Fraunhofer in WMP. They constitute a much bigger threat from people who don't know what they're doing!
matthewtwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th June 2003, 15:39   #157
dan1el
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 95
The winamp ripper doesnt work. When i try to rip: Can not open decoder.

Winamp crashes.
dan1el is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th June 2003, 16:14   #158
DJ Egg
Techorator
Winamp & SHOUTcast Team
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 35,821
Are you trying to play and rip the cd at the same time?
DJ Egg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th June 2003, 16:35   #159
dan1el
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 95
No.
dan1el is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th June 2003, 17:26   #160
Reverend Ike
Evangelical Alumni
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 1,533
Just to clarify, is your copy of v2.92 the beta posted on the Winampheaven site the last few days, or did you get it elsewhere?
Reverend Ike is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Winamp > Winamp Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump