one of my coworkes asked me for free good CD rippers programs as she wants all her music of her CD's
I recommende EAC imidaitly but im afraid it might be to "technica"
MY memory does not server me well and i cant remember would be good free alternatives with less "complexity" btu still a high focus on Quality/accuracy
CDEX ?
Windows: I’d still use EAC. It has "profiles" and is thus easy for beginners.
Linux: Whipper (https://github.com/whipper-team/whipper). Has MusicBrainz & AccurateRIP integration.
how about freac?
If it must be freeware, any media player supporting the Accurate Rip database will do e.g. MusicBee, Foobar.
If good quality meta data is an issue, I would settle for dBpoweramp, it pulls its data from various sources including paid ones.
It is fast and easy to handle too.
I use Cueripper. Not missing spending hours configuring EAC.
* dBpoweramp. I used the paid Reference version for my ripping, but the free version would be good enough for most?
* CUERipper. Had it been around when I ripped my collection, I would have given it a serious consideration.
I like CueRipper but for some reason it sometimes fails for me, and then I use EAC.
I don't think EAC is hard to use once it's configured but I'm always a little "unsure" when installing it on a new computer.
but still a high focus on Quality/accuracy
I'm not sure if the software makes that much difference, as long as it "works". Except for EAC which allows you to tweak the settings/methods. The drive and the disc make the most difference. If I get errors I'll try cleaning the disc and if that doesn't help I'll try a different computer.
But, I would recommend an application that supports
AccurateRip (http://www.accuraterip.com/software.htm). That'll confirm accuracy no matter which application you use. (For some reason CueRipper is missing from that list, but it
does support AccurateRip.)
Windows Media Player and iTunes can also rip.
Here's a list (https://www.techsupportalert.com/best-free-cd-ripper.htm) of free CD rippers.
...I spend a fair amount of time checking/fixing/reformatting (or adding missing) metadata. And sometimes I have to "find" or scan the artwork. Then for compilation albums or for music that was originally released on vinyl, I try to research the original year-of-release and update it for each song.
CUERipper
@sanskrit44: Thank you for mentioning fre:ac! 8) But it's strengths are more with file conversion than ripping. I have plans to improve its ripping features too, but time is limited...
That said, don't use CDex or Audiograbber. They really deserve to die.
CDex once was a nice free and open source ripper, but abandoned by its original author around 2007. CDex 1.70 beta 2 was the last open source release. In 2014 the project was taken over by another guy who took down the source code, but seemed to be continuing active development at least until version 1.78 in 2015. After that, however, the maintainer added adware to the installer and development seems to be stalled. There still are frequent release, but the change log mostly just says "Several bug fixes" which cannot be verified due to the lack of source code. My impression is that the frequent releases shall make it look like an active project, but mainly contain updated adware installers.
Audiograbber is similar, but never was open source. The last release is from 2004 and the installer contains several adware bundles.
@sanskrit44: Thank you for mentioning fre:ac! 8) But it's strengths are more with file conversion than ripping. I have plans to improve its ripping features too, but time is limited...
you're welcome. i really like freac, especially since it became an
appimage - very cool. nice to hear you have plans to make it even better (perhaps accuraterip db comparison ;))!
I have been using foobar with standard mode without issu
@sanskrit44: Thank you for mentioning fre:ac! 8) But it's strengths are more with file conversion than ripping. I have plans to improve its ripping features too, but time is limited...
That said, don't use CDex or Audiograbber. They really deserve to die.
CDex once was a nice free and open source ripper, but abandoned by its original author around 2007. CDex 1.70 beta 2 was the last open source release. In 2014 the project was taken over by another guy who took down the source code, but seemed to be continuing active development at least until version 1.78 in 2015. After that, however, the maintainer added adware to the installer and development seems to be stalled. There still are frequent release, but the change log mostly just says "Several bug fixes" which cannot be verified due to the lack of source code. My impression is that the frequent releases shall make it look like an active project, but mainly contain updated adware installers.
Audiograbber is similar, but never was open source. The last release is from 2004 and the installer contains several adware bundles.
s.
Thats overly harsh and terrible that good software 'should just die' . That is some big corporate thing these days (that its dangerous or insecure). Not excusing the cdex developer, However he /she ows no one nothing as most believe they have auto open source entitlement without paying a dime. Your lucky to even have someone interested or capable of mainaining the sotware rather that create another gazillion clones or nothing at all. Opencandy etc is not present in the latest version, and from what I recall it nothing new at all and these 'options' can be disabled or unticked at install time. This doesn't make it a virus. Wikipedias article of cdex is close to slander and total FUD - not surprsing as that site is becoming a joke from day to day.
So personally, I am happy to see cdex still alive and developed even though the concerns have been raised.
Foobar 2000 itself is a good ripper with basic features. I use standard security method without issues even on poor cd's. Cdex is a good for something simpler than eac. There are no viruses in the cdex downloads whatsoever that I can tell and I have ran my own tests and virustotal.
So personally, I am happy to see cdex still alive and developed even though the concerns have been raised.
Well, the firewall at my workplace (Dell SonicWALL Gateway Anti-Virus, which is not included in VirusTotal) flags the current release 2.21 as
FusionCore.AK (Trojan).
FusionCore is the malware that shipped with earlier versions of CDex, see the report for 2.19 here: https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/f5036e28422670726688cb040ba0d766e3a5934fad3171680e3d62288d7bb43a/detection
CDex 2.20 is flagged only by three engines, but interestingly, one of them still recognizes FusionCore: https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/979871c8d9a5c52461d45cd27ed009a2eb757d63724df401dd2527d447c468e2/detection
CDex 2.21 is still flagged by three engines, but no more mention of FusionCore (though as written above, SonicWALL GAV still recognizes it as FusionCore): https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/4a6000977b5af5c3868fe8216397d2af2ddd0411f3bd0b138c893c76a2aaad46/detection
So FusionCore still seems to be present in the current release, just updated to a newer version trying to get past AV software for a while. Malware developers always play a cat and mouse game with AV engine makers, so they push updates often using new tricks to try and evade being detected.
From the AV results, I see my theory supported, that CDex still contains malware and recent releases mainly update that. I stand by all I have written before and would not touch this piece of software. There a many good open source alternatives that do not try to sneak malicious add-ons onto your computer.
There a many good open source alternatives that do not try to sneak malicious add-ons onto your computer.
There are (though "many" is a matter of opinion). And, there are tried-and-tested closed-source alternatives too. Remember, those who even consider CDex are not the ones who narrow their selection down to openness.
I have a hard time understanding why anyone should want to choose CDex above the alternatives - even if installers issues were sorted out.
Only 2.21, 1.77 and 1.51 are currently on https://cdex.mu/download
There is still no proof that 2.21 has any problem. How do you know what is what without a proper inverstigation? How do just trust dell sonicwall ? I've seen many times false positives for many things. How do you know what is false and what is not?
BTW opensource is no panacea. The problems there have been even worse that proprietary sotware IMO - blind faith and trust; Linuxmint infected ISOs, Palemoon infected archives, heartbleed etc. I'd rather have my enemies in sight (can untick them) than hidden..
I unpacked 2.21 into a temp folder. In the $plugins dir, there is a fusion.dll. Virustotal https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/d282d6a914a056fb9dbfc2f9da0c6c1f7952927653cb46b6c92fd6694990779d/detection
It run fine without this dll, But besides the name fusion, Its not clear if its 'the fusion' that was previously talked about, is it benign , false positive rhetoric or even used at all in this release..
I got curious, so I checked:
the current CDex is an illegal pirate distribution.
That is a TOS#9 issue, so I have not included URLs here - and they should be removed from the wiki.
- CDex was and is published under GPL version 3. Yes, "and is" still: at the current "CDex" web site, I find a link to the "/license" subdirectory, and that document reproduces the GPL version 3.
- There is no source code available at the website, neither for the current version or earlier; there is a link to "/sourcecode" and checking against archive.org: the difference to the hijacked version of the web page, is removal of links.
So whoever "maintains" CDex by now,
- are illegally redistributing the program
- have cloned the website to the level that they don't even care that they still offer it under GPL and list as a "Best of all" feature that "it's free (GPL license, source code available)"
- have a long history abusing CDex as a vehicle to install malware
Maybe the dev is busy, unwell or something.. Perhaps it will be sorted out - you know people have job / limited time etc.. dealing with millons of foss users screaming for the code. I'd rather have developer / bug fixes than a dead project even if the installer has 'extras' (as long as not hidden) . There are many download sites offering portable cdex without the installer.
I agree there are some questionable points raised but I am not convinced yet that it is a malicious hijack as some claim.
It run fine without this dll, But besides the name fusion, Its not clear if its 'the fusion' that was previously talked about, is it benign , false positive rhetoric or even used at all in this release..
Analyzed the CDex 2.21 installation with WireShark in a VM. It contacts http://os.stocksigngift.com/Fusioncdex/ and other URLs on that domain. The domain has been registered through an anonymization service, so it's not traceable to the real owner. But it's the same domain that came up in discussions of the Fusion malware before, so it's likely that a list of advertising bundles to offer for installation is queried there.
It did not offer me anything during installation, but these offers are usually selected by region and whether there currently is a client paying for it. So it might change depending on where you are and when you run the installer.
Running the installer on an offline computer might be safe, but why go through that hassle at all? It's pretty clear that the CDex author does not mind compromising his users' privacy and security for a few extra bucks, so do you really want to support that?
Maybe the dev is busy, unwell or something.. Perhaps it will be sorted out - you know people have job / limited time etc.. dealing with millons of foss users screaming for the code.
"come on baby tell me,
you must be joking, right?" (https://youtu.be/jQZTK6xJ1Bw?t=142)