Ripping Blu Ray
- Thread starter ssully
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
quoddiophile
Well-known Member
Yes, I think that you make an excellent point. I tag my files something like "Octopus (2015 Steven Wilson mix) [BD DTS 5.1 24-96] or "Octopus ....[BD 2.0 DTS 24-96]. If it is LPCM, it would be something like Title [BD 2.0 24-192]. I use just the Title for a CD and if necessary put in parentheses something like Obsession (OST) where OST stands for Original SoundTrack. A real "fun" title is "Aqualung" with the 2011 blu-ray, the 2011 DVD and the 2016 mixes/remasters. This way, I can differentiate the versions.
Jim
OK - I ahead and typed in all the names of the songs (edited the chapter or title names) and then clicked tag...and here is what I got once it's all done.
So, it didn't remember anything I typed in I guess. So not sure why they give you the option.
So, it didn't remember anything I typed in I guess. So not sure why they give you the option.
So what I'm saying is - if I pull those split files into Foobar and then edit the names, it shows the new name in foobar, but retains the split name in the music folder. Which means, when I go back to foobar, I can't find the files in library. I really don't know what I'm doing wrong. 
what about tag&rename? I have that program...but as usual, GOS doesn't understand how to make it work. I pulled in those damn split files...but no matter what I do, I don't understand how to pull in correct info for each song. I hate being so stupid with computer lingo...
Eh....well Gee. Even though I said what I said....I went into Foobar...and damn. There were the files, correctly named. :yikes
I'm way beyond confused...but I guess it worked.
I'm way beyond confused...but I guess it worked.
So, with my new-found confidence and instructions...I tried Octopus again. Only using Audiomuxer....same way I did Power. It cruised along for about 30 minutes doing its thing. Then it crashed, with error and aborted. IT said changed from 96k to 46k (aborted)
Soooo. Not sure how any of you got freaking Octopus to correctly rip. In 96k that is....
Soooo. Not sure how any of you got freaking Octopus to correctly rip. In 96k that is....
quoddiophile
Well-known Member
Gos:
I tried ripping Octopus a number of different ways. The only one that would work is to temporarily disable Passkey and then use MakeMKV to create an MKV file.
Once that is done, start up Audiomuxer and choose the Tools -- "Extract Audio from MKV Files" option. After that, all you have to do is follow the normal extraction process.
This process does work and it is the only one that works out of several that I tried when I ripped "Octopus".
Jim
I tried ripping Octopus a number of different ways. The only one that would work is to temporarily disable Passkey and then use MakeMKV to create an MKV file.
Once that is done, start up Audiomuxer and choose the Tools -- "Extract Audio from MKV Files" option. After that, all you have to do is follow the normal extraction process.
This process does work and it is the only one that works out of several that I tried when I ripped "Octopus".
Jim
Damn - OK. I'll try it tomorrow. Currently ripping Damn The Torpedos blu.....it has LPCM 5.1...so it's easy.
By the way - thanks for all your bother.
Well, I finally figured out how to rip the 192kHz stream from Blu-ray discs! I used the Audiomuxer "extract audio from Blu-ray" method as described by Jim "quoddiophile" and it worked like a charm. I've been ripping all my previous Blu-rays using DVD-AE, so I was only getting the 48kHz stream... I decided to do a sound comparison of the 48 and 192 files... to my ears, no real difference (too bad... too many concerts, I guess!). HOWEVER, I sat each of my kids down (14 and 16 years old), and did the comparison using several songs from "Chicago VII"... and they both said the 192kHz files sounded better! I've read many debates about this here at the QQ, and I wonder if it all comes down to who still has good hearing vs. who doesn't?!
Anyway, I'm going to re-rip all my blu-ray audio to hi-rez anyway... at least it might sound better to any guests who come over for a listen!
Anyway, I'm going to re-rip all my blu-ray audio to hi-rez anyway... at least it might sound better to any guests who come over for a listen!
i guess you and many others when try to compare different streams, do concentrate your attention on high frequencies? that's wrong.
instead you must be concentrated on overall sound and breath of liveness in the sound. thats brings out difference between 16bit and 24bit
recording and very significantly difference between lossless and lossy streams.48kHz vs. 96kHz for most of pop, with plenty of artificially
created sound, not as much critical but when it comes to natural acoustical stuff, obviously 96kHz sound way better. 96kHz vs. 192kHz - i don't know.
i'm not objecting 192kHz but cannot catch any difference between those two.
I would like to publicly thank Jim (quoddiophile) for post #143 in this thread. I personally appreciate it as it worked for me!
quoddiophile
Well-known Member
I would like to publicly thank Jim (quoddiophile) for post #143 in this thread. I personally appreciate it as it worked for me!
Jon,
Thank you for your kind words; they are greatly appreciated. I am very pleased to have made a small contribution to this forum, especially given the wonderful contributions made by you and many others that have made this such a terrific forum. I find it informative, witty, entertaining, humourous, educational and above all, great fun. The Quadraphonicquad Forum has greatly enhanced my music listening experience. Thank you everyone!
Jim
quoddiophile
Well-known Member
Otto makes some very good points when trying to listen for the differences between high-resolution and CD recordings. In my experience, the sonic improvements with high-resolution recordings can be described in sonic terms as qualities such as improved bass, greater “presence” and wider and deeper soundstage, just to name a few. And they are not necessarily frequency dependent. I have found that these qualities might not be immediately discernable but after repeated listening usually become apparent. Of course other factors can come into play such as the listening room, the quality and the setup of the sound system and indeed, as skherbeck has suggested, the keenness of one’s hearing.
I had an interesting experience when I was able to compare the 5.1 24/96 DVD-Audio and 5.1 SACD versions of Beck’s “Sea Change” to the 5.1 24/192 pure audio blu-ray versions. The pure audio blu-ray was clearly better and by quite a margin. I would highly recommend it as a surround sound reference disc in both musical and sonic terms.
In my opinion, there is an additional reason for ripping discs at the higher resolutions.
Most of use probably use post-processing such as Dolby ProLogicIIx to synthesize surround sound from our 2-channel sources. I have found that when the source is at a higher resolution such as 24/96 or 24/192 that the surround experience is usually discernably better. There is lots of source material like this. A good example would be Neil Young. Most of his blu-rays/DVD-audio discs are at 24/192 and sound much better via Dolby ProLogicIIx than the comparable CDs. His “Live at the Fillmore East” is quite remarkable in that respect.
As to hearing the differences between 24/96 and 24/192, I think that depends so much on the source material and so varies from disc to disc. To be on the safe side I always obtain or rip the highest resolution stream whenever possible.
Jim
I would like to publicly thank Jim (quoddiophile) for post #143 in this thread. I personally appreciate it as it worked for me!
FWIW, I had the same Octopus BluRay issues -- first track ripped fine (using my usual MakeMKV decrypted backup + DVDAE direct demux ripping strategy) as DTS Master Audio, but all the other tracks ripped as corrupted DTS 96/24, and would not play.
quoddophile's suggestion (save the files off the disc as .mkv, then extract/decode-->FLAC with Audiomuxer) worked well to get around that. (To be clear: with this method, if you enable FLAC conversion as suggested, Audiomuxer uses a 'built-in' DTS decoder to *decode* the files, whereas my usual strategy yields 'raw' DTS files that are decoded by my AVR; fortunately the newer versions of Audiomixer comes with a decoder that is competent to handle DTS MA.)
Anyone else have trouble with DVD-AE and DVD-Audio of Flaming Lips/Yoshimi? It loads the disc, shows songs, but gets hung up scanning chapters. Won't go any further and always ends by saying NOT RESPONDING. I opened a ticket with DVD-AE support to see if they have any info on that particular disc.
quoddiophile
Well-known Member
I had successfully ripped this disc before using the same method as you. For the hell of it, I tried re-ripping it and it seemed to work fine. I did try several times with DVDAE and it always scanned the chapters.
However, I also tried ripping it via MakeMKV. It appears to work (I didn't go through the entire process and I didn't get to the point where I extract the files with audiomuxer) but given the messages that come up as you are creating the MKV file there does seem to be something unusual about this disc.
I have no idea if this helps.
Jim
eh....
So, I was ripping a blu-ray that contained Dolby TRUE HD which claims to be 96/24...only when I look in foobar after ripping, it's only 48/24. Yes, using DVD-Audio Extractor. I thought that program only had troubles with DTS HD Master 96/24? Or possible I've done something wrong....??
So, I was ripping a blu-ray that contained Dolby TRUE HD which claims to be 96/24...only when I look in foobar after ripping, it's only 48/24. Yes, using DVD-Audio Extractor. I thought that program only had troubles with DTS HD Master 96/24? Or possible I've done something wrong....??
This is probably not the problem, but I thought I'd mention it just in case. There is a check box in one of the DVDAE selection screens where you can select the bit rate of the conversion. I keep it set to "same as source". Be sure yours is not set incorrectly or was somehow inadvertently changed.
Similar threads
