GMG Classical Music Forum

The Back Room => The Diner => Topic started by: XB-70 Valkyrie on July 18, 2015, 07:19:00 PM

Title: Foobar 2000 vs Media Monkey? (MediaMonkey driving me ape!)
Post by: XB-70 Valkyrie on July 18, 2015, 07:19:00 PM
Anyone use Foobar2000? I need to rip CDs to FLAC and I don't need anything fancy. I keep track of everything with a folder system that I have been using for years, and I very rarely have trouble finding things. I have been struggling mightily with MediaMonkey to find a way to manually label CDs (track titles, album title, artists, genre) that do not come up in FreedB prior to ripping them to FLAC. I have tried everything, and it seems to do something unexpected and annoying every time. The latest trick is that it SAID it was converting all 14 tracks on a CD I had tried to manually label, but only THREE of them actually ended up in the folder!  :(

There seems to be no way to learn how to use Media Monkey except poking around in the program and trying different things. There is a knowledgebase and other resources on the web, but these all seem to tout all the great things the software can do, but they don't explain HOW to actually do them. If there is any kind of guide to HOW to do things in Media Monkey (e.g., manually label CDs before ripping) I have yet to find it.

Any suggestions as to whether to press on with Media Monkey or maybe try Foobar2000? 



Title: Re: Foobar 2000 vs Media Monkey? (MediaMonkey driving me ape!)
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 18, 2015, 07:23:15 PM
Dude, why aren't you tagging in MP3Tag? It is hands down the best tagger available, and free free free. I have been using it for almost 15 years, nothing else matches it. MediaMonkey is a player/library. Rip in dBpoweramp and tag in MP3Tag (yes, it does flac too) and play in MediaMonkey and you are all set.   :)

8)
Title: Re: Foobar 2000 vs Media Monkey? (MediaMonkey driving me ape!)
Post by: XB-70 Valkyrie on July 18, 2015, 07:28:06 PM
Thanks. I will check out your suggestions. In the past I have used WinAmp, and have manually labeled a lot of things that did not come up, and other times (occasionally) I have modified track and album names (in windows) after the fact (in cases where the file names that come up in GraceNote were excessively long).

I just feel as if I am really out of the loop on all this stuff, and need a beginners guide!

Nevertheless, my system has served me well over the years, and I have had very few problems transferring files and my folder architcture to my new Fiio X1, which is working great! Only on some of the latest rips with Media Monkey do I see "Unknown artist" "unknown album" on the X1.
Title: Re: Foobar 2000 vs Media Monkey? (MediaMonkey driving me ape!)
Post by: Karl Henning on July 18, 2015, 07:40:03 PM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 18, 2015, 07:23:15 PM
Dude, why aren't you tagging in MP3Tag? It is hands down the best tagger available, and free free free. I have been using it for almost 15 years, nothing else matches it. MediaMonkey is a player/library. Rip in dBpoweramp and tag in MP3Tag (yes, it does flac too) and play in MediaMonkey and you are all set.   :)

8)

Dude, you abide!
Title: Re: Foobar 2000 vs Media Monkey? (MediaMonkey driving me ape!)
Post by: XB-70 Valkyrie on July 18, 2015, 07:46:39 PM
El Duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing.
Title: Re: Foobar 2000 vs Media Monkey? (MediaMonkey driving me ape!)
Post by: Brian on July 20, 2015, 07:01:24 PM
I switched from MM to foobar. It does take a day or two or even three to set up, and the setup process is not the easiest, but I have the player just the way I want it now, it loads instantly, and it's much faster, simpler, and more transparent than MM.

Not sure about ripping CDs TO FLAC, but I have plenty of FLAC in my foobar and manage it to my needs.
Title: Re: Foobar 2000 vs Media Monkey? (MediaMonkey driving me ape!)
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 20, 2015, 07:17:16 PM
Quote from: Brian on July 20, 2015, 07:01:24 PM
I switched from MM to foobar. It does take a day or two or even three to set up, and the setup process is not the easiest, but I have the player just the way I want it now, it loads instantly, and it's much faster, simpler, and more transparent than MM.

Not sure about ripping CDs TO FLAC, but I have plenty of FLAC in my foobar and manage it to my needs.

That's all I'm saying anyway: use the best software (for you) for each job. There is no Swiss Army Knife that does the job as well as the individual tools.   :)

8)
Title: Re: Foobar 2000 vs Media Monkey? (MediaMonkey driving me ape!)
Post by: XB-70 Valkyrie on July 20, 2015, 09:30:30 PM
I downloaded Foobar shortly after I posted this, and have been using it to rip my CDs to FLAC. I must say that (so far) it absolutely kicks ass as a CD ripper and media player! It seems very intuitive and easy to learn, and has a very simple, pleasing layout, yet all the functionality I need (although I am not sure about transcoding or managing an iPod--capabilities I have less and less need for as time passes). Some people seem to think Foobar is difficult, however, I am really not very knowledgeable about this area, and for me it is vastly easier than MM, which is absolutely infuriating at times.

I'm sure it's a personal preference--some people love iTunes and MM, but they both drive me nuts. Foobar just seems logical and straightforward to me. Still, I have a lot to learn, but at least it will not be a painful process.

My one gripe about all these players is that there appear to be no user manuals or step-by-step guides. There are wikis, FAQs and such, but all they seem to do is tout the features; they do not actually explain HOW to do anything.

I am also unclear on the difference between Foobar and dBpoweramp.
Title: Re: Foobar 2000 vs Media Monkey? (MediaMonkey driving me ape!)
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 21, 2015, 04:25:38 AM
Quote from: XB-70 Valkyrie on July 20, 2015, 09:30:30 PM
I downloaded Foobar shortly after I posted this, and have been using it to rip my CDs to FLAC. I must say that (so far) it absolutely kicks ass as a CD ripper and media player! It seems very intuitive and easy to learn, and has a very simple, pleasing layout, yet all the functionality I need (although I am not sure about transcoding or managing an iPod--capabilities I have less and less need for as time passes). Some people seem to think Foobar is difficult, however, I am really not very knowledgeable about this area, and for me it is vastly easier than MM, which is absolutely infuriating at times.

I'm sure it's a personal preference--some people love iTunes and MM, but they both drive me nuts. Foobar just seems logical and straightforward to me. Still, I have a lot to learn, but at least it will not be a painful process.

My one gripe about all these players is that there appear to be no user manuals or step-by-step guides. There are wikis, FAQs and such, but all they seem to do is tout the features; they do not actually explain HOW to do anything.

I am also unclear on the difference between Foobar and dBpoweramp.

dBpoweramp is ONLY a ripper. Not a lot else to say. It does give you access to every database for online tags, so it is rare to go to MP3Tag and have nothing more than 'Track 1' 'Track2' etc. Even though 99% of online tags don't work for me, most of them still have some vestige that I can use (I copy and paste like crazy), and at the least they identify the track and keep tracks from several different disks from mingling together while they are waiting to be properly tagged.

8)