Ubuntu QA:
BlogBrainstormPackage status
Log in
Ubuntu QA
The Ubuntu community has contributed 16796 ideas, 103309 comments, 2167252 votes
Idea sandbox Idea sandbox
Popular ideas Popular ideas
Ideas in development Ideas in development
Implemented ideas Implemented ideas
Idea #17040: Give Sound Juicer the same encoding options as Sound Converter

Written by Xero Xenith the 4 Jan 09 at 20:38. Related project: Sound Juicer. Status: New
Rationale
Sound Juicer and Sound Converter are very similar apps, with one ripping CDs and the other converting sound files to other formats. Sound Converter gives users an easy way to choose, where they pick which format, then they get a nice guided way to choose the quality. However, Sound Juicer (the CD ripper) does not, and relies on profiles, which are very difficult to modify.

For example, the "CD quality, MP3" preset gives me 128kbps MP3s. Nowhere near CD quality, so I decided to try and change it. There's no easy GUI option; you have to change the command line parameters! All the help you are given is this:

audio/x-raw-int,rate=44100,channels=2 ! lame name=enc mode=0 vbr-quality=6 ! id3v2mux

I figured out you had to change the vbr-quality to around 2 to get what I wanted. Not intuitive at all. On the other hand, the SoundConverter interface was intuitive and easy.

I propose Sound Juicer switches to Sound Converter's format choosing layout.
Tags: (none)

98
votes
up equal down
Solution #1: Auto-generated solution of idea #17040
Written by Xero Xenith the 4 Jan 09 at 20:38.
Ubuntu Brainstorm was updated in January 2009. Since the idea #17040 was submitted before this update, its rationale and solution are not separated. Please vote accordingly, and if you have the necessary rights, please separate the rationale from the solution. Thanks!

Propose your solution

Attachments
No attachments.


Duplicates


Comments
drunkahol wrote on the 6 Jan 09 at 13:16
Would also be good to expand the output file naming options. It's good to have some reasonable defaults, but why limit it to just those? A user defineable macro shouldn't be out of the question.

Jayferd wrote on the 14 Jan 09 at 01:22
Excellent, and I definitely agree with drunkahol's addition. I understand the need to balance versatility with usability (for an example of the opposite, see qjackctl - options overload!), but an extra "Custom..." bar at the bottom wouldn't hurt.


Post your comment