There are many methods and techniques for ripping music from games that never have an official OST release. It all depends on how you want it done and how you would like it to sound.

Requirements:

1. Desktop PC with Line-In jacks (usually it's colored blue)

2. RCA female audio couplers (or grab two single couplers, doesn't matter)

or an AV Selector that has female connectors (like this JVC AV Selector that I use as well if you can afford spending $20-$30+)
http://reviews.cnet.com/sc/30577223-2-200-0.gif
3. RCA Stereo cable (2 RCA connectors [male] and a mini-jack connector)
If you're ripping from a handheld w/headphone jack, you'll need two of these.


You can mix and match however you want to get your setup working right. Couple of examples (console & handhelds):

Console:


Handheld:

-----------------------------------------------------

Before you start up your game and hook up your cables to your PC, you got to get some programs first ;)

Recording Programs

Audacity (http://audacity.sourceforge.net/)
A favorite of mine that I still use for recording. You are able to edit the same file you rip so you can fade out the end or cut some pieces of silence out.

Harddisk Ogg (http://www.fridgesoft.de/harddiskogg.php)
Though it does say "Ogg" you don't have to save your files as that, but you will need to download a Mp3 Encoder and place it in the directory to rip as .Mp3 files. A great program, however, it lacks any editing options, so you'll likely need to save your recordings as .WAV files first and then open up say Audacity or some other .WAV editor.

SoundEngine (http://www.cycleof5th.com/en/)
Requires a soundcard to record. If you've got a soundcard, this ranks as good as Audacity. You can edit your recordings as well.

Mp3 Encoding Programs

CDex (http://sourceforge.net/projects/cdexos/)
A wonderful encoder and a swell CD Ripping program. Can convert .WAV files to VBR or CBR .Mp3 files and you can adjust the quality, bitrate, etc. I use this for converting to Mp3s. Even though a new beta version is out, I'd stick to the 1.51 version.

Download LAME 3.97 here (http://www.free-codecs.com/download/Lame_Encoder.htm)
-----------------------------------------------------

Remember: Everytime you encode to something else and save the recordings with multiple edits, you lose sound quality. It's hardly noticable at all if you go from .WAV to .Mp3, but let's say:
WAV > MP3 > WAV > OGG
or
WAV > MP3 > OGG > MP3
...and many other combinations, the more you change it, the worse it will get.

Now we go into the process of ripping music from your selected game.

Recording

1. Your first step is to start your game up and get to the title menu or options so the music doesn't stop (to test your connections). Make sure you have your cords all hooked up. If so, you should be hearing the game's music from your PC speakers. If not, you may have the device muted or at an incredibly low volume.

2. Open your volume control on your PC like so:

Notice the red circle. That is my playback for the game I have playing at the moment. I can decrease and increase the volume as needed, but it does not do anything with the recording volume. However, when I'm done recording and want to playback that recording, I normally need to mute this so I don't have two things playing at once.

3. Now goto "Options" > "Properties" like so:

I have to open the "Mixer Device" and select "Line In/Mic In" to be able to get the recording volume control panel. It'll be different for every computer.

4. Click OK once you get the recording button selected and now you'll have something like this:

Notice the other 3 devices are all muted. THESE WILL AFFECT YOUR RECORDINGS WHETHER SOMETHING IS INSERTED IN THOSE JACKS OR NOT. Especially the "Stereo Mixer". Once I muted that back when I first ripped, there was a SIGNIFICANT improvement. It's always best to mute everything but the Line In device.

5. Now we are ready to record (rip). I'm doing this with Audacity so it may be a little different with the other recording programs. Open it and click on the microphone jack. This is how you test the volume and see if it's at a suitable level. If it's too loud, all you'll hear during the playback is a lot of static because it's so loud. You want to get so that the max level barely reaches that white bar at the end. If it goes past it, it's telling you it's too loud. You can adjust the volume easily within the program by moving the slider with the microphone icon.


6. After you're done recording, click the stop button and edit as needed. Basically you want to get rid of any silence in the beginning but leave up to 2 seconds for lag time. Some songs will continue forever, so when you stop the track and there's no stopping point, just click and drag the last 10 seconds and goto effects and select "Fade Out". Of course how you want your tracks to play is completely up to you.

7. Alright, after you've got everything ready to save, if you want to save them as VBRs instead of Audacity's CBR, save all your files as WAV formats. Otherwise, save them all as CBRs and enjoy listening to them.

Mp3 Encoding tips

Bitrates

>128: Nothing should be below 128 at all. DON'T DO IT
128: Good for soft/single instrument/piano types
192+: Everything else

Another tutorial to check out: X-Treme Games Music (http://gamemusic.emugaming.com/tutorial_ripping.php)
This one deals with the SoundEngine program.

If anyone else has some other programs they recommend for recording and Mp3 Encoding or have any other methods to add, post them here.

...and if anyone else has some questions about ripping music, post and I'll see if I can help you out (or someone else could as well).

Someone must be bored.

Someone must be bored.

more like someone is really awesome <3

This is a great tutorial for helping people make rips of their own. Keep up the good work!

By the way, nice desktop background. Simple, yet nice.

It was about time I did this to help out new and first-time rippers.

Nice tutorial, sure. But you really need to get in line with what a preferred quality setting is for rips. You're already getting a potentially lossy feed by doing a line-in setup, this is something you can't avoid - but it's close to perfect. This is why I can't agree with you using or even thinking about encoding in CBR.

If you're going to do it, at least do it right - use VBR with the most extreme setting available.

Also,

128: Good for soft/single instrument/piano types
Not true. Since when does 128 apply to soft/single instruments/piano pieces? 128CBR isn't customized for that type of instrumentation only. It's just a way of saving alot of harddisk space and having an overall shitty quality of the soundfile. It has nothing to do with what kind of instrumentation you're listening to.

And,

192+: Everything else
Not even close there. If you're so crazy about using CBR you might as well go with 320CBR, but if you're hitting that point then there's no use in encoding in CBR anymore, because although the bitrate will be rather high, so will the filesize - but the bitrate will be worse in comparison to VBR, so VBR would not only give you just about the same filesize - you'd be getting an overall better feed of audio.

Basically, the range of CBR bitrates you mentioned above is far too low and isn't really going to render any quality rips. Like I said, if you're going to do it, do it right.

And last, but not least - you don't need 2 RCA cables. Just hook the PS2 up to the one and only RCA cable you'll ever need - an RCA female cable with a converging Y-plug at the other end for the line-in port. Keep it simple and efficient please. But hey, at least this way you people won't have to steal links and rips from other sites and ignore simple requests of not wanting to be affiliated with your site. -_-

I was thinking for the minimums for VBR on the bitrates, sorry about the misunderstanding. I just wanted to get the topic all done, so it was rushed. I'll get it all edited and such later on.

thanks for the tutorial. might have alot of music to add here soon enough now.

Alright, I guess it was a misunderstanding then. But I can't stress this enough; you shouldn't even consider any minimums, not even for VBR. You should settle with the best, because you are trying to maintain audio fidelity, but just encoding to .mp3 will give you a lossy feed, so you must make the most of it.

Take my word for it, you'd think that people are going to complain about the filesizes. They won't, they would if we were back in the 90's, but people have insanely large harddrives these days and CD/DVD burners, so there's no need to worry about that. Rips have to be in the maxium possible VBR setting.

I recommend this LAME setting (with LAME 3.96.1, since it's the most stable release so far and is preferred amongst release groups.):


-V 0 --vbr-new
If you're using Razorlame make sure you've enabled 'use custom options only'.

There might also be a problem while encoding in VBR, especially when you're doing a direct audio rip without recording (i.e. extracting) and the raw samples have a frequency of <44100Hz they sometimes tend to pass through the encoder without actually being encoded. This might be due to a VBR demand of 44.1kHz, but if that's the case you can always upsample the audio files to the appropriate frequency. Note that by doing so, you increase the overall filesize too, but there will be no difference in audio quality or playback rate. You will only increase the filesize and allow the samples to pass through the encoder. It's less desirable, but needed in order to encode into .mp3.

your logic is silly. if people wanted MAXIMUM QUALITY then they wouldn't be using VBR at all-- 320CBR is always of a higher quality than VBR, no matter what the settings.

Technically, you're right, but this isn't so much of a question of technicalities. 320CBR will give you the highest possible bitrate throughout every frame of the feed, whereas VBR will give you the highest possible where it is needed. It's a question of audibility and the fact that VBR is a little transparent in the sense that it does give you the same audio feed as 320CBR does.

So, to sum it up, you're right on a technical basis - 320CBR is the maximum possible quality, but in the sense that we want to consider the quality-size ratio, it doesn't add up. VBR will give you the best feed where it is needed, making 320 useless due to the low increase in quality relative the huge increase in size in comparison to VBR. So, you say, weren't you the one going on about filesize not being important? Yes, I was, but if you can keep it at a low filesize and still get the audio fidelity that you would get from 320CBR, why go for the higher filesize? Again, as I said, it's a question of audibility and not necessarily technicality.

For all it matters, I do remember releasing a rip in 320CBR, so it's not the end of the world.

Here's a good Quality-Setting-Size chart. Take a look at the topmost part of the graph.

your logic is silly. if people wanted MAXIMUM QUALITY then they wouldn't be using VBR at all-- 320CBR is always of a higher quality than VBR, no matter what the settings.The quality of an mp3 is determined by the q level, not the bitrate. Assuming you set maximum bitrate to 320 and q level to 0, VBR would get you the same level of quality with less size compared to a 320 CBR mp3. Similarly, you could encode at 320 with a q value of 5 and it would sound abysmal but have the same size as a 320 mp3 at q val 0. In other words, what you said is false. There's a reason all the respectable release groups encode in VBR.

The quality of an mp3 is determined by the q level, not the bitrate. Assuming you set maximum bitrate to 320 and q level to 0, VBR would get you the same level of quality with less size compared to a 320 CBR mp3. Similarly, you could encode at 320 with a q value of 5 and it would sound abysmal but have the same size as a 320 mp3 at q val 0. In other words, what you said is false. There's a reason all the respectable release groups encode in VBR.

not all of them do, actually. anime mp3 groups and some electronica release groups rip in 320CBR.

also, what I said was assuming all other variables weren't changed, obviously.


Technically, you're right, but this isn't so much of a question of technicalities. 320CBR will give you the highest possible bitrate throughout every frame of the feed, whereas VBR will give you the highest possible where it is needed. It's a question of audibility and the fact that VBR is a little transparent in the sense that it does give you the same audio feed as 320CBR does.

So, to sum it up, you're right on a technical basis - 320CBR is the maximum possible quality, but in the sense that we want to consider the quality-size ratio, it doesn't add up. VBR will give you the best feed where it is needed, making 320 useless due to the low increase in quality relative the huge increase in size in comparison to VBR. So, you say, weren't you the one going on about filesize not being important? Yes, I was, but if you can keep it at a low filesize and still get the audio fidelity that you would get from 320CBR, why go for the higher filesize? Again, as I said, it's a question of audibility and not necessarily technicality.

For all it matters, I do remember releasing a rip in 320CBR, so it's not the end of the world.

Here's a good Quality-Setting-Size chart. Take a look at the topmost part of the graph.


you're wrong. VBR is lossy, period. any lossy algorithm needs to make calls on information is and what information isn't okay to strip from the file or simplify via a lower bitrate. VBR still does this. just because most people can't notice it doesn't mean no one can. if you want to go down the "well we should rip so most people can't notice it" route, then anything above (what was formerly known) as preset standard (which is now -V 2) is adding filesize overhead that very, very few people can notice.

the most frequent example harolding the superiority of VBR is that of silence. if there's silence, why should the mp3 contain the regular bitrate? the thing is, there's no such thing as silence. noise is there, always. what's "silent" to one person is not "silent" to another. the problem with any lossy compression algo is that it needs to determine what data is least likely to be percievable to the human ear. since no two people have identical hearing, there is no perfect lossy algorithm.

not to mention the compatability issues with VBR. don't say compatability doesn't matter, because if it didn't, then people wouldn't be using MP3s. ogg offers superior compression but no one uses it. why? compatability.

there is no "right" encoding option. a lot of it comes down to personal preference. in my opinion, if you're so picky that preset standard isn't good enough, you should be moving onto lossless compression and ditching the mp3 format entirely.

you're wrong. VBR is lossy, period.
So is 320CBR. Besides, I haven't claimed otherwise. I wasn't implying that either settings were lossless, just to clear things up, so I have no clue how you even went off-topic like that. If you would have even bothered to actually read my post, you wouldn't have gone on talking about algorithms, the human ear, background noise etc. because none of that is coherent with what we're discussing right now. You got a chart, look at it, face the facts - you were not wrong but not entirely spot on either for that matter.


any lossy algorithm needs to make calls on informatio...
Yes, yes, no need to talk about algorithms, really, I know what this is about.


the most frequent example harolding the superiority of VBR is that of silence. if there's silence, why should the mp3 contain the regular bitrate? the thing is, there's no such thing as silence. noise is there, always.
Wrong. Noise can be removed prior to recording by acquiring noise profiles. There is static, but this too can be filtered out.


since no two people have identical hearing, there is no perfect lossy algorithm.
Again, who here has even spoken of perfect algorithms?


not to mention the compatability issues with VBR.
Err, I don't know of any compatibility issues with VBR. What're you talking about?


there is no "right" encoding option.
Right, personal preference. Just like some people want milk in their coffee and some don't. But you're overlooking the fact that nobody can enjoy a rip in say, 32CBR. There are some unwritten rules you know, if you're going to encode music you're better off trying to encode it so that people can actually listen to it.

Now please, read what I've actually written and pay attention. I have never claimed that VBR is lossless nor that 320CBR is. It's not a simple choice between the two, but I think it is quite obvious if you're aiming for the highest possible bitrate available for the MP3 format while keeping the filesize at a reasonable level relative the quality level at hand.

the thing is, there's no such thing as silence.Actually there is, a straight line of 0 dB is silence as no noise is produced, unless your soundcard is complete garbage and attempts to play noise where there is none.


not to mention the compatability issues with VBR.There isn't a commercially available modern MP3 player on the market that can't play VBR.


don't say compatability doesn't matter, because if it didn't, then people wouldn't be using MP3s. ogg offers superior compression but no one uses it. why?because Vorbis only has superior compression at lower bitrates, at which point it sounds like ass anyway.


there is no "right" encoding option. a lot of it comes down to personal preference. in my opinion, if you're so picky that preset standard isn't good enough, you should be moving onto lossless compression and ditching the mp3 format entirely.That's all fine and good but this is about VBR vs 320CBR.

Actually there is, a straight line of 0 dB is silence as no noise is produced, unless your soundcard is complete garbage and attempts to play noise where there is none.
I think that pretty much hit the spot there.

I think that pretty much hit the spot there.


Actually there is, a straight line of 0 dB is silence as no noise is produced, unless your soundcard is complete garbage and attempts to play noise where there is none.

There isn't a commercially available modern MP3 player on the market that can't play VBR.

because Vorbis only has superior compression at lower bitrates, at which point it sounds like ass anyway.

That's all fine and good but this is about VBR vs 320CBR.

0 dB is not the same as 0 dBa, for starters.

0 dB cannot exist in the physical world, short of being in a vacuum. it can in digital form, but that's the entire point-- when "silence" is converted into pure, digital silence (ie, no sound instructions) the sound that was in the quasi-silence is lost. an algorithm needs to decide where the cut off is. it has to decide what's "silence" and what isn't. this cutoff affects more than just the bits of the music that really are "silent", it affects the cutoffs during portions of noise as well.

(pointless aside: no soundcard, and no computer, is silent. quality doesn't matter. if there are moving parts and there's electricity flowing, there's noise. always. no exceptions.)

you're right, there is no decent commercially available mp3 player that can't play VBR. but not everyone is buying a new mp3 player. tons of cd players, dvd players, and mp3 players that people already own cannot play VBR at all. even in some current hardware there are still bugs with VBR-- a very common one is miscalculation of the length of a song.

I'll admit I may have been wrong about vorbis. I don't look into it because moving away from MP3 doesn't interest me but I do know that compression algorithms superior to LAME exist in formats other than MP3.


That's all fine and good but this is about VBR vs 320CBR.

actually what this all sprung from was someone saying everyone should rip in -V 0, which is what I'm taking issue with. the individuals that can tell the difference between -V 2 and -V 0 are incredibly rare. if you are one of those individuals or you're concerned about making the audio the best you can for those individuals you might as well go with 320CBR, because if your ears are that sensitive they're likely sensitive enough to be able to tell the difference between -V 0 and -b 320 anyway. then again, you're also likely able to tell the difference between 320cbr and lossless as well ~

if -V 0 is your personal cutoff because you believe you can tell the difference between -V 1 and -V 0 but you can't tell the difference between -V 0 and 320cbr, that's fine. I have no problem with that at all. but you should claim that your preferences should become the de facto encoding settings. especially in light of the fact that the individuals that can make that distinction are an absurdly small minority.

I never knew Sarah was so smart! Me? I know nothing about ripping music, I just play it on the piano and enjoy it.

0 dB cannot exist in the physical world, short of being in a vacuum. it can in digital form, but that's the entire point-- when "silence" is converted into pure, digital silence (ie, no sound instructions) the sound that was in the quasi-silence is lost. an algorithm needs to decide where the cut off is. it has to decide what's "silence" and what isn't. this cutoff affects more than just the bits of the music that really are "silent", it affects the cutoffs during portions of noise as well.No shit? We're not talking about the real world here.


actually what this all sprung from was someone saying everyone should rip in -V 0, which is what I'm taking issue with. And then you came in and said that 320 CBR is superior to VBR in quality, which is false.

haha what.

how can anyone claim that's false?

VBR contains data that's compressed, at the largest, at a bitrate of 320kbps. CBR contains 320kbps (ie, the "least" compression, and therefore the highest quality) constantly.

I'm not saying everyone should use 320kbps, far from it. but if you honestly think 320kbps is lower in quality than VBR, you shouldn't be telling people what encoding options to use because you really know nothing about it. :-(

the LAME documentation even states that VBR > ABR > CBR with the exception of 320kbps CBR.

if you honestly think 320kbps is lower in quality than VBR, you shouldn't be telling people what encoding options to use because you really know nothing about it. :-(Agreed, and that's exactly what I haven't been saying. VBR is CAPABLE of the same quality as CBR (meaning, as you said, CBR is NOT inferior), assuming you set the qval to 0, which for most songs would be mostly 224-320 then the 320 chunks would be exactly the same as those of a 320 CBR file, assuming you use the same encoder. Of course v0 is broken for most recent LAME releases.

edit: I think I was misunderstanding the point you were trying to make, I see what you were getting at.