In what format do you rip your CDs?

[ChuckM 1]

The poll is pretty self explanatory.

Personally, I'm just now making the switch to all FLAC.

[Henry B 50]

Apple Lossless.

[Trent B 337]

I rip mine to wave first then I encode to flac.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

mp3

I wish I started out with a higher bit rate when I did my mega-organization and reimportation of all my music on my Macbook. Most of my collection is in 128 I believe, but a few months ago I switched it up to 256. And most of the stuff that I, ahem, get elsewhere is in 320.

[Trent B 337]

Why did you start out at 128? That's a horrible bit rate for film scores...

[Koray Savas 2,251]

It was the default setting in iTunes. This was back when I didn't really care, as long as they were all mp3. Not to mention back when I used to listen to music on my laptop speakers, which I can no longer do.

[Wycket 36]

320 for me. I honestly don't see that big of a difference between 320 and FLAC, and with my video editing projects I'd prefer to have the space for those related files. If I want to listen to CD quality music, I'll pop the CD in while I'm driving.

[ChuckM 1]

Not to mention back when I used to listen to music on my laptop speakers...

Yeah, laptop speakers do tend to render format and bit-rate pretty much completely irrelevant.

[Trent B 337]

It was the default setting in iTunes. This was back when I didn't really care, as long as they were all mp3. Not to mention back when I used to listen to music on my laptop speakers, which I can no longer do.

Ah okay, gotcha. Glad you don't listen to the music through your laptop speakers any more.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

Apple Lossless.

[Dean1700 4]

mp3's.

Most of mine are currently at 128kbps only because I am still pretty much in the dark about FLAC files and have only just found out how to increase the bit rate when ripping. So now I have started to re-rip my music at 320kbps but this means all my edited tracks require re-editing from scratch to bring them up to the new bit rate.

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

mp3 256kbps

[King Mark 3,624]

320kbps MP3 is ideal ( even though above 192kbps I can't hear much of a difference)

I use WAV or FLAC to make edit projects though

If I want to listen to CD quality music, I'll pop the CD in while I'm driving.

The background noise will negate any of the minimal sound quality improvements.In the car stereo even 128 kbps MP3's sound like c.d.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Apple Lossless.

Same here.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Apple Lossless.

[John Crichton 4]

Right now, WMA/Windows Lossless. But, I've had a lot of problems with WMP (ranging from a major crash to hearing some click/gap problems that others have complained about with the format) lately so I'm about to undertake the project to re-archive everything in iTunes with Apple Lossless.

[Marian Schedenig 8,158]

FLAC. It's free, open, lossless and comparatively small. I don't care if I can hear any difference to e.g. 320kbps MP3s, the point is that what I have on my HD is exactly the same thing that's on the CD. If I want to make CD copy or a compilation CD, or low-bitrate MP3s for my mobile phone, I don't have to fetch the CD from the shelf.

I rip mine to wave first then I encode to flac.

Why the manual (I suppose) WAV step?

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

I don't bother with lossless simply because I don't have the space, nor the money to increase my available space atm.

[ChuckM 1]

I rip mine to wave first then I encode to flac.

Why the manual (I suppose) WAV step?

I use Exact Audio Copy, which rips as WAV, converts to FLAC, then discards the original WAV all in one automated process. It also runs a bunch of error checking stuff to ensure that every track is 100% bit-perfect.

[Richard Penna 3,665]

mp3 320kb, always. I will buy at 256kb and even 192k, but that's scraping the bottom.

I will only accept 128kb if there really is no other way of getting hold of that particular music and the CD is either too pricey or unavailable.

[Marian Schedenig 8,158]

I use Exact Audio Copy, which rips as WAV, converts to FLAC, then discards the original WAV all in one automated process. It also runs a bunch of error checking stuff to ensure that every track is 100% bit-perfect.

Technically, every tool rips as WAV (or rather, RAW, which is WAV minus a few headers) and then converts. But it seems Trent really rips to WAV first and then converts to FLAC in a second step.

I use soundKonverter. Rips and converts everything I need from and to any format I like.

[Richard Penna 3,665]

I used flacs for a couple of important things for a period, but it soon became clear that there was no perceptible difference with 320k, was taking up more space, and couldn't hold any ID data/album art.

I currently use CDex to rip CDs which does everything except embedding cover images.

[Wojo 2,453]

Most of my collection is in 128 kbps MP3. Aside from the fact that I am not blessed with the ears of a dog like so many of you, this is because:

it's what I've traditionally ripped music to when I lacked extensive hard drive storage;

a lot of my collection dates from college when Napster was legal and 128 was the norm;

and because I have always been bound by the means of playing the music, whether listening on my own computer with limited space, loading a work computer with limited space, or burning MP3 CD-R's for use with a a car stereo or portable MP3-CD walkman. A 700 meg CD-R can hold about 12 albums ripped at 128, which is a decent balance between quality and capacity.

That being said, when I rip, I rip straight to WAV using WMP because it's fast -- the less time I spend at the computer opening and closing the CD tray is more time for doing other things. I like EAC, I want to use EAC, but it refuses to function on either of my computers, and I am not at a point where I can reformat my system and determine what is causing the incompatibility. I use FormatFactory to compress the WAV to 128 MP3, and either use this or FLAC FrontEnd to convert the WAVs to FLAC on the highest setting. Then I use MP3Tag to update the tags, images, and filenames. Every film score or rock album that I have ripped in the past year or so has received this double treatment (except audio books, they stay at 128 MP3 only because of sheer size).

However, now that I own a 160 GB iPod, I may want to change my plan. While I may not switch from FLAC to Apple lossless, because I have no plans to load lossless onto such a small iPod or actually use iTunes for listening to music, I may convert many of these FLACs into higher bitrate MP3s as I abandon my dependence on MP3 discs.

So the only way I can honestly vote is to say "WAV" because I rip CDs to WAV. There is no choice for "rip to WAV, convert to FLAC and MP3, delete WAV."

[Luke Skywalker 1,792]

I have an old ipod so it has only 4gb.

So i rip in 160 most scores, but the ones i really like and are more or less permanent in the device are in 192 kbps.

[Trent B 337]

By the way for ripping at the highest frequencies, the best CD ripper for that is Audiograbber, that's what I have been using the last couple of years.

[Wojo 2,453]

It's depressing to think that all the dozens and dozens of gigs of music on my system are all inferior. I'll probably just live with it.

[ChuckM 1]

flacs ... couldn't hold any ID data/album art.

They can't? Mine hold data and art with no problem.

[Ollie 1,059]

The last option.

If I want CD quality I listen to the CD.

128kbps / 256kbps is perfect for iPod listening.

[Richard Penna 3,665]

flacs ... couldn't hold any ID data/album art.

They can't? Mine hold data and art with no problem.

Hmm, you're right, they can. Not sure why I thought otherwise.

Still wouldn't use them regularly though.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

I would use FLAC if it worked in iTunes.

I occasionally use 320 if the music isn't going to be affected by it, such as a lot of rock. Distortion is part of the game there, but I have a pretty good ear for hearing compression, which is why I go for AL.

[Kendal_Ozzel 36]

I do 256kps AACs most of the time, but I use Apple Lossless for some stuff. I don't have the hard drive space to do that for everything, though.

[John Crichton 4]

I have an old ipod so it has only 4gb.

My Walkman is only 4 gigs, and I do lossless. I have to swap stuff around every once in a while, but I just do that when I need to recharge it too. It holds enough for my purposes.

[Greg1138 3]

I used flacs for a couple of important things for a period, but it soon became clear that there was no perceptible difference with 320k, was taking up more space, and couldn't hold any ID data/album art.

I currently use CDex to rip CDs which does everything except embedding cover images.

What that man said...

[Marian Schedenig 8,158]

I would use FLAC if it worked in iTunes.

It doesn't? Why doesn't that surprise me at all?

http://flac.sourceforge.net/itunes.html

[ChuckM 1]

Sounds like yet another reason not to use iTunes to me, rather than a reason not to use FLAC.

That said, I found a way a while ago to get FLACs working for iTunes on my roommate's computer. I'll have to see if I can figure out what I did again.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

I just prefer iTunes to any other player I've used. It's no big deal, as I just convert FLAC to WAV and then WAV to AL.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

320 Kbps, the rest of you are deluding yourselves and wasting time and money on hard drive space.

The only way you can really hear the difference between 320 Kbps CBR vs. any lossless format is if you are in a fully isolated environment with mid-range sound equipment (read more than $500 but less than $3000)

The only excuse for lossless is if you'll encoding in a different bitrate for an iPod or something. In that case you'll get even more transcoding artifacts from lossy to lossy. But really think about that for a second....320 kbps to say 256 or 128 for an iPod....you won't hear a difference out of an iPod. And if for some odd reason you need to go to a lower rate without those artifacts, you have the CD's anyway.

You're essentially working 150% as hard for .001% the difference. It's silly.

[pixie_twinkle 48]

mp3 at 256. I mainly play directly from CD, so I use iTunes primarily as a library for looking up songs and finding which CD they are on. I have several thousand CDs so it's a great tool. I almost never use iTunes for playback, but occasionally I put stuff on my iPod for travelling.

320 Kbps, the rest of you are deluding yourselves and wasting time and money on hard drive space.

The only way you can really hear the difference between 320 Kbps CBR vs. any lossless format is if you are in a fully isolated environment with mid-range sound equipment (read more than $500 but less than $3000)

The only excuse for lossless is if you'll encoding in a different bitrate for an iPod or something. In that case you'll get even more transcoding artifacts from lossy to lossy. But really think about that for a second....320 kbps to say 256 or 128 for an iPod....you won't hear a difference out of an iPod. And if for some odd reason you need to go to a lower rate without those artifacts, you have the CD's anyway.

You're essentially working 150% as hard for .001% the difference. It's silly.

The problem really arises if you then burn a compressed format to CD, thus creating a .wav. If you then rip that CD as an mp3 you will really start to notice the difference.

[Lurker 5]

Apple Lossless and AAC at 128 kbps. I rip the CD once and then use iTunes to convert the lossless files to AAC. The lossless files are for listening on my stereo and the AACs are for my iPod. Smart Playlists in iTunes makes sure I don't see an album twice.

I have two 1 TB drives. One is my main drive and the other is the back up.

Neil

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Same as Neil, though for my iPod I use 192 kbps AAC.

[Trent B 337]

The problem really arises if you then burn a compressed format to CD, thus creating a .wav. If you then rip that CD as an mp3 you will really start to notice the difference.

That's true.

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

I have an old ipod so it has only 4gb.

My Walkman is only 4 gigs, and I do lossless. I have to swap stuff around every once in a while, but I just do that when I need to recharge it too. It holds enough for my purposes.

I like having the ability to pull up anything from my collection at any time. So space is an issue, I'm down to under 5 gigs on my 80GB iPod

[Trent Hoyt 13]

Whatever iTunes wants to do.

[King Mark 3,624]

Sounds like yet another reason not to use iTunes to me, rather than a reason not to use FLAC.

Well flac doesn't play directly in most portable MP3 players. And AAC or WMA sometimes you get stuck having to convert them to something else for whatever reason. There's never a problem with MP3's

I had to re-rip everything in MP3 that I had ripped in WMA when I bought an ipod. I didn't use AAC because maybe in the future I'll want something else than an ipod and I know MP3's will play .I know AAC sounds better at a lower bitrate (128k AAC=192k MP3) but now that hard drives are so big it's not such an issue to rip in 320k MP3's.

Actually I ripped most of my own CD's in MP3 VBR LAME Preset Standard but if I re-did it I'd go for 320 VBR

[ChuckM 1]

Well flac doesn't play directly in most portable MP3 players.

Only if you define "most portable MP3 players" as "iPods." Just another reason to avoid them as well as iTunes.

The ever-increasing majority of non-iPods can play FLAC just fine. Of course I'd take a Creative or a Sansa over an iPod regardless.

These FLAC issues are all problems with Apple, not FLAC itself.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I know AAC sounds better at a lower bitrate (128k AAC=192k MP3)

I didn't know that. Mine are technically AAC iTunes Plus, whatever that means. Most likely 256 kbps, so does that mean its the equivalent of a 320 mp3?

[King Mark 3,624]

I guess 256k AAC =320k MP3

The ever-increasing majority of non-iPods can play FLAC just fine. Of course I'd take a Creative or a Sansa over an iPod regardless.

yeah but the ipods have better overall sound quality which is more important than the bitrate. Also your earphone's quality are more important than the bitrate

Anyways I can't find any flaws to the ipod Nano so that's why I keep it. It's very thin,it doesn't break,no software annoyances, drives the headphones loud and sound quality is clear

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

well, you mentioned your Nano has a bass problem a few weeks back.

Anyway, I'm out of the country for a few days so I can't do this comparison myself here. Is a 256kbps AAC smaller in filesize than a 320kbps MP3 or is it just about the same?

[ChuckM 1]

Umm, I'm pretty sure a Creative will beat an iPod any day for sound quality.

[King Mark 3,624]

Umm, I'm pretty sure a Creative will beat an iPod any day for sound quality.

Not according to the reviews I read...the new X-FI 2 has a bunch of problems. I remember trying a Zen and it wasn't loud enough. Sony's had the loudness problem too, I remember trying one and it went about 1/3 the max volume of the ipod. Samsungs and Cowons might be pretty good

yeah the Nano I have lacks a bit of bass on Normal EQ