In what format do you rip your CDs?

[Trent B 337]

I had a Creative Zen: Vision M for about 2 years and honestly the sound quality on that thing sucked compared to the iPod. I had to have the volume on that almost all the way up most of the time to decently hear it. With my iPod I don't have to have the volume up all the way for it's too loud for me. The iPod preserves the sound quality perfectly.

[King Mark 3,631]

Point is:

I hear no perceptible differences on MP3's 192kbps and above

I hear huge perceptible differences depending on what MP3 player or earphones I try.

So the quality of your gear is way more important than the bitrate (above 192kbps)

[Red 75]

Usually MP3's, 320 kbps.

[Datameister 2,043]

When I was first making the transition to a digital music collection, I pretty much just ripped everything in iTunes as 128 kbps AACs. That didn't work all that badly - as noted above, AACs do purportedly offer better sound quality and smaller file sizes than the mp3 format at the same bit rates - but I eventually changed my modus operandi. Nowadays, I almost always rip music first in WAV format, and then I transcode to 256 kbps AACs (AKA iTunes Plus). The AAC stays in iTunes and on my iPod, keeping file sizes relatively low and sound quality relatively high, while the WAV files sit invisibly on my hard drive in case I need to use them for editing purposes or want to burn a copy to CD.

I do like FLAC because it offers smaller file sizes without lossy compression, but I can't justify buying a new (non-Apple) mp3 player that can work with FLAC files. If someone sends me FLACs, I just transcode them to WAV.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Why not go Apple Lossless, Meister?

[Trent B 337]

Apple Lossless tends to take up more room than any other format. A lot of us (like myself) currently don't have that big of a drive so it's kind of hard to keep them all as Apple Lossless. Plus the only time I ever use iTunes is to play something from my iPod, or to put music onto my iPod.

[Datameister 2,043]

Why not go Apple Lossless, Meister?

Simple - I do a lot of music editing in Audacity, and the program doesn't support Apple Lossless, as far as I know. But its WAV compatability is excellent, so I pretty much just stick with it whenever I need to do anything lossless. And I don't need lossless files on my iPod...it's only a 20 gig, and 256 kbps AAC basically sounds the same as lossless to my ear. (But again, I know that there are differences, which is why I try to keep lossless originals of everything, too.)

[DemonStar 57]

I use the FLAC format, works perfectly for me. For using in my MP3 player I use 192 kbps MP3 because it saves space, and there isn't much difference to be heard through the low resolution earphones. But for archival I only use lossless formats like FLAC or APE, no MP3.

[Jay 37,366]

I'm glad I came across this thread, because I am soon going to be ripping all my film score CDs to the computer and was trying to figure out the best way to do it. (Right now, I have a random selection of my score CDs on my my hard drive in a huge variety of different formats and bitrates - time to get organized and consistent!)

I think I'll be following a modified Trent / Neil approach - use EAC to rip to the CD into WAVs, then use LameDrop to make vbr (--preset standard) mp3s for ipod and portability purposes. Then use the official FLAC frontend to take the WAVs and make them into FLACs, for computer-listening (through winamp) as well as having a lossless backup if I need to edit, trade, burn to CD, etc. The FLAC frontend has a "delete input file" option which is nice, as it deletes each WAV as it makes its FLACs.

Oh, and then use mp3tag to make sure everything is tagged properly. Thats an amazing program.

[King Mark 3,631]

You don't need FLAC's for listening on anything . If I wanted to make a perfect copie of my c.d.'s for backup I'd use WAV because it is the c.d."as is" .Actually I put all my JW collection as WAV's on 2 flash thumbdrives

You also need WAV for editing complete scores ,I ripped the Revenge of the sith c.d. to WAV so I can use it for editing

Everything else is in MP3's

The only use I can see of FLAC is to upload those game files we use for editing

[Datameister 2,043]

You forgot to mention that FLACs are smaller than WAVs, KM - but like you, I personally have little use for them. I prefer the convenience of having the lossless files in a format I can easily edit (i.e. WAV).

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Ripping is illegal. You're all going to jail.

[King Mark 3,631]

You forgot to mention that FLACs are smaller than WAVs, KM - but like you, I personally have little use for them. I prefer the convenience of having the lossless files in a format I can easily edit (i.e. WAV).

My point if your going to duplicate your most precious c.d's EXACTLY than it has to be WAV .

For listening I see no use for anything above 320k MP3

[Datameister 2,043]

No it doesn't...FLAC is lossless. The data is compressed, but no information is lost. You're still reproducing the exact same information that's on the CD, without artifacts or anything. But I agree that nothing about 320k mp3 is necessary for listening. Actually, I do most of my listening in 256k AAC, and that basically sounds indistinguishable from lossless originals, even with my nice headphones and a really quiet environment. (As in, I can do blind, randomized listening tests with lossless and high-bitrate AAC versions of the same files, and I don't score very well when it comes to distinguishing between them.)

[King Mark 3,631]

. The data is compressed, but no information is lost.

That's what I mean. If it's compressed it's not the same data as the c.d. from a purist/ideological point of view

[Datameister 2,043]

It's stored compressed. The actual information that's played through your speakers or headphones is identical to what you'd hear if it were coming from the original CD. The 1s and 0s are all the same - they're just stored in a more compact way while you're not listening to 'em.

[Wojo 2,453]

Let him store his music in WAV. He's keeping the hard drive companies in business.

[Jay 37,366]

Yea King Mark, a FLAC is still an EXACT copy of the WAV. The file size is smaller, but there is NO loss in quality or anything else.

Of course I will use WAV if I need to do editing - but I won't need to get out my CD and re-rip it, I'll just convert the FLAC back a WAV.

And of course there's a reason to listen to FLACs - they sound better! If there is no difference, then why not store all your stuff as mp3s? Why have the WAVs at all? Because its better!

[Datameister 2,043]

Let him store his music in WAV. He's keeping the hard drive companies in business.

Well hey, like I said, I use WAVs instead of FLACs, too, despite the larger amount of hard disk space they require. I'm not trying to convince him to change. I just want to make sure he has his facts straight.

[Wojo 2,453]

Yea King Mark, a FLAC is still an EXACT copy of the WAV. The file size is smaller, but there is NO loss in quality or anything else.

The way I understand it is that a WAV file contains a lot of garbage non-audio information as the header and footer of the audio file. The FLAC contains just the audio portion, so it's smaller overall.

I don't entirely understand why an album is 700 megs as WAV but only 400 megs as FLAC, that seems like an awful lot of junk attached to the file. My lousy ears don't mind.

[Datameister 2,043]

I'm no expert in file compression, but I think it has less to do with garbage non-audio information and more to do with information being stored in a less efficient way. As a way oversimplified example, I could tell the computer to store 111111000, or I could tell it to store 6 1s and then 3 0s. On a larger scale, the latter method is going to save more space because you're expressing the same information in a more compact way.

But like I said...I'm definitely not an expert. Don't take this as gospel truth.

[ChuckM 1]

This explains file compression pretty well.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/file-compression.htm

Flac works very similarly to zip for example.

[Jay 37,366]

It's simply that FLAC is a newer technology. Computers didn't exist in the 80's that could shrink a wav to that size in less than a week of computing

[King Mark 3,631]

And of course there's a reason to listen to FLACs - they sound better!

I'll repeat myself .I don't believe anyone who claims he can hear the difference between a 320k MP3 and a FLAC (both played on the same audio gear)

The reason I have my John Williams collection as WAV on 2 thumb-drives is if something happened to my c.d.'s I'd still have them on the thumbdrives . My JW collection is one of the few things that could not be replaced by insurance after a disaster so...

For my computer and the rest my music MP3 is fine

[Marian Schedenig 8,193]

. The data is compressed, but no information is lost.

That's what I mean. If it's compressed it's not the same data as the c.d. from a purist/ideological point of view

Not any more or less than a WAV. A WAV and a FLAC are the same string of 1s and 0s as on the original CD, just stored in different bits. But then, if you move a WAV to a different partition or a different drive, or if you defragment your hard drive, it'll also be stored in different bits...

[ChuckM 1]

Just think of flac as individual on-the-fly zip containers for every wav file. I'm sure it's a slightly different compression algorithm, but it's exactly the same as far as how the original data is treated. It's all still there, and it will sound exactly identical when played.

[Lurker 5]

And take up less space, so theoretically the entire Williams collection could fit on one thumb drive and then the other thumb drive could be a clone of the first and stored in a safety deposit box at the bank.

Neil

[ChuckM 1]

And take up less space, so theoretically the entire Williams collection could fit on one thumb drive and then the other thumb drive could be a clone of the first and stored in a safety deposit box at the bank.

I would use something less volatile than flash memory for the back-up if I were you. A 3.5 HDD is going to be cheaper for the same ammount of storage space anyway.

[Jay 37,366]

Point Neil

[Wojo 2,453]

Just how big of a thumb drive does it take to hold an entire JW collection in WAV??????

[ChuckM 1]

WAV is just a bit over 10 and 1/3 MB per minute, so take however many minutes of JW music there are and multiply it.

[Wojo 2,453]

I'm sorry I wasn't specific. I wanted an answer more tailored to KM's JW collection.

[Maglorfin 196]

320 kbps mp3, although I'm quite fond of my good old Sony SonicStage player in which I'm slowly building my favourite music "database" (not an easy task if you have 1000+ CDs to choose from), and it uses an ATRAC format (you can choose the bitrate yourself).

[fommes 153]

Question: if you encode a flac file as flac file, you still don't lose anything, right?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Lossless to lossless =lossless...

right?

[Datameister 2,043]

That should be correct. You only run into issues when using lossy compression.

I'm not sure why I apparently never voted in this old poll, but my current approach is to rip first in WAV format (since I use iTunes, and it doesn't support FLAC), then transcode to 256 kbps AAC for listening purposes, to save space on my old 20GB iPod. The WAV files get removed from my iTunes library itself, since I've proven to myself with blind tests that I can't tell the difference between 256 kbps AACs and lossless sources, but I keep the original WAV files on my hard drive for editing purposes, or in case I ever lose or damage the disc. One of these days, I should convert all those WAV files to FLAC to save space, even though I'll still use the AACs for listening.

Back when I first started going digital, I think I just ripped in 128 kbps AAC format. Every now and then I come across a file that I never bothered to re-rip, which is annoying, because I can definitely hear the compression, and I hate not having lossless versions stored somewhere.

Anyway, I voted for WAV.

[Trent B 337]

Steef and Joe (Data) are correct. If you convert a flac file to wave you won't loose compression. That is if the file itself is from a true lossless source.

[Wojo 2,453]

What do the numbers on the FLAC encoding software, like FLAC FrontEnd mean?

[fommes 153]

You mean from 1 to 8? It's the amount of compression, 1 is the largest file, 8 is the smallest - but both of them are lossless. If I'm not mistaken, some programmes or people put it on 5 as default, because some programmes may not be able to handle compressions 6-8, if I remember correctly. I usually set it on 8 however, have never experienced problems, and would assume that all programmes can now handle that?

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Converting from lossless to lossless will always introduce a possibility for errors popping up, but nothing you are likely to ever notice.

What do the numbers on the FLAC encoding software, like FLAC FrontEnd mean?

It's just an input to tell the encoder how much to compress the file. The higher that number is, the more time it takes to compress the file, although the end result is usually a 5-10% better compression. Is it worth it to spend 4x as much time to get 7% smaller file size? No. Well, it depends. If you have hundreds of thousands of files, those "cents" are gonna add up.

"Normal" or 5 is the sweet spot. It's fast and gets great decent file sizes.

[Faleel 5,350]

320 Kbps for me, I hate artifacts, but I dont like having big files

[Marian Schedenig 8,193]

Converting from lossless to lossless will always introduce a possibility for errors popping up

But only if the codec (or the compression algorithm itself) is faulty, no?

If you convert a flac file to wave you won't loose compression. That is if the file itself is from a true lossless source.

You won't loose anything there either, compared to what you started with. Any information that's missing was already lost in the lossy source.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

But only if the codec (or the compression algorithm itself) is faulty, no?

Ever failed to decompress a zip file? Usually that can be the fault of a single bit being not what it should.

So yes and no. Usually these errors are checked for, I believe FLAC and ALAC have a slew of safety nets to prevent something like that from happening. But then, ZIP files also do a lot of error checking.

[Henry B 50]

Apple Lossless (ALAC). Music is automatically downconverted to 128 kbps AAC when syncing with my iPod. This saves me an enormous deal of time in managing the music on my iPod. Only downside is that syncs take a little longer.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

But on the bright side it saves you battery power! It saves a lot of CPU cycles when not having to deal with the significantly bigger lossless files.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

My iPod is slow with 200+ albums in Apple Lossless, but I do get good battery mileage.

[Wojo 2,453]

I "rip" everything to WAV, and then recompress to both 320 kbps MP3 and level 8 FLAC better. Hard drives are cheap and space is plentiful.

If I feel like making an MP3 CD that would stay in my car, I'll recompress the FLAC file to 128 kbps MP3, when quantity is more important than quantity.

I don't always feel like taking my iPod with me everywhere I go, but I haven't burned an MP3 CD since buying the iPod about fourteen months ago.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Cars with AUX IN are up there with sliced bread and the wheel.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

You know it, and I really wish I had one. I bought a FM Transmitter the other day, because I couldn't stand the radio anymore. I know they suck, but I caved because of my discount. I plugged it in, and it started out fine, but once the car started moving it went "BAMAAMFHSFGHSDFSDGTSDGDSGAWRWQR!@#TSDFBCSG!!!!"

Piece of shit. I returned it.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

The best part is when you pass a car on the same frequency.

You get Lady Gaga, and you KNOW the other person is going WTF is this classical crap?!