Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 Posted:   Sep 17, 2013 - 10:35 AM   
 By:   calmblueocean81   (Member)

Hopefully I'm not duplicated an already existing thread.

My PC up and died on me there recently so I'm reassessing the software and method that I use to rip my CDs.
I was just wondering what programmes y'all out there use for ripping CDs and what crazy settings (bitrates, file formats, etc) you apply to the process.

I used to use CDex (pretty sure its all I've used since I started ripping many moons ago), and encoded the files in MP3 at a VBR between 128 and 320.

 
 
 Posted:   Sep 17, 2013 - 10:42 AM   
 By:   Octoberman   (Member)

Up until a few years ago I did it all as mp3 @ 320k. Then I figured, "to heck with it" and started using EAC lossless, mostly because I have a lot of stuff that would be impossible to replace.

 
 Posted:   Sep 17, 2013 - 10:52 AM   
 By:   JB Fan   (Member)

.flac with EAC - for separate usb-disk.
mp3 (320 CBR) - for iTunes/iPod, converted from flac.
And if CD has damages (that's most sad moment, but I have problems only with only 4 CDs from more than 250 in collection!) - only mp3 320 with Easy CD-DA Extractor.

 
 Posted:   Sep 17, 2013 - 11:04 AM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

Depends on your sound system. I personally rip at 320. I have a thousand CDs on my puter. So the more room available on my HD, the better. I personally cannot tell the difference between a regular CD or an MP3 with my set up. If I had an expensive system, I would rip at the best possible rate.

 
 
 Posted:   Sep 17, 2013 - 11:46 AM   
 By:   Thor   (Member)

I used iTunes for ripping my CD's and I just accepted their standard modus -- whatever that is. To be perfectly honest, they sound fine. I've never understood the 'flac'/lossless obsession, as the difference is minimal to my ears -- besides, the format is difficult to play and takes up a lot of space. Then I'd rather just play a CD the old-fashioned way.

 
 Posted:   Sep 17, 2013 - 11:48 AM   
 By:   Julian K   (Member)

Hard drives are so cheap these days that there's not much point in using a lossy codec for archive use.

 
 Posted:   Sep 17, 2013 - 11:52 AM   
 By:   The Projectionist   (Member)

Hard drives are so cheap these days that there's not much point in using a lossy codec for archive use.

Exactly!

I rip my music with iTunes in ALAC, on my desktop and Flac using Foobar2000 on my main music server.
I do use MP3 for poorly recorded material.

 
 
 Posted:   Sep 17, 2013 - 11:55 AM   
 By:   Octoberman   (Member)

I used iTunes for ripping my CD's and I just accepted their standard modus -- whatever that is. To be perfectly honest, they sound fine. I've never understood the 'flac'/lossless obsession, as the difference is minimal to my ears -- besides, the format is difficult to play and takes up a lot of space. Then I'd rather just play a CD the old-fashioned way.


Why do you call it an obsession?
It's a preference.

 
 
 Posted:   Sep 17, 2013 - 11:59 AM   
 By:   Michael24   (Member)

I have a program called Sound Forge Audio Studio that came with a software package my brother got me for Christmas. Whenever I need to rip something, I just use that and then save the MP3 at 320k, after being told that was the best.

I've never understood the 'flac'/lossless obsession, as the difference is minimal to my ears -- besides, the format is difficult to play and takes up a lot of space. Then I'd rather just play a CD the old-fashioned way.

Agreed.

 
 
 Posted:   Sep 17, 2013 - 12:13 PM   
 By:   Mr Hand   (Member)

I rip with Foobar2000 on Windows to lossless FLAC for archiving and home listening, and then do a conversion to lossy OGG/Vorbis files at quality 6 (variable bitrate around 192kbps) for nomad listening.

All these files are stored on an external NAS, and Foobar2000 also serves as my musical library.

Regarding lossless vs lossy, I can definitely hear the difference on my quality headphones - now my preferred mode of listening classical and film scores.

 
 Posted:   Sep 17, 2013 - 12:38 PM   
 By:   ZapBrannigan   (Member)

I've gone through various computers and apps over the years, but I've always stuck with the mp3 format. These days I use iTunes for Windows to rip my CDs.

I honestly think that an mp3 made at 160 kbps sounds just like the CD, and I still encode pop music at that setting.

A few years ago I switched to 192 kbps for film music CDs because they're "important." I don't know if it's overkill or I'm really getting something more preserved, but why take chances? One thing I'm sure of is that in a blind taste test, I would not be able to tell a 192 kbps mp3 from a lossless file. And my ears aren't getting any younger, so I'm confident I won't regret my 192 setting.

 
 
 Posted:   Sep 17, 2013 - 12:43 PM   
 By:   facehugger   (Member)

I thought this thread was about Horner ripping off himself.

 
 Posted:   Sep 17, 2013 - 12:49 PM   
 By:   Maleficio   (Member)

I used iTunes for ripping my CD's and I just accepted their standard modus -- whatever that is. To be perfectly honest, they sound fine. I've never understood the 'flac'/lossless obsession, as the difference is minimal to my ears -- besides, the format is difficult to play and takes up a lot of space.

Pretty weak excuse these days. Who doesn't want a perfect copy of their music on their computer.

I rip to FLAC using dppower amp with accurate rip or Jriver 19, whichever can get me the proper metadata.

If you have a good sound-setup, you can tell the difference.

 
 
 Posted:   Sep 17, 2013 - 12:54 PM   
 By:   Octoberman   (Member)

If you have a good sound-setup, you can tell the difference.


In the real old days I would sometimes rip CD's at 192k and then occasionally make mix-discs from them.
Oh BOY could you tell a difference! It was startling.

 
 
 Posted:   Sep 17, 2013 - 1:02 PM   
 By:   Thor   (Member)

I used iTunes for ripping my CD's and I just accepted their standard modus -- whatever that is. To be perfectly honest, they sound fine. I've never understood the 'flac'/lossless obsession, as the difference is minimal to my ears -- besides, the format is difficult to play and takes up a lot of space.

Pretty weak excuse these days. Who doesn't want a perfect copy of their music on their computer.

I rip to FLAC using dppower amp with accurate rip or Jriver 19, whichever can get me the proper metadata.

If you have a good sound-setup, you can tell the difference.


Meh....

I have a good sound set-up, but I don't really care about such minute details. The sound is pretty damn good even if it's ripped in normal rates.

If I want a Super Deluxe Hi Fi Hyper-Detailed Experience, I'll put on a CD. But to be perfectly honest, even then the difference is minimal. I grew up with cassettes, so for me both CD's and a decent mp3 rip are unproblematic! Besides, the time for intent listening has passed for me (after I got tinnitus). Now music is always playing at lower volumes in the background while I'm on the computer etc.

But to each their own, as they say.

 
 
 Posted:   Sep 17, 2013 - 1:07 PM   
 By:   Octoberman   (Member)

I think it's also important to take into account that many of us here, in addition to being music fans, are also our own librarians and archivists. That's why the lossless factor can be a concern.

 
 Posted:   Sep 17, 2013 - 1:07 PM   
 By:   Maleficio   (Member)



But to each their own, as they say.


Indeed.

But all I have to say is that until you've heard a decent high end setup (Preamp, Amp, DAC, Good Speakers), you just don't know you're missing.

 
 
 Posted:   Sep 17, 2013 - 1:12 PM   
 By:   Thor   (Member)



But to each their own, as they say.


Indeed.

But all I have to say is that until you've heard a decent high end setup (Preamp, Amp, DAC, Good Speakers), you just don't know you're missing.


Oh, I have an excellent set-up, no worries. And my father has an even crazier High End system for several tens of thousands of dollars. But unfortunately, the tinnitus prevents me from getting the ultimate sonic experience I could get years ago, so that aspect has become less important. A regular, standard iTunes rip is more than good enough for my use.

 
 Posted:   Sep 17, 2013 - 1:18 PM   
 By:   jedizim   (Member)

I just rip at 192vbr in itunes. 95% of all my listening is done on my computer at work, on my ipod while at the gym, or on my ipod while doing things around the house. I very rarely ever sit down and JUST listen to music...so there is absolutely no need for a "perfect quality" rip. Plus if I did that, I could fit 30 CDs on my ipod instead of the 300+ I do now. I would rather have a larger choice of WHAT to listen to than worry about super high quality.

 
 Posted:   Sep 17, 2013 - 1:25 PM   
 By:   Maleficio   (Member)



But to each their own, as they say.


Indeed.

But all I have to say is that until you've heard a decent high end setup (Preamp, Amp, DAC, Good Speakers), you just don't know you're missing.


Oh, I have an excellent set-up, no worries. And my father has an even crazier High End system for several tens of thousands of dollars.


I wish I had a father with a crazy high end system worth tens of thousands of dollars!

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.