• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ripping Audio

Fiddytree

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
30,277
Reaction score
17,796
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Anyone know what bit-rate or audio codec they rip their music at?

I started at 128 kbps MP3 like many did over a decade ago. Then years later, I was at 128 kbps AAC, then at 192 kbps AAC, then bumped up to 256 kbps AAC. Some of my older rips are finally showing their wear on my new headphones, so I distressed at the possibility of spending many hours re-ripping the music so I won't have to hear the artifacts anymore. :lol:
 
Last edited:
I tend to go with 64-320 vbr either aac or mp3.

Another thing I have been playing with is ripping stuff to FLAC and than having winamp do an automatic conversion to vbr aac when it goes to my ipod (I don't like itunes)
 
Last edited:
I'm thinking about doing similar if I can justify buying another external drive. Before it was a luxury had by those with massive hard drive space. Now I have the money and supposedly the hard drive space to think of doing it. It is just about time. I like iTunes, but I have been trying to get Foobar2000 working on the Mac while I slowly fix up my PC which is in serious need of repair.
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
Anyone know what bit-rate or audio codec they rip their music at?

I started at 128 kbps MP3 like many did over a decade ago. Then years later, I was at 128 kbps AAC, then at 192 kbps AAC, then bumped up to 256 kbps AAC. Some of my older rips are finally showing their wear on my new headphones, so I distressed at the possibility of spending many hours re-ripping the music so I won't have to hear the artifacts anymore. :lol:
Click to expand...

it depends. if you have a trained ear, you can actually tell the difference between a 320-kbps mp3 and a PCM audio. if you posses such skills, then I suggest FLAC or APE which are mathematically lossless codecs. usually, those who listen to music more often are fine with 256-320 kbps mp3s. I can tell the deference between a 128 and 192, and I can hardly tell the difference between 192 and 256, but I couldn't tell the difference between a 320 and a raw audio, even with best headphones I have.
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
Anyone know what bit-rate or audio codec they rip their music at?

I started at 128 kbps MP3 like many did over a decade ago. Then years later, I was at 128 kbps AAC, then at 192 kbps AAC, then bumped up to 256 kbps AAC. Some of my older rips are finally showing their wear on my new headphones, so I distressed at the possibility of spending many hours re-ripping the music so I won't have to hear the artifacts anymore. :lol:
Click to expand...

320 or highest VBR. With space no longer an issue on computers (newegg has a terabyte hdd for sale for like $58.99 free shipping right now) I just rip at the highest. I would go just uncompressed Wav, but my iPod isn't that big.
 
obvious Child said:
320 or highest VBR. With space no longer an issue on computers (newegg has a terabyte hdd for sale for like $58.99 free shipping right now) I just rip at the highest. I would go just uncompressed Wav, but my iPod isn't that big.
Click to expand...

that's another way of saying what I just said.

on a side note, I wish audio players could play more free formats and codecs (like ogg-vorbis). they usually offer better qualities in lower bitrates. and their specifications are free, open and widely available and thus easy to implement. I just don't get why big companies pay big amounts of money to use less efficient and proprietary formats.
 
youknowwho said:
that's another way of saying what I just said.

on a side note, I wish audio players could play more free formats and codecs (like ogg-vorbis). they usually offer better qualities in lower bitrates. and their specifications are free, open and widely available and thus easy to implement. I just don't get why big companies pay big amounts of money to use less efficient and proprietary formats.
Click to expand...

Mostly because they do not need to. Large ABX tests have shown over the past few years that transparency has been reached for most people at 128 kbps at most of the codecs available. There has been such a massive improvement in audio compression over the years that the days of "suck" have mostly gone by the wayside. OGG Vorbis's time in the spotlight has ended.
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
Mostly because they do not need to. Large ABX tests have shown over the past few years that transparency has been reached for most people at 128 kbps at most of the codecs available. There has been such a massive improvement in audio compression over the years that the days of "suck" have mostly gone by the wayside. OGG Vorbis's time in the spotlight has ended.
Click to expand...

One problem with OGG, I think, is that it takes more CPU over mp3 files. For a higher end player, such as an ipod or a creative player, this is not a problem, but for lower end ones, it can be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom