CD Ripping Software and Format
Travis James
used to the crowd here and would expect reasonably informed opinions.
What software do you use to rip CDs and which format do you save to? I
see so many options AAC, OGG, FLAC, MP3, etc. along with the
lossy/lossless arguments that I get lost in which might be best (yes,
that answer could vary depending on situation).
I live mostly in a Windows world, but have easy access to OS X and Linux
also.
I can always just go with the iTunes lossless and be done, but what do
you do?
Thanks.
David Kaye
>What software do you use to rip CDs and which format do you save to? I
>see so many options AAC, OGG, FLAC, MP3, etc. along with the
>lossy/lossless arguments that I get lost in which might be best (yes,
>that answer could vary depending on situation).
I prefer the Quintessential Media Player. I also prefer to save to MP3. The
amount of loss can be adjusted to the point where they're basically WAV files.
I like MP3 because it's the default format these days -- everything can read
MP3. It also supports rich tags with everything from artist and song title to
genre, release date, composer, and a whole bunch of others -- and the tags are
also customizable as well. Apple's AAC format is very lame in this regard.
OGG and FLAC are good I guess, but they're fringe formats.
URL: http://www.quinnware.com/
--
"You're in probably the wickedest, most corrupt city, most
Godless city in America." -- Fr Mullen, "San Francisco"
John Higdon
sfdavi...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
> I like MP3 because it's the default format these days -- everything can read
> MP3. It also supports rich tags with everything from artist and song title
> to
> genre, release date, composer, and a whole bunch of others -- and the tags
> are
> also customizable as well. Apple's AAC format is very lame in this regard.
> OGG and FLAC are good I guess, but they're fringe formats.
For a given bit rate, AAC is noticeably superior when it comes to audio
quality over MP3, which is getting pretty long in the tooth.
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last
leansto...@democrat.com
OGG compresses each channel individually. MP3 produces a leakage
between channels. You can verify this by creating files in both
formats with discrete L&R signals. So OGG is the better than MP3. AAC
is really over-hyped and not supported by all hardware due to royalty
issues.
FLAC is the best way to go for uncompressed audio. You will notice
that is what archive.org does, though they have some shdn files too.
The best ripper I found is GRIP, which is a common linux program. It
is mutlthreaded, so it can rip and compress at the same time if you
have multiple processors. It uses CDPARANOIA to insure the data is
ripped as accurately as possible.
If you don't have any playback hardware, look at the various Logitech
Squeezeboxes. The squeeze server is excellent. If you store your audio
in FLAC, it can convert to OGG or MP3 on the fly. This is handy if you
want to maintain one library (FLAC), but have the ability to stream
over low bitrate channels, such as playing your music from a server to
your smartphone. Since the interface to the squeeze server is html,
you can control it via a smart phone too.
BTW, Logitech took an interesting step backwards and introduce a model
they call the Radio. It is a mono version of the Boom, and slightly
less expensive.
David Kaye
>FLAC is the best way to go for uncompressed audio. You will notice
>that is what archive.org does, though they have some shdn files too.
Actually, Archive.org has most files in numerous formats. I don't think I've
seen any audio files there that weren't in MP3 format.
As to quality, indeed AAC (also known as MP2-7, or MP4) is better for a given
bitrate than MP3, but you just can't beat the tagging. I happen to like
having lots of tags to identify my audio files.
SMS
I use "Super" from erightsoft.
"http://www.erightsoft.com/SUPER.html"
Definitely a learning curve because there are so many choices, but once
you get the hang of it it's fine, and its free.
As you noted, the format depends on what you're playing it back on, how
much disk space you're willing to buy, and the sound quality you'll
accept. I.e. the radio in my vehicle will take a USB stick and play MP3
and WMA files directly, without the need for an iPod or MP3 player being
plugged in.
Personally, I'd use FLAC for lossless, MP3 for the car.
Don Freeman
>
> As you noted, the format depends on what you're playing it back on, how
> much disk space you're willing to buy, and the sound quality you'll
> accept. I.e. the radio in my vehicle will take a USB stick and play MP3
> and WMA files directly, without the need for an iPod or MP3 player being
> plugged in.
>
> Personally, I'd use FLAC for lossless, MP3 for the car.
I guess it depends on how quiet a ride your car is too. What does
quibbling about small increases in sound quality accomplish if the
improvements are not noticeable due to road noise, and other peripheral
noises cars tend to make?
--
-Don
SMS
<snip>
> I guess it depends on how quiet a ride your car is too. What does
> quibbling about small increases in sound quality accomplish if the
> improvements are not noticeable due to road noise, and other peripheral
> noises cars tend to make?
This is true. For a vehicle, MP3 is fine. Unless you're in a very quiet
vehicle with an extraordinary sound system I doubt that you could tell
the difference between a lossy format like MP3 or M4P and a lossless
format. Yet on radio stations that broadcast the same programming on
analog FM and HD, the quality improvement on HD is very noticeable even
though HD uses lossy compression.
Don Freeman
Another factor is the type of music listened to. Who is going to notice
any incremental improvement in sound quality if all one listens to is
70's hair rock or 90's proto-punk. As opposed to classical or complex
jazz compositions. All of which I do listen to.
--
-Don
leansto...@democrat.com
The only player I trust to evaluate formats is the Slim Devices
Squeezebox and real hifi gear. (Ipod and buds, I don't think so!) Now
it turns out there is a way to play AAC on my old Classic V3, so I
might give it a shot. Just using a soundcard on a PC, I wasn't
particularly impressed with AAC.
Dave Barnett
I've standardized on FLAC, and keep the "masters" in that format. Sound
Juicer in the Gnome (Linux) desktop is the fastest way for me to put a
CD in that format, and gnome-sound-recorder will do it for live audio.
There's also a free Windows app for converting .wav files to .flac.
Winamp plays .flac files directly, so you can have them at your disposal
to play on your PC.
For lossless vs lossy files, as has been discussed here, it depends on
the playback environment. VBR MP3 (an option in LAME) works pretty good
at highest quality. For a lot of music it's indistinguishable from
lossless. But for the pluck of an acoustic guitar string, you can even
hear the artifacts with that.
With the low cost of storage these days, my opinion (and it's only an
opinion) is that you should never sacrifice your only recording to a
lossy format - that is to say, if you're archiving a record or tape
collection or recording a live event where you're creating your only
copy. If, later on, you choose to take that recording and do something
else with it - for example, air it on HD radio or a webcast - the
results of double-compression can be painful.
Almost any format with the exception of Apple Proprietary ones can be
played or encoded on any Operating System. As mentioned elsewhere, a
lot depends on what you want to use it for.
Dave B.
John Higdon
Dave Barnett <dave.db...@SPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> Almost any format with the exception of Apple Proprietary ones can be
> played or encoded on any Operating System. As mentioned elsewhere, a
> lot depends on what you want to use it for.
What doesn't playback AAC these days? Even my cellphone has no trouble
with them.
>
> Dave B.
David Kaye
>What doesn't playback AAC these days? Even my cellphone has no trouble
>with them.
AAC isn't nearly as widespread as MP3 or WMA.
leansto...@democrat.com
It's all matter of how many license fees the manufacturer wants to
pay. The funny thing about OGG is only the cheap noname "mp3" players
support the format.
Somewhat OT, ever notice how Fry's has a collection of internet
radios, and not one is capable of playing music. You would think
somebody would at least set up a wifi near the radios. Or would that
have to pay a licensing fee?
leansto...@democrat.com
There isn't much difference in efficiency of loseless compressors. If
one is 52% and the other 48%, who cares? So I standardize in FLAC too.
Phil Keller
> the difference between a lossy format like MP3 or M4P and a lossless
> format. Yet on radio stations that broadcast the same programming on
> analog FM and HD, the quality improvement on HD is very noticeable even
> though HD uses lossy compression.
For those who have a trained good ear I am sure there is a difference.
What about the rest of us? Are there studies of how well we judge
quality? Don't most people think an ipod delivers first rate quality?
Phil
John Higdon
sfdavi...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
> AAC isn't nearly as widespread as MP3 or WMA.
I'm sorry, I must have missed something. If one is looking to put his
"tunes" in a particular compressed format for his own use, who cares how
"widespread" the format is? The only reason I can think of is a desire
to distribute, and in fact the most popular legal distributor of music
uses AAC.
Go figure.
Dave Barnett
> What doesn't playback AAC these days? Even my cellphone has no trouble
> with them.
>
Playback is pretty easy. Encoders for AAC are there, but they seem to
be a bit more complex and/or costly to set up. I haven't found any way
to encode or decode the "apple lossless" M4a format without a MAC tho,
but I have to admit I didn't look all that hard. But there is a plug-in
to play it in Winamp.
Dave B.
David Kaye
>I'm sorry, I must have missed something.
You did. You said that AAC was available "even" on your cell phone. I'm
saying that it's not as widespread as you seem to think.
>If one is looking to put his
>"tunes" in a particular compressed format for his own use, who cares how
>"widespread" the format is? The only reason I can think of is a desire
>to distribute, and in fact the most popular legal distributor of music
>uses AAC.
You were the one against digital rights management. You hated the DRM'd video
format and were happy with its demise, etc. I also recall that you complained
about Microsoft's DRM as well.
As to AAC versus MP3, I am happy that I can buy any kind of cheap music player
and know that it'll play MP3 and probably WMA, too. For instance, I use one
MP3 player exclusively for intermission music for the live music show I put
on. I have filled it with public domain vaudeville music, which is very
fitting for the venue. I just turn the thing on and forget it. Works fine.
John Higdon
sfdavi...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
> You were the one against digital rights management. You hated the DRM'd
> video
> format and were happy with its demise, etc. I also recall that you
> complained
> about Microsoft's DRM as well.
What does this have to do with "DRM"? AAC is not DRM. iTunes are not
protected in any way.
> As to AAC versus MP3, I am happy that I can buy any kind of cheap music
> player
> and know that it'll play MP3 and probably WMA, too. For instance, I use one
> MP3 player exclusively for intermission music for the live music show I put
> on. I have filled it with public domain vaudeville music, which is very
> fitting for the venue. I just turn the thing on and forget it. Works fine.
I don't buy "cheap music players" so it is no problem for me to enjoy
superior audio quality.
leansto...@democrat.com
You really need stand alone hardware to evaluate these scheme, and
getting AAC on hardware that doesn't come with it installed is not
easy. You can't evaluate these schemes on a computer. Most soundcards
barely have 80dB of dynamic range. That leaves an external DAC or a
Squeezebox.
Travis James
> ... As mentioned elsewhere, a lot
> depends on what you want to use it for.
>
> Dave B.
Definitely no clear answer, nor did I expect one. The CDs I plan to rip
are my CDs so the original source is available. While I detest iTunes, I
grudgingly use it because it integrates best across my 3 iPods - Touch,
Classic, Shuffle. iTunes also is good for syncing Podcasts since it
manages where I left off for any particular show. It sucks in so many
other ways (poor library management, bulky and hangs in Windows, just to
name a few issues).
I'll probably go with one of the midrange iTunes AAC formats as it fits
my needs. Should my future audio equipment (and my ears, and my finances
... and perhaps even my musical tastes) warrant the high bitrate or
lossless formats, I'll go back through and reburn as needed. Commercial
CD records seems to last indefinitely. The original 3 CDs I bought with
my first Sony CD player in 1985 work as well as the day I bought them
(IIRC about $15 each almost 25 yrs ago).
Here are some disk space numbers that came from some test burns.
CD: Metallica - Load
FLAC - 579M
WAV - 835M
MP3 320 - 189M
MP3 V2 - 164M
MP3 V0 - 126M
Apple Lossless - 586M
AIFF - 835M
Thanks for the comments.
leansto...@democrat.com
I use the squeeze server since I have a Squeezebox. However, I did
experiment with mediafly prior to rejecting it in favor of the squeeze
system. Mediafly server can feed itunes. I believe the latest version
is similar to the squeeze server, that is you can store in flac but
transcode on the fly to a compressed format. You really really don't
want to rip your music to a compressed format. Ripping CDs is monkey
business. You becomes a slave to the CD drive. You can't even bribe a
kid to do the ripping.
Itunes is so damn bloated. It was good when it came out, but what a
mess it turned into.
http://www.mediafly.com/Welcome
All that said, if you had a squeezebox, you would dump all that Apple
crap. It's not even a contest.
Note that transcoding might place requires on the CPU. That is, if you
are planning to stream from a junker, then you should check into the
minimum requirements to transcode.
David Kaye
>What does this have to do with "DRM"? AAC is not DRM. iTunes are not
>protected in any way.
No? Isn't M4P a synonym for AAC with DRM? I've attempted to play some M4P
files on various audio players on my computer and they won't play because they
are "protected.'
>I don't buy "cheap music players" so it is no problem for me to enjoy
>superior audio quality.
I wanted something I could pack into a small container along with my program
notes and various stuff I use for the show, and if I accidentally left it
somewhere I wouldn't be out much money. I bought this particular player, a
Sandisk, for $15. It hold about 2GB of files and can shuffle within
directories. It's perfect for my needs and sounds great.
SMS
> John Higdon <hi...@kome.com> wrote:
>
>> What does this have to do with "DRM"? AAC is not DRM. iTunes are not
>> protected in any way.
>
> No? Isn't M4P a synonym for AAC with DRM?
Yes, M4P=AAC+DRM. However there are some M4P songs on iTunes that are
not protected.
Wonder where Higdon got the idea that iTunes M4P files are not protected.
You have always been able to rip a CD from the M4P files, but you lose
quality in the conversion. Many of the so-called DRM removal programs
for M4P to AAC simply rip the M4P to a virtual CD then re-encode to AAC
losing much of the quality in the process. Lossless removal of DRM is
much more difficult.
David Kaye
>FLAC - 579M
>WAV - 835M
>MP3 320 - 189M
>MP3 V2 - 164M
>MP3 V0 - 126M
>Apple Lossless - 586M
>AIFF - 835M
Of course, you're always going to get the best fidelity with WAV or AIFF files
(which are basically the same thing). And they can be read on Windows, Linux,
and Mac platforms.
John Higdon
sfdavi...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
> No? Isn't M4P a synonym for AAC with DRM? I've attempted to play some M4P
> files on various audio players on my computer and they won't play because
> they
> are "protected.'
AAC CAN be protected, but I don't have any that are. iTunes does not
sell protected files.
> I wanted something I could pack into a small container along with my program
> notes and various stuff I use for the show, and if I accidentally left it
> somewhere I wouldn't be out much money. I bought this particular player, a
> Sandisk, for $15. It hold about 2GB of files and can shuffle within
> directories. It's perfect for my needs and sounds great.
I just use my phone, which I have with me anyway. That's zero bulk
dedicated to an audio player. You can't get much smaller and lighter
than that.
Patty Winter
In article <higgy-6DDAFB....@news.announcetech.com>,
John Higdon <hi...@kome.com> wrote:
>
>AAC CAN be protected, but I don't have any that are. iTunes does not
>sell protected files.
Then what's with the iTunes menu item to authorize or deauthorize
a computer?
And I think you've been talking about audio files, but I know that
at least some iTunes video files are protected. I was taking a class
where a professor wanted to show an excerpt of a TV show he had
downloaded, and an Apple guy in the class confirmed that he couldn't
copy the file to edit it. (The prof had tried to edit it in QT Pro.)
Patty
John Higdon
Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote:
> Then what's with the iTunes menu item to authorize or deauthorize
> a computer?
Video is protected and those who chose not to replace their protected
audio files with unprotected ones still need authorization. When you buy
new songs, they are unprotected now.
leansto...@democrat.com
FLAC should be perfect since it is lossless. So it should match wav or
aiff IF (big if) the processor doesn't burp. This is why I use stand
alone hardware rather than a PC to play music.
David Kaye
>FLAC should be perfect since it is lossless. So it should match wav or
>aiff IF (big if) the processor doesn't burp. This is why I use stand
>alone hardware rather than a PC to play music.
I'm not familiar with FLAC. What I know about various formats such as WAV,
RAW, AIFF, etc., is that they're a bit by bit representation of the audio in
PCM with no compression whatsoever.
The difference is in the header info as far as I know. From what I have seen
looking at the data itself, it appears that CD audio data is the same as WAV
data, minus the WAV header, and identical to RAW since RAW doesn't have a
header.
leansto...@democrat.com
I don't recall running into RAW. FLAC should equal AIFF or WAV on a
bit by bit basis. Producing those bits cleanly is another story. The
Squeezebox Classic and I assume Duet and Transporter are CD quality.
Silence is silent on those boxes. I don't know about the Boom or
Radio. That is a different target audience. [I'm probably going to get
a Boom to use more like an AM radio, that is streaming rather than
playing my music.]
Note that wav is a kind of odd suffix. You can make compressed files
that use the wav suffix. That is, a wav file is not always pure PCM.
If you mess with SOX, you can see the nitty gritty of the file. SOX is
standard under most linux distributions, and there is a windows
version. If you want to geek out, SOX can convert the wav files to a
numerical representation for signal processing or analysis. I've even
used the sox output massaged by a bit of C code to feed it as a
piecewise linear source to spice.
Robert Orban
travis...@gmail.com says...
>
>
>There are probably more appropriate forums to ask the question, but I'm
>used to the crowd here and would expect reasonably informed opinions.
>
>What software do you use to rip CDs and which format do you save to? I
>see so many options AAC, OGG, FLAC, MP3, etc. along with the
>lossy/lossless arguments that I get lost in which might be best (yes,
>that answer could vary depending on situation).
>
>I live mostly in a Windows world, but have easy access to OS X and Linux
>also.
>
>I can always just go with the iTunes lossless and be done, but what do
>you do?
Exact Audio Copy is an excellent Windows-based ripper that allows you to
be confident that your rip is bit-for-bit identical to what was on the
original CD. For various reasons, this is important when you are dealing
with the drives typically found in computers.
As for the format, there is plenty of advice on this thread already.
leansto...@democrat.com
> In article <hcvgub$v0...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> travis.ja...@gmail.com says...
Slim Devices has a guide to formats and ripping that is more or less
independent of their hardware.
<http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.php/BeginnersGuideToFileFormats>
<http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.php/BeginnersGuideToRipping>
EAC is suggested for windows users as you pointed out. Grip/CD
Paranoia for linux users. If you google around, nobody is really
convinced either program is superior to the other, but you should at
least use one of them.
Tom Ace
> OGG compresses each channel individually. MP3 produces a leakage
> between channels. You can verify this by creating files in both
> formats with discrete L&R signals. So OGG is the better than MP3. AAC
> is really over-hyped and not supported by all hardware due to royalty
> issues.
That may be an encoder-specific issue and not
inherent in MP3.
I just made that test with LAME, which offers a choice
between stereo and joint stereo (the latter uses M+S
encoding for some frames at its discretion).
With source material that had silence in one channel,
and encoding in stereo mode, the resulting mp3 file
had silence in that channel. No leakage.
Tom Ace
leansto...@democrat.com
It is probably my encoder in Soundforge. I have Audacity too, so I
will check this out. LAME used to not be considered MP3, but now it
is, right? Probably a royalty issue.
Alan
>On Nov 5, 1:43=A0pm, Travis James <travis.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There are probably more appropriate forums to ask the question, but I'm
>> used to the crowd here and would expect reasonably informed opinions.
>>
>> What software do you use to rip CDs and which format do you save to? I
>> see so many options AAC, OGG, FLAC, MP3, etc. along with the
>> lossy/lossless arguments that I get lost in which might be best (yes,
>> that answer could vary depending on situation).
>>
>> I live mostly in a Windows world, but have easy access to OS X and Linux
>> also.
>>
>> I can always just go with the iTunes lossless and be done, but what do
>> you do?
>>
>
>OGG compresses each channel individually. MP3 produces a leakage
>between channels. You can verify this by creating files in both
>formats with discrete L&R signals. So OGG is the better than MP3. AAC
>is really over-hyped and not supported by all hardware due to royalty
>issues.
Depends on the coding options used. look at the doc for lame, and you
will see the option for separae coding.
Alan
John T
I have done real-time dual mono streaming for months at a time- for
broadcast at the far end- using Telos AudioActive encoders, which are
joint stereo devices with no discreet channel options. Of course,
Telos wanted us to buy a second encoder for that second mono channel!
But there have been a couple of situations where we had to double up
on one encoder.
Most problematic (and disappointing) was the hardware decoders from
Telos that had significant crosstalk issues due to poorly designed
amplifier circuits. (Telos only ever made a couple dozen decoders, so
they were technically prototypes. I managed to get three of them.)
Using Winamp, WMP, VLC or the Telos StreamPlay software to decode on a
computer there was no crosstalk- only on the Telos hardware platform
did we experience problems.
Ultimately Telos decided not to market the decoder product, and have
since also ceased to offer the encoders. The technology has been
integrated into the much more expensive Zephyr devices. D'Oh!
People use joint stereo most of the time because it suits what the end
product needs to be, or perhaps because they don't know/care that
there is a discreet option.
JT
--