Top deals on CNET here
Community Newsletter: Q&A: 10/21/05 Best format for digitizing my CD collection
- 10/20/05 5:49 PM
Here's a comparison of all lossless codecs
by bugmenotcnet - 10/21/05 8:14 PM In reply to: WMA Lossless Quality by lkelvin456As I've said I use WMA lossless everyone is free to drink their own poison.
Here's the a super link that compares the various encoders -> http://members.home.nl/w.speek/comparison.htm
Laptop users?
by SturdyErde - 10/24/05 9:38 AM In reply to: Why don't just a buy a bigger drive? by bugmenotcnetTired of switching CD's yet? 
That solution is a great, easy one for desktop users, but laptop drives obviously cost more. Until lately, external USB/firewire drives haven't been as affordable an option.
Size matters
by muzzin - 10/21/05 6:57 AM In reply to: 10/21/05 Best format for digitizing my CD collection by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I did the research on this about a year ago. For me it was a no-brainer. Here's what I learned:
M4A for compression, FLAC for archiving. I do both.
I'm an engineer and hate doing things twice or getting less than usable results.
M4A was developed by the people that made MP3. They did it to improve on the things they missed during the first go around (or just couldn't do because of the current state of technology, see www.M4A.com). In short, the improvements are better sound at the same bit rate and no licensing fee (that's huge one if you like open source stuff). Yes it does require a bit more processing power than MP3 to play, but we're not talking Windows XP versus DOS. Plus in the end everyone will likely switch to M4A and that means good compatibility across a range of devices. Some play it now. Ithink the pods can play it since AAC is basically M4A with a container on it (from what I read, I don't own a Pod).
For acrhiving I use FLAC for the same quality and openness reasons. It's free, many audiophiles use it and it works really well. Plus it's about the samllest lossless format out there including Ogg, Monkey's Audio (see DBpowerAMP) etc.
I encode both ways using EZ-CD extractor. It can be free or you can buy the license too. I bought it since it was the fastest and easiest to use and worked with both M4A and FLAC. I think I had to download the encoder plug-in for FLAC, but it's available if you go that route.
My average M4A file is about 4 Megs and the FLACs are about 25 to 32 Megs per.
Go Ogg for best format. always avoid WMA, here is why.
by raclapp - 10/21/05 7:05 AM In reply to: 10/21/05 Best format for digitizing my CD collection by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I will be candid, OGG is not suppoerted everywhere, but most Rio(s) support it. The best part, is it is Open Source. No one has control of the format for royalty fees. Many encoders are available.
The why is simple, better compression than MP3 at the same rate. In other words, the same file done the same way is smaller than MP3. Personally, I think they sound better.
I use a Rio Karma (20 gig) and MusicMatch as well as my Treo 650 to listen to music. I have about half of my collection processed so far, 132 CDs and I still have room on a 250 gig Hard Drive I bought just for the Mp3/ OGG Collection.
Another thing to keep in mind is Mid/ high end stereo receivers are slowly gaining the capability to play the collection directly from a PC which is serving it up. My Onkyo 800 series for example. It is limited to MP3 only at moment.
Richard
High end receivers
by Gsteele - 10/21/05 1:47 PM In reply to: Go Ogg for best format. always avoid WMA, here is why. by raclappActually, several years ago Gateway had a product called the "connected DVD"; it was a stereo sized (17" wide, low profile) DVD player that had a PCMCIA socket in the back into which you plugged either a wired or wireless network card. You loaded their "server" software on your computer(s), and hooked the thing up to your TV just as you would any other DVD player. To play DVDs, you put in a DVD and play it; likewise CDs or MP3 CDs. Difference is, you press a button on the remote, and it goes into a mode that looks for and displays the list of servers on the network. These servers can serve video, music, or JPG images. If video, it plays on your TV; if music, it plays on whatever (stereo, home theater, etc.) you hook to the audio out. If JPG, your photos display on the TV as a slide show. It cost a couple hundred and worked fine, although on occasion the software on the "server" would be flaky - but of course, PC networks are flaky on a good day and useless on a bad one. I like mine and it's nice to be able to select files from any computer on the network. I'm not sure if they still sell it.
Yeah I saw that to
by thecoolnessrune - 10/22/05 10:24 AM In reply to: High end receivers by GsteeleYeah I remember seeing that. It was a pretty cool idea. But it is gone now. Didn't sell too well.
Quality at 64K and 128K
by Robbie Mosaic - 10/24/05 5:52 PM In reply to: Go Ogg for best format. always avoid WMA, here is why. by raclappI've tried several encoders in various conditions for almost 2 years, although not deeply. The result I found was:
At 64Kbps,
ogg > mp4/wma9 > wma8 > mp3
At 128Kbps,
ogg > mp4 > mp3 > wma9 > wma8
The quality difference between wma9 and mp3 at 128Kbps is not very perceivable if the music is complex. However, if the music is simple, you can easily find more artifacts in wma9 samples.
The result above can be a reference.
128 kbps just fine
by mr_djamigos - 10/21/05 7:17 AM In reply to: 10/21/05 Best format for digitizing my CD collection by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I still believe 128 is fine for most people. 160 is better but above that, there is very little difference unless you are so picky, you shouldn't even go this route. I DeeJayed at a club for years and burnt CDs using music at 128, 160, and 192 and even on a large sound system in the club, there was no noticeable difference. While it'll be more noticeable on an IPod, you still have to consider how much music you will store verses how much memory you have. If you can afford hundreds of gigs of HD space, go 160. Anything above that is a waste of space with no noticeable advantage.
re: 128 kbps just fine
by Walt Perkins - 10/24/05 1:33 PM In reply to: 128 kbps just fine by mr_djamigosSeriously, 128 kbps is plenty a high bit rate! I rip all of my music at 64k, and that is better than FM quality. Given all of the factors that affect music quality, 64 kbps is more than adequate, and it takes up half the space of 128 kbps. For example, I can get over 20 CDs (usually 30) ripped into the space of one at 64 kbps, but only 10 at 128 kbps.
Here are a few points to consider. Few humans can perceive sound even close to those limits (20Hz and 20kHz) and little hardware is available that does justice to them any way. True audiophiles will tell you that if it goes through a transistor, it will never sound right. But regardless, unless you are going to listen to them in a studio, or with top of the line headphones, you won't perceive reduced quality.
Any portable music player or standard pc sound card is going to steal more quality than a reduced bit rate will. Your environment will also handicap your ability to listen too. At work, in the car, out of doors, all these places have their own distractions that your brain must process too, reducing how much of your music it processes. All CDs are of varying quality to start with. Ripping at too high bit rates can waste disk space on quality that wasn't even present on the CD.
Finally, the perception of sound quality is relative. Supposing you've overcome all the factors mentioned, you are still going to judge quality on how it compares to other sources. Telephone conversations are in the 8 kbps range. Talk radio is overkill at 12 kbps. Television is about right at 12 kbps. Music over FM radio in HiFi stereo format barely pushes the 32 kbps envelope. So therefore, 64 kbps will always sound better than anything else you listen to in a day, (except for actual CDs) unless you find yourself listening to live music.
You've read that wav format is the raw music off of a CD, and takes about 650MB of storage for each CD. Any other format is technically a reduction in quality, but practically speaking, everyone must pick a balance point between quality and disk space. If space were not an issue, why rip CDs at all? You've also read that 192 kbps is so near CD quality, few experts dispute any significant loss. Therefore, as 128 kbps might be considered CD quality for the masses, 64 kbps should be considered better than average sound quality for most all applications.
Agree
by Kutusov - 11/1/05 7:13 PM In reply to: 128 kbps just fine by mr_djamigosI use high-end Sennheiser headphones at home and to tell the truth, I really canīt tell much difference above 128bps. Just in some albuns with a particulary sond and if a try really hard. Not worth the many extra gigabyts, if you ask me.
An educated opinion - WMA for best quality!
by dcis_steve - 10/21/05 7:37 AM In reply to: 10/21/05 Best format for digitizing my CD collection by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I have iTunes, Windows Media, Winamp, RealPlayer and a few other less popular programs to do CD ripping and music library management with, so I was once faced with this same issue when I decided to covert my over 200 CD collection to a digital format. It was pretty simple. I knew that I wanted to use a bitrate that would sound as good as a CD but also not create exceedingly large file size. For this I chose 160kbps. Figuring out the format was a different issue...
When deciding what music file type to use (mp3, wma, etc.), first ask yourself what media software you're going to use and what portable player you have or plan to own. If your answer is Ipod, then your choice is already made for you. Ipods don't support windows media, so you have to rip everything to MP3 so it will work with Itunes and your Ipod.
However, if your are wise enough to realize that there are better choices than the overpriced, overhyped line of portable players from Apple, then you have some choices. When I did this, I knew that I wanted to have my choice of one player or another, since I like to try different things over time. I started with a couple of test songs; ripping them in both MP3 and WMA format. I did it a few times using different bitrates. What I found was that at any bitrate, the WMA format always came out with better sound fidelity. It's just a better format for clarity of your music. It sounds more crisp for whatever reason. The file size of WMA at 160kbps was a little bit bigger than MP3, but for how much better it sounded, I think it's worth it.
Anyway, that's the long story about how I made my choice. I've finally finished ripping all the songs from my entire CD collection to WMA format, and they now reside on my Archos AV400 - my favorite portable device. I couldn't be happier.
ipod has more than one format
by superbeast314 - 10/21/05 7:14 PM In reply to: An educated opinion - WMA for best quality! by dcis_steveshuffle
MP3 (8 to 320 Kbps), MP3 VBR, AAC (8 to 320 Kbps), Protected AAC (from iTunes Music Store, M4A, M4B, M4P), Audible (formats 2, 3, and 4) and WAV
ipod + nano
AAC (16 to 320 Kbps), Protected AAC (from iTunes Music Store), MP3 (16 to 320 Kbps), MP3 VBR, Audible (formats 2, 3 and 4), Apple Lossless, WAV, AIFF
CD to hard drive
by aronbergvlad - 10/21/05 7:46 AM In reply to: 10/21/05 Best format for digitizing my CD collection by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Scott,
Why did you ignore the more usual: MusicMatch, RealPlayer, Itunes, Windows Media Player for ripping and converting? Do you find the result lower quality?
Larry A.
windows mediaplayer
by sharee100 - 10/29/05 7:53 PM In reply to: CD to hard drive by aronbergvladI use windows media player 10. It works just fine and you can select which format. I use mp3 and have about 1500 pieces of music & books on tape. It only takes about 5gb.
I disagree with Scott's answer
by w0kie - 10/21/05 7:52 AM In reply to: 10/21/05 Best format for digitizing my CD collection by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I disagree with Scott's answer. I have tested various methods for laptops and desktops with big hard drives. Here's all you need to know.
Laptops with small hard drives
64k fixed bit rate WMA using Windows Media Player ripper
Desktops with big hard drives
256k fixed bit rate MP3 using MusicMatch ripper
End of discussion
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
