RE: Comparing Rippers
- From: Vincent <Vincent@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 07:32:00 -0700
Good questions so difficult to answer.
Most people don't hear the differences between the original and a high bit
rate MP3.
But some do.
As storage is cheap today, a good strategy might be to rip to lossless
compression like FLAC or WMA lossless. It saves 40-60% compared with the
original (WAV).
http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/SW/audio_formats.html
Tools like DBPoweramp can convert this to any other format if needed.
In WMP you can rip to WMA lossless and sync to MP3 if needed.
As most ripping software writes the meta info in tags, all this information
will be preserved in the conversion to a other format.
You can Google on differences in sound quality between different rippers but
a lot of this information is outdated. I think they are all mature products
and it will be very hard to hear differences between them today but you might
try a blindfold test on a couple of them as most are freeware.
EAC has a very good reputation:
http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/SW/ripping.html
WMP with error correction on might do the job as well
You might try forums like http://www.audioasylum.com/ or
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/
--
http://thewelltemperedcomputer.com
"Brad" wrote:
I am in the process of re-ripping all of my music at a higher bit rate. I had.
ripped everything at 192 using wmp, but there is a noticeable difference
between 192 and 320. I use my music for DJ applications. Here's the dilemma.
Many DJs out there feel that the wmp ripper isn't very high quality and that
the music ripped through wmp won't be able to be used with a multitude of DJ
computer programs created specifically for DJing (Serato, PCDJ, Virtual DJ,
etc.) . They recommend using one of the following rippers instead: Lame
Encoder, F&H, Winamp Pro, Monkey's Audio Lossless Encoder, amongst others. I
want very high quality (I considered lossless, but 80,000+ songs at lossless
will probably exceed a terabyte harddrive). I really can't hear a difference
between 320 and lossless anyway, so that might be overkill. The reason I want
to stay with wma is that every cd I put in my reader will be recognized by
wma because I've already entered all the information in it already. I really
don't want to re-enter all that information again. Before I re-rip
everything, I just want you to let me know (1) if wmp will give me the high
quality I need in comparison to these other programs and (2) if the music
will be universally accepted by DJ programs and lastly, (3) is there a sound
difference between programs (and not just speaking of bit rate change?) Some
djs have mentioned that there is a "sound quality" difference. Thanks very
much for your help! Brad
--
Live each day as if it were your last!
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Comparing Rippers
- From: Swifty
- Re: Comparing Rippers
- Prev by Date: Re: WMP 11 Won't play music anymore.
- Next by Date: RE: Video stops playing but sound continues to play on...
- Previous by thread: Re: Comparing Rippers
- Next by thread: Re: Comparing Rippers
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
