• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Ripping Cds

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Neuromancer

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Location
Tau'ri
Okay if CDs areburned at 144kbs (not an option under WMP?) is there a benfit to ripping my CDs at 320kbps?

Does it actually make a differnce in the size of the file or anything? (I just ripped the doors greatest hits double album... whic obviously is not going to have the recording rate of sometihng more modern... and got 204MB for both CDs..

The individual files say 320kbps but is that really true? Is there a benefit to ripping mp3 from my CDs at this level? Granted I know there can be no harm in it (and if it would take up more space.. I wouldnt worry about.. I have PLENTY of HDD space and i intend to get 4 more SATA drives to fill out my system)

So if it takes more HDD space I dont care.... just wondering if there is a benefit.. or should I be watching the bitrate of each CD and recording at that level rather then setting a 320kbps general rip cd when inserted rate?
 
Who told you cd's are only 144kbps? I'm pretty sure it's much higher, and also cd audio is uncompressed, where as mp3's are compressed.

I ripped all my cd's at 128kbps and I think they sound fine. (Mainly did it to save HD space at the time) Some people will hear a difference if you bump up the bitrate to 160/192/256kb, but above 256kb I doubt you could hear a difference. Best bet would be to rip a song you are familiar with and rip it at 2-3 different bitrates and see if you can hear a difference.

Honestly if you have the HD space and want the best quality you should look into ripping to a lossless codec such as FLAK.
 
neur0mancer said:
Okay if CDs areburned at 144kbs
Not true. CD's are basically .wav files (technically, redbook audio(?)) with zero compression and are comparable to a FLAC-encoded file.

Does it actually make a differnce in the size of the file or anything?
Yes. If an audio file is ripped at 128kbps it will be smaller than a 320kbps file due to the nature of ripping audio into a "lossy" format like mp3 or aac (m4a). Thinking of it in filesize, ripping a song to .wav format could make a 50mb file, FLAC would produce around a 30mb file, and a 320kbps mp3 file would run around 10-15mb [note: these are only relative figures].

Is there a benefit to ripping mp3 from my CDs at this level?
Ripping an audio cd into FLAC format will produce files that match "cd quality". If you're using a very high-end audio setup this might be useful but likely only to an absolute purist. For most setups and people ripping to MP3 or AAC is perfectly fine. In double-blind tests anything above 256kbps (and 192 for consumer-grade equipment) is virtually indistinguishable for most people from cd quality anyways.


That said, with a "trained" (LOL AUDIOPHILES) ear and a decent setup, 128 will not sound "good" due to the nature of audio codecs. By ripping to a given kbps setting you're effectively cutting out some of the audio range in a file. IE: if you have a 320kbps file you're getting pretty darn close to what you would with a cd, but with 128 you're getting less information. With a 50 Cent track 128 may be fine, but with an orchestral score or a Portishead album you might want a higher bitrate. If you're using a logitech computer speaker set it doesn't really matter as the speakers can't play anywhere near a full human audio range (generally accepted at 20hz-20khz) anyways. However, even with that kind of setup I'd still take a 128kbps cbr file over 92 or 32:)cry:) because then you're dropping into AM radio-quality sound.


When I originally started ripping cds (using the "LAME" mp3 codec) with cdex/EAC I tended to rip them at 128 to save space, but since then I've upgraded my audio setup. Now I've found that anywhere from 192 to 320 sounds great while 128 has a tendency to sound muddy or "flat" (and not in the good way), so I'm left re-ripping alot. Nowadays if I rip audio or look for tracks I try to aim at 192-320kbps VBR. VBR=variable bit rate, and the advantage with that in is places in a song that are silent or have little instrumental information the filesize is smaller, but in places where there's more information the filesize is larger.

Note: the above information about vbr may be pseudo-science, but I think I got my point across.



Granted, most things regarding audio are subjective, so it's worthwhile to play around with it and see what suits you. I have a 320kbps(CBR)-encoded copy of my Hope Sandoval cd and there is no way I'd be able to differentiate it from the disc. Some people might be able to, but I cannot, and that's all that really matters.

I recommend hitting 192 and above with vbr to save space when you can. I agree with Bios24 that anything above 256 and you're hitting diminishing returns, and I really don't understand the appeal of FLAC files.
 
Last edited:
Ripping into .flac is the thing to do if you want to archive your cds. All my cds are archived using EAC and AutoFLAC. The difference between flac and mp3 is that mp3 files get rid of datat to achieve a 50-80% compression. Flac files achieve a 30-50% compression with no loss of data. If you want to transfer them to an mp3 player or other portable device, all that is required is a quick transcode into .mp3 using a variety of programs.

The benefit is obvious:
1. All the music data is there so that if you want to burn them, you can do so with no loss of quality.
2. It creates .cue files that write the gaps between tracks so the cd will sound the same.
3. You can still play the audio files unlike if you just made an iso of the cd.
4. Data on the cd like videos and other things, are stored as well and added to the .cue sheet.
 
Back