ripping music

[Dragonfly]

im going down the digital route currently and its taking me an age to rip my music collection onto the hard drive ........ ive been doing it for a week and a day 5 hours a day non stop ....seriously and got 2 and a half of my 8 boxes of cds on so far about 2500 tracks .

im using windows media player which doesnt have a damage check . i know there was a thread about this recently but i cant find it in the search .

im after some advice please best/fastest way to rip quality mp3s from my cds. what program to use that preferably doesnt cost the earth although i know you get what you pay for .

i am polishing each cd before i rip it. the other question is what speed to rip at? 192 256 or 320 ? 128 a no no as its the lowest quality.

hope someone can help or point me in the direction of the thread with the answer. im having to key in all the track data etc track by track also.

the other thing is should i be selective about what i put on i have just been ripping the whole albums should i just leave off tracks ive never been asked for or use or am i tempting disaster by doing that?

[groovy-nights]

Most of my mp3 are 192. If you use windows media and are connect to the net it should name the tracks for you.It does take days but so worth it in the end

[Dragonfly]

thanks .... so it does wasnt connected to the net before thanks for that.... does slow the ripping speed down tho i notice.

[BeerFunk]

I have used an aptly named program called 'CD to MP3 ripper' for years now. I use 192kbps upwards, although I don't hear any difference so long as it's at least 160kbps.

As for errors, well I generally don't get any - but a test I always do is to listen to the last minute on the last track. This is where a good 80-90% of errors will occur in my experience. I also listen through all the main tracks which I definitely will play at some point.

I've got just about everything ripped (~3500 tracks), ready for my new decks next month :banana:

[axeman]

Iv'e been digital nearly 2 yrs and Im still ripping cd's lol, every now and then someone asks me for something, i know i have on cd but can't find on my pc, (its ussually something obscure.) it happens less and less as you get more on the pc, but it's definately an ongoing experience.

[Dragonfly]

just timed it .... when connected to the net its taking 6 mins to rip one track?? is this right?

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

just timed it .... when connected to the net its taking 6 mins to rip one track?? is this right?

That's way too slow Dave.

What are your PC specs?

I can do an album in less time than that!

Try CDEX - that's fairly good.

I would suggest ripping at 320kbps, only because disc space is so cheap and you may as well rip at the highest possible bit rate, rather than doing it again a few years down the line....(Like me:o )

[groovy-nights]

should not take that long should be a few secs.

[BeerFunk]

I wouldn't trust it ripping a track in a few seconds! There's bound to be a mucher higher % chance of errors!

[spin mobile disco]

Hi Dragon try exact audio copy, its a free program that I am using for my ripping at the moment. Takes about 20 seconds per song and error checks for you as you go. Tells you if there may be a problem with song and gives you time index so you can check.

[NeilP]

Also, if you are connecting to the net to check the naming of the tracks, watch them. I have had a couple of Albums come up with completely different contents than the album i am ripping. Not a problem, it just means that you have to manually type in all the details!

[CRAZY K]

Hi Dragon try exact audio copy, its a free program that I am using for my ripping at the moment. Takes about 20 seconds per song and error checks for you as you go. Tells you if there may be a problem with song and gives you time index so you can check.

Thats useful Spin, may give you a call next week, got my hard drive and buying Cortex 1000 next week--then the hard work begins:(

regards

CRAZY K

[colinm345]

Daz is spot on ,save for the fact that my collection sounds great ripped at 192 here is a link to CDEX http://www.download.com/CDex/3000-2140_4-10226370.html:)

[Steve 'B']

CDEX all the way. I rip at 320 mind you

[Have a disco]

My computer has a creative audigy soundblaster card and most of my stuff gets ripped by the creative mediasource have found it quicker than windows media and it checks for damaged tracks on route also uses Gracenote CDDB2 probably the best artist song label search tool out there all my stuff is ripped to the CD std of 192mbps more than enough for anyone

will say on the label side cd singles tags are reused over and over some very cheap cd albums also reuse tags as well all depends upon the company your music is upon

[Dragonfly]

thanks for all the info guys its very helpful ive downloaded cdex but cant see how to get the artists on there it just lists the track names?

[CRAZY K]

As I am starting on digital ripping tomorrow can someone answer this rather
basic question.

If I have downloaded tracks at 192 can I then RIP AND RECORD through CDEX to my new hard drive at 320 for best quality ?

OR

after receiving the compressed file at 192 have you destroyed certain parts of the original recording---which can never be brought back? this sounds more likely to me--is there irrereversible damage to the track?

OR is there really that much difference between 192 and 320 ---yes I can try it out myself by ear---just wondered if anyone knows having done the test?

I know Darren has confirmed in his experience there is a definite difference, although that might be adjusted with eq on the mixer.

Just seems a bit strange that all of us I assume these days using reasonably similar quality sound equipment appear to be getting different results? i.e Colin 345 and Daz?

thanks

CRAZY K

[colinm345]

As I am starting on digital ripping tomorrow can someone answer this rather
basic question.

If I have downloaded tracks at 192 can I then RIP AND RECORD through CDEX to my new hard drive at 320 for best quality ?

OR

after receiving the compressed file at 192 have you destroyed certain parts of the original recording---which can never be brought back? this sounds more likely to me--is there irrereversible damage to the track?

OR is there really that much difference between 192 and 320 ---yes I can try it out myself by ear---just wondered if anyone knows having done the test?

I know Darren has confirmed in his experience there is a definite difference, although that might be adjusted with eq on the mixer.

thanks

CRAZY K

No Alan
If you have downloaded at 192 you cannot succesfuly convert to 320

You will find that if you have a good system(which Im sure you have) you will hardley be able to tell the difference between 192-320 or even 160 for that matter:)

[TonyB]

When you use a lower bit rate, it is mainly the high frequencies that are reduced.

I have seen a comparison of the same track being ripped at different frequencies and the results were:

128mbps cuts off everything above approx 12,500hz
192mbps cuts off everything above approx 16,000hz
256mbps cuts off everything above approx 18,000hz

They didn't do one for 320.

Your age as well as other factors will be a factor of whether or not you hear any noticeable difference. When you are young, you hear anything in the range of 20hz to 20,000hz but that reduces in middle age to 20hz to 14,000hz (it drops off with men faster than women).

Being exposed to a lot of noise for long periods of time (such as being a DJ!) will also reduce sensitivity.

So if you are middle aged and male, chances are you won't notice a lot of difference from 128 and the original but others will.

If you have a good system, you are more likely to notice a different because it will be more sensitive to the high frequncies.

[Ricesnaps]

I have to say that i personally notice a considerable difference in sound quality from 192 to 320. 192 and lower to me sounds slightly more muffled, the bass is not as tight and it looses (as has been said) trebble.

[colinm345]

2 very interesting posts there,but 2 things you cannot successfully convert from 192 to 320 (which most downloads are) and even when I was young I could not really tell the difference and I am a trained musician:D

Perhaps I am tone deaf :D ,without noticing it ,and perhaps we can have some sort of poll on it??

[TonyB]

If you listen to a track at a lower bit rate, you will probably think that is the way it is supposed to sound! It is usually if you compare the ripped track to an original, for example, .wav file that you can usually tell the difference.

I think we all have different levels of hearing sensitivity and usually one ear is more sensitive than the other (usually the ear we usually put the phone to is the more sensitive).

I can't notice any difference from 192mbps upwards but then I'm 45, middle aged!

[CRAZY K]

Thanks guys thats very useful.

I personally notice the difference between some of my Mini Disc recordings compared to FULL CD--but then again last week the punters at the Xmas party werent interested in that---just that it was a good quality sound to dance to!

CRAZY K