ripping cd's to harddrive

[psycik]

I used to do 128k, but now tend to think that 160 sounds better.

I listen to a lot of MP3s at work on some Sony MDRV500DJ headphones and can hear the difference definitely with 96k, bit harder to tell between 128 to 160. But you can hear a difference.

My system at home is connected via a digital coax to a Yamaha Receiver that picks up badly encoded 128k tracks. The 160k Encoded tracks I don't think I've ever heard anything "funny" in them. And no I'm started to get a few 192k tracks - but they are a downloaded radio show.

It kind of comes down to personal preference. Like you said, if you're happy with what you hear then that's fine...but I would say try it on a better system, or with some good headphones and see if that changes your mind.

[Fatman_do]

You can set Windows Media Player to rip as an MP3 @ 128 or 192 Kbps.

I don't hear so well so it does a good enough job for me

[tkgafs]

Since my job here is to ask dumb questions, what is wrong with ripping using Windows Media Player? It seems to work OK and is already integrated. I am NOT an audiophile and I just started doing the ripping since my wife just got our family's first MP3 player. Does EAC have the features to sync to a MP3 player?

main problem is that it is not very accurate and may skip bits if the cd is slightly damaged

you hear these as loud cracks in the middle of the music

and you dont need to be an audiophile to notice them when they happen they are loud

EAC is much slower but will eventually accurately rip just about any cd, unless its pretty much damaged beyond repair

tkgafs

[happyhammer]

i also recommend EAC.

One thing to bear in mind is the mp3 rate. I know VBR would be better but i rip to CBR 128kb as this will allow the file to be played on most devices. For me, my home uplink is 256k and when using EWA to stream music to work, it just manages 128k mp3's but will crap out at higher rates.

[nightwalker]

I've been using WMP for a long time now to rip CD's. I've used a plug in for it from cyberlink and have ripped thousands of CD's to MP3 at 320 kbps using it. Like any other ripping software you have to check to make sure the tags are right and you've got the correct album art.

[drewkaree]

Since my job here is to ask dumb questions, what is wrong with ripping using Windows Media Player? It seems to work OK and is already integrated. I am NOT an audiophile and I just started doing the ripping since my wife just got our family's first MP3 player. Does EAC have the features to sync to a MP3 player?

Like others have mentioned, nothing in particular that's "wrong" with ripping using WMP, but I'd double-check your settings. Depending on how you're set up, WMP by default is set up to work as the RIAA wishes - meaning any songs ripped and synced to your player may not (I believe it's specifically DOES NOT, but I haven't mucked around with it in quite a while due to this little problem) work if you wish to transfer it to another player, another computer, etc.

I had this problem when trying to set up someone else's computer and several players in their household, and there were 2 players that were unable to play the music ripped, despite them owning a physical copy of the disc. I have this obstinant streak that tells me there's no way in heck that I should have to buy several different formats or copies if I wish to play MY music that I ALREADY PAID FOR on a different player. That's a whole 'nother rant, but if your PC breaks down and you try to transfer those files that you've already ripped and you're told "You do not have a license to play this music on this equipment", that's a crap default, and reason enough for me to look elsewhere for ripping solutions. (please note that I'm not putting anyone down for using it - it's simply a personal choice of mine)

If WMP rips at 96 kbps by default, you should notice a HUGE difference if you up the kbps to 160, "audiophile" or not. I don't consider myself an audiophile, but on an mp3 player, it tends to magnify any and all problems with the ripping process. The way I have it set up, after ripping the majority of my collection, I now rip to a "quarantine" folder first.

That's done so that if the wife wants to toss in a disc and rip it to her player, she can easily do so. Then later on, I'll go in there and make sure all the tags are correct and snag any album art that I need for it, then move the entire album folder into our main collection.

NOTHING is a "must". Whatever works for you is the best thing in the world. I already know that others look at my process as a PITA, but it keeps me sane when folks come over and fire up the jukebox and things work correctly and are easy to sift through thanks to proper tagging and being done with the same bitrate and method across my entire collection.

[petesgalaxy]

actually, I've been trying what you've all been suggesting. I downloaded EAC but have'nt installed yet. But to soccerdads point, I am using windows media player, it does mp3's and you can change the resolution, I set mine to 196k, it's agreat in between, and it uaually finds the album art. what I want to know though, is where does gbpvr store the album art, if i want to add my own.

[soccerdad]

This has been a great learning experience! Thanks for all the great posts. Here is another dumb question. What is the benefit or downside of .wma files instead of mp3? Both work in our mp3 player and it seems to work on the MVP as well. It seems to be slower loading on the MVP with the wma files. I expect the transcoding slows it down some.

[psycik]

Again personal preference. I prefer MP3 - but I've been using MP3's for about 8 years (i.e. before wma was around). And devices supporting Wma are kind of a recent thing (I've think) So Mp3 being an independant standard and more supported back then was the reason. Most of my past mp3 players (I'm on about number 5) didn't support WMA.

[HtV]

This has been a great learning experience! Thanks for all the great posts. Here is another dumb question. What is the benefit or downside of .wma files instead of mp3? Both work in our mp3 player and it seems to work on the MVP as well. It seems to be slower loading on the MVP with the wma files. I expect the transcoding slows it down some.

WMA claims to deliver the same quality with half the bitrate. I don't think anybody believes that, but I think in general it is agreed that it gives the same quality with a lower bitrate.
If the mvp has to transcode it first (to mp3) then it doesn't make much sense to use wma. Every transcoding/encoding will take some quality.