 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Forum / Windows Media / Player / August 2008Comparing Rippers
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  SignatureLive each day as if it were your last! > 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'm hardly an expert in this field, but I recently made an interesting discovery. I'd re-ripped all my music (using the lame encoder inside CDEX) at 192kbps variable bit rate, which is fine for me as (a) I use only PC desktop speakers and (b) I'm getting old enough that I can't hear extreme high-frequency sound anyway. Then, by mistake, I re-ripped one album again, but this time at 320kbps VBR. The resultant files were only 4% larger than the 192kbps VBR files. This is no great surprise; you reach a point where the extra bitrate is unnecessary (imagine recording silence; a zero bitrate works fine). So now I routinely use 320kbps VBR MP3. My disk is almost as happy, and the sound is excellent for my purposes. I don't know if your situation allows the use of VBR encoding, but it does seem to give an excellent tradeoff between space used and quality. SignatureSteve Swift http://www.swiftys.org.uk/swifty.html http://www.ringers.org.uk 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/ Signaturehttp://thewelltemperedcomputer.com > 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 [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > djs have mentioned that there is a "sound quality" difference. Thanks very > much for your help! Brad > Most people don't hear the differences between the original and a high bit > rate MP3. But some do. I found it instructional to rip an album at 128Kbps then rip the same album (to a different directory) at 64Kbps. Listening to the 64Kbps tracks after listening to the 128Kbps tracks gave me a good idea of the sorts of audible distortions that I'd later be struggling to detect when going from 128Kbps to 192Kbps and even 320Kbps. At 192Kbps I can detect no flaws even when played through my HiFi system (which was horribly expensive about 10 years ago, but then my ears were better then). I could perhaps detect differences in an A/B comparison with the original CD though, not that I've ever tried it. Like avoiding expensive wine, because I can't tell the difference, so why train my palate to be profligate? :-) SignatureSteve Swift http://www.swiftys.org.uk/swifty.html http://www.ringers.org.uk Cymbals are nice testing material because they produce frequencies even above hearing threshold. Due to my age my hearing is limited to 13 kHz max so no cymbals for me. Luckily classical music= acoustic instruments and they are < 13 kHz (This is a nice one: tell me you hearing range and I tell you how old you are: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=65398&hl= ) A man at your age should know that live is to short to drink bad wine! Signaturehttp://thewelltemperedcomputer.com > > Most people don't hear the differences between the original and a high bit > > rate MP3. But some do. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > expensive wine, because I can't tell the difference, so why train my > palate to be profligate? :-) >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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >etc.) . They recommend using one of the following rippers instead: Lame >Encoder, F&H, Winamp Pro, Monkey's Audio Lossless Encoder, amongst others. I You could use WMA Lossless, and retain the tagging capabilities of WMA in media player (ASF content) but lossless by definition is mathematically equivalent to the origin content, which I assume is still 16bit CD rather than 24bit HD audio. This page claims "most users" can't differentiate WMA10 Pro at 384kbps compared to the CD (PCM) source content http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/forpros/codecs/audio.aspx#WindowsM ediaAudio9Professional according to the NSTL report (December 2005) http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/forpros/codecs/comparison.aspx >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 I guess the question is can your listeners, in a club environment with people shouting over the music, possibly on sub-optimal repro kit (a well used D&B soundsystem, with flapping subs anybody ?) >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 WMP ripping is not considered an error free process, though error correction is available there can be artefacts produced by the drive (aka jitter) which some other rippers compensate for by repeating the read several times - I think EAC and CDEx can do these steps. >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 I can't speak for DJ programs, as I don't have experience of using them to know what formats they support - usually it's a wide range and would be documented in the user manual provided with the program HTH Cheers - Neil ------------------------------------------------ Digital Media MVP : 2004-2008 http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/mvpfaqs >>WMP ripping is not considered an error free process, though error >>correction is available there can be artefacts produced by the drive >>(aka jitter) which some other rippers compensate for by repeating the >>read several times - I think EAC and CDEx can do these steps. This is not a jitter issue but all about a bit perfect copy. Ripping programs can detect if the error correction of the drive is used. If so, some of them (EAC or WMP with error correction on) will reread the sector (EAC up to 80 times). As you are transferring bits from one media to another, jitter is not an issue See: http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/KB/CD_transport.htm Signaturehttp://thewelltemperedcomputer.com > >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 [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > Digital Media MVP : 2004-2008 > http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/mvpfaqs Do you recommend using the WMP ripper or another ripper? If you do recommend the wmp ripper, will 320 kps at the mp3 setting be good or would you recommend the wma lossless (if space weren't an issue). Remember, I only want to rip one more time and never again! Brad SignatureLive each day as if it were your last! > >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 [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > Digital Media MVP : 2004-2008 > http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/mvpfaqs > Do you recommend using the WMP ripper or another ripper? If you do recommend > the wmp ripper, will 320 kps at the mp3 setting be good or would you > recommend the wma lossless (if space weren't an issue). Remember, I only want > to rip one more time and never again! Brad If you truly want to rip once more and never again then as far as I'm concerned, a lossless method is your only choice. As time goes by, the costs of storage is coming down faster than the number of tracks in my library is increasing, and sooner or later, I will always want to improve on a track recorded with a lossy algorithm, even if in truth I wouldn't hear the improvement. If you're using the tracks in a professional environment this is probably even more the case. Something in my system (and I'm categorically *NOT* blaming any individual ripper) has ripped quite a few tracks with audible/objectionable distortion which to me sounds like clipping, or maybe crossover distortion. I'm taking about serious flaws that make you flinch to hear them. Nothing like this should happen even when the bitrate is as low as 128Kbps. When I re-rip the same tracks from the original CD at the same bitrate using CDEX, the distortion is not present. I would recommend that you rip a selection of tracks (that you know to be good on the original CD; I have a Starcastle CD with distortion) with different rippers then listen critically to the result with a good pair of headphones. I keep a pair of Sennheiser headphones handy just for this task. Chose tracks that will readily expose recording errors, but be careful; you'll find quite a lot of errors in the original CD's. I wasted months tracking down a glitch in the Pat Metheny track "James" until I bought an additional album (different from any I had) and found the same error at the same point in the same track. The two albums had been produced in different countries, so the only explanation was that the error was in the master material (it was like a tiny CD "skip"). SignatureSteve Swift http://www.swiftys.org.uk/swifty.html http://www.ringers.org.uk |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.