Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Old-school DJ finally coming around - now, what codec to rip to? (Read 3255 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Old-school DJ finally coming around - now, what codec to rip to?

So, I've been a disciple of one of my buddies since the age of 16. Whenever he's DJing in a club, I try to be there because he plays my kind of music (Alternative, Indie, Wave etc.). I've been telling him for the last 20 years that toting around 10+ boxes with CDs isn't the way to go. Pushing 60 now he's finally had enough and would like to rip his collection.

I'll be helping him out but what codec should we rip to? Sometimes I bring along a new song on my USB drive which is encoded with LAME/VBR ~320 kbit and some decks like the Pioneer CDJ-900 apparently aren't able to seek in them properly. That won't we a problem with the Traktor deck he's also using but I'd like to have a format that works on most hardware.

What do you guys think is the best format?

Re: Old-school DJ finally coming around - now, what codec to rip to?

Reply #1 –
Rip to FLAC.
Transcode from there to whatever is compatible. Traktor supports these formats.
If searching in MP3 is a problem, try CBR rather than VBR.

Re: Old-school DJ finally coming around - now, what codec to rip to?

Reply #2 –
I fully agree with Porus' reply. Also don't forget to use decent Ripping software, so use software that can securely rip the CD's, has AccurateRip support and Offset correction as well. Otherwise you will have the same learning curve as a lot of people over here, which means ripping your entire CD-collection more than one time due to the usage of incapable software or wrong settings.

Depending on your preferences there are plenty of software options that can accommodate you.

Re: Old-school DJ finally coming around - now, what codec to rip to?

Reply #3 –
I've ripped my collection in 2002 or so using EAC in burst mode since I have practically no scratched CDs. I'm not so sure about my buddy's CDs though and we're still debating if LAME preset extreme would be good enough considering the fact that for most ears transparency is reached at ~192 kbit (any new insights on this?). Reducing disc cost from half the size to one fith would make a difference.

Re: Old-school DJ finally coming around - now, what codec to rip to?

Reply #4 –
I just checked prices on USB hard drives - at least one wants a file set that is disconnected from the computer.
There is hardly $$s to save by going below 1 TB. Which will get you some 2000 to 4000 CDs. If that is not enough, $20 extra can get you a second TB.

How many are there?

I have ripped thousands of CDs myself. Even with a 200 disc changer, you don't want to do that more than once.




Re: Old-school DJ finally coming around - now, what codec to rip to?

Reply #5 –
I agree with Porcus that since you are going through the trouble or ripping you might as well make perfect-lossless copies.  A lot of people make a FLAC archive even if they are playing MP3s or AACs on their everyday device.   And you can always convert it to any other lossy or lossless format in the future.

But a good quality MP3 will also be fine.   It's probably going to be transparent and nobody is going to be carefully A/B (or ABX) listening.  

In a club environment the main thing is the speakers, amps, and acoustics.   (The same is true at home too.)  If you've got a killer sound system it's going to sound killer!  ;)

Quote
Old-school DJ
I was thinking vinyl...

Re: Old-school DJ finally coming around - now, what codec to rip to?

Reply #6 –
I recommend using a SSD USB-Drive in this use case. A SSD-Drive is shock proof.
.halverhahn

Re: Old-school DJ finally coming around - now, what codec to rip to?

Reply #7 –
I recommend against bringing your only copy to work!

Sure, SSD for going out DJ-ing - and for that use, you can go MP3.  If you suspect artefacts - or some software is too slow seeking at VBR, is that a thing? - you can go back to the losslesses and re-encode.

Re: Old-school DJ finally coming around - now, what codec to rip to?

Reply #8 –
Quote from: Porcus on
I recommend against bringing your only copy to work!

This. You want a master library on a safe system with RAID and backed up to several places, including offsite or a fireproof box. Make multiple backups regularly and test the back ups occasionally.


Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

Re: Old-school DJ finally coming around - now, what codec to rip to?

Reply #9 –
MP3 CBR 320 is Ok if you only want a single library. Compatibility should be
close to flawless .

Re: Old-school DJ finally coming around - now, what codec to rip to?

Reply #10 –
Quote from: shadowking on
MP3 CBR 320 is Ok if you only want a single library. Compatibility should be
close to flawless .
I'd say also LC AAC meanwhile.
 

Re: Old-school DJ finally coming around - now, what codec to rip to?

Reply #11 –
Quote from: DVDdoug on
A lot of people make a FLAC archive even if they are playing MP3s or AACs on their everyday device.   And you can always convert it to any other lossy or lossless format in the future.

But a good quality MP3 will also be fine.   It's probably going to be transparent and nobody is going to be carefully A/B (or ABX) listening.

That bottom lines my thoughts.

FLAC for a long term high quality backup you can always rely on and MP3 for general everyday usage since it's sound quality (even at V5 (130kbps average)) is high enough and storage efficient and is pretty much guaranteed to work on just about any device that can play lossy files.
For music I suggest (using Foobar2000)... MP3 (LAME) @ V5 (130kbps). NOTE: using on AGPTEK-U3 as of Mar 18th 2021. I use 'fatsort' (on Linux) so MP3's are listed in proper order on AGPTEK-U3.

Re: Old-school DJ finally coming around - now, what codec to rip to?

Reply #12 –
Quote from: shadowking on
MP3 CBR 320 is Ok if you only want a single library. Compatibility should be
close to flawless .
With reference to these threads, if absolute highest compatibility is not required, then V0 should be able to provide greater quality than CBR 320 due to the use of the bit reservoir?

https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,99158.msg832741.html#msg832741
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,113640.msg935667.html#msg935667

In practice, nearly everybody will be unable to tell the difference, but V0 objectively provides significantly smaller files than CBR 320.

Re: Old-school DJ finally coming around - now, what codec to rip to?

Reply #13 –
Yes, VBR is "better" in that sense, so yes, CBR is for "compatibility" - possibly including the ability to search exactly and instantly.
Now if you rip to lossless, then any weird lossy can be safely overwritten later.

Also, if these are scratched or otherwise questionable CDs, then ripping to lossless increases the chances of CUETools being able to repair.
Here is the worst it repaired for me: https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,113978.new.html
Just listen. Four seconds.

Re: Old-school DJ finally coming around - now, what codec to rip to?

Reply #14 –
Quote from: sld on
Quote from: shadowking on
MP3 CBR 320 is Ok if you only want a single library. Compatibility should be
close to flawless .
With reference to these threads, if absolute highest compatibility is not required, then V0 should be able to provide greater quality than CBR 320 due to the use of the bit reservoir?

https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,99158.msg832741.html#msg832741
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,113640.msg935667.html#msg935667

In practice, nearly everybody will be unable to tell the difference, but V0 objectively provides significantly smaller files than CBR 320.

We need ABX. this is a TOS violation

Re: Old-school DJ finally coming around - now, what codec to rip to?

Reply #15 –
Quote from: NateHigs on
Quote from: sld on
Quote from: shadowking on
MP3 CBR 320 is Ok if you only want a single library. Compatibility should be
close to flawless .
With reference to these threads, if absolute highest compatibility is not required, then V0 should be able to provide greater quality than CBR 320 due to the use of the bit reservoir?

https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,99158.msg832741.html#msg832741
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,113640.msg935667.html#msg935667

In practice, nearly everybody will be unable to tell the difference, but V0 objectively provides significantly smaller files than CBR 320.

We need ABX. this is a TOS violation

Theres no TOS whatsoever.  It is an estimation and more or less what hydro MP3 WIKI states
in the V3 to CBR 320 settings. You don't need any abx to prove that V0 is on average smaller size
than 320 CBR. For efficiency VBR is the way.  For brute force approach, I may prefer 320 cbr.

Re: Old-school DJ finally coming around - now, what codec to rip to?

Reply #16 –
Quote from: sld on
Quote from: shadowking on
MP3 CBR 320 is Ok if you only want a single library. Compatibility should be
close to flawless .
With reference to these threads, if absolute highest compatibility is not required, then V0 should be able to provide greater quality than CBR 320 due to the use of the bit reservoir?

https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,99158.msg832741.html#msg832741
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,113640.msg935667.html#msg935667

In practice, nearly everybody will be unable to tell the difference, but V0 objectively provides significantly smaller files than CBR 320.

Not sure myself.  I thought in another thread halb27 said CBR 320 would yield the highest bitrates via
the reservior.  I think CBR 320 has some advantages in problems that affect VBR and also in my experience much more stable transcoding source.

Re: Old-school DJ finally coming around - now, what codec to rip to?

Reply #17 –
I recommend using EAC to rip and FLAC to encode.

The only thing that ever makes sense in storing digital audio is storing it lossless. Now I understand, that many people can't tell FLAC and MP3 apart in a blind test, either because their ears and not trained or because of a mediocre audio setup, but aside from that:
- If you were ever to edit your MP3 files, then the process of decoding and encoding adds more artefacts, thus making editing of audio files a pitfall.
- You won't ever be able to reproduce your original with MP3 files.
- Disk storage is very cheap nowadays, so why on earth would anyone choose a compromise?

And from my experience, in clubs with good sound setup, the difference between lossless and lossy is far more audible, even despite the distortion. I have witnessed several times someone, sometimes even me, guessing mp3 in the mix among a set from flac files. Now in most of the cases those were 192s, in case of 320 or a V0 it might not be so obvious, but still, why make compromises?

Anyway wish you good luck with digitalising your collection, I think it's a good, future-proof decision.