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: Want to start my collection the right way (Read 5043 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Want to start my collection the right way

The time has finally come where I am able to put together a collection of music the right way. I just don't know what that is. Just so you know where I am coming from, I am a purist. I don't want any downloaded 128k mp3 files. My goal is to start from brand new or verifiable unscratched cd and first create a lossless file. I will then make a copy at a high rate mp3 (192k+). The lossless will be used for my home system and the mp3 for on the go stuff. I do not care about how much space all this will take, a couple of 1T hard drives will take care of that. What I want to know is the following:

what is the best cd reader (does it really matter)
what is the best lossless format (i am thinking flac)
what is the best software to rip with (i have used eac)
what is the best all around lame mp3 bitrate vbr or cbr
any other advice you think would help

Want to start my collection the right way

Reply #1 –
Quote from: jws66m on
what is the best cd reader (does it really matter)
what is the best lossless format (i am thinking flac)
what is the best software to rip with (i have used eac)
what is the best all around lame mp3 bitrate vbr or cbr
any other advice you think would help


As long as you use test&copy or accurate rip the CD Reader won't impact the rendered files. It may have a BIG impact on speed and/or ease of use. I use the drives that came in my various laptops and have no issues.

I use FLAC

I use EAC

I use VBR (v2)

The advise I always give to people starting is to (A) tag everything "correctly" from the start and (B) start by ripping CDs/LPs you listen to frequently. Everyone "plans" on ripping "everything", but I find most people do not need "everything". Start with the "good" stuff.

Oh, and the "condition" of the CDs only matters if you can't rip them accurately. I have accurately ripped some pretty beat up discs, so I wouldn't worry about "new" or "verified" CDs.

Want to start my collection the right way

Reply #3 –
Quote from: jws66m on
SNIP
what is the best lossless format (i am thinking flac)
SNIP
what is the best all around lame mp3 bitrate vbr or cbr
any other advice you think would help


Since all lossless formats are lossless, the "best" is really a question of the easiest to use for your, in your circumstanes. FLAC is open source (good), but not natively supported on iPods (could be bad). There doesn't seem to be more than about 10% difference in disk space requirement amongst the various options, and since you can convert perfectly from one lossless format to another, this is not a question you need spend much time over (subject to transferrability of tags).

The standard advice is that you need to test for yourself what lossy setting is transparent for your ears and your music (and equipment and circumstances), but until you've done the ABX testing, Lame V2 is good enough for most.

As nightfishing said, get the tags right first time. If you've got well tagged lossless files, everything else can be changed quickly and with little effort. There are a couple of threads on tagging at the moment (esp. on organizing classical music); the best thing you can do is spend time with pencil and paper planning your tagging scheme.

Have fun.

Want to start my collection the right way

Reply #4 –
I'm no expert, but I've recently gone through a similar decision process and transitioned from a total newb to an "intermediate" music collector.
Quote
what is the best cd reader (does it really matter)

-Not sure about this. Something that supports all the EAC error-detection/correction/secure ripping functions.
Quote
what is the best lossless format (i am thinking flac)

-FLAC is obviously good, but not if you use iTunes & iPod, which don't natively support it. (I highly recommend both for obvious reasons, and the relatively obscure alternatives just aren't as appealing IMO). I would recommend using ALAC which compresses almost as well as FLAC, and is supported by the mainstream. You can always convert losslessly to flac/other if you change your mind later for some reason.
Quote
what is the best software to rip with (i have used eac)

-From what I've read EAC is the best. I'm not sure if it can rip straight to ALAC. You may be able to configure EAC to do this if you have the appropriate ALAC encoder.
Quote
what is the best all around lame mp3 bitrate vbr or cbr

-Since you're using mp3 for portability/compatibility reasons I HIGHLY recommend the lame "V0" vbr setting, which is designed to produce the most transparent sound without just maxing out the bitrate at 320kbps (v2-v8 are just deliberately lowering quality and filesize beneath the "optimal" v0 setting). Also, if you can really hear the difference between v0 and 320 mp3, then you are probably autistic.
Hope this helps. 

Want to start my collection the right way

Reply #5 –
"(v2-v8 are just deliberately lowering quality and filesize beneath the "optimal" v0 setting"

This is WRONG !

Where do you get your info from ? The VBR scale has code level tunings for quality. V2 which is based on Dibrom's old --preset standard was going for quality first, bitrate second and now the rest of the settings incorporate those tunings. Today you don't have much solid cases for recommending -V0 over -V3, -V2 - many are struggling with -V5..its a personal matter.. For portability V0 is an issue on heavy music as some stuff gets close to 300 k because mp3 is horrid at encoding > 16k content. V3 will give high quality and can encode to 18600khz certain signals while keeping things in the 160..190k range. Also on some rare samples 320k is better than vbr.

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?ti...quiet_listening

Want to start my collection the right way

Reply #6 –
Quote from: JtFine on
I would recommend using ALAC which compresses almost as well as FLAC, and is supported by the mainstream. You can always convert losslessly to flac/other if you change your mind later for some reason.

FLAC is supported by the mainstream, as far as lossless codecs go, which aren't very mainstream to start with.  If there is a lossless codec out there that even comes close to being ubiquitous, it'd be FLAC.
    Being compatible with iPods shouldn't really be a concern for a lossless collection.  Chances are, the music is going to be transcoded to a supported lossy format anyway.

Quote
You may be able to configure EAC to do this if you have the appropriate ALAC encoder.

I don't think there is an encoder for ALAC outside of the iTunes one.

Want to start my collection the right way

Reply #7 –
I may be off-base here, but from what I understand, these switches roughly correspond to bitrate, which corresponds with quality:

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lame
-V3 --vbr-new (~175 kbps),
-V2 --vbr-new (~190 kbps),
-V1 --vbr-new (~210 kbps) or
-V0 --vbr-new (~230 kbps)

wouldn't a lower bitrate of the same codec be less transparent?

Want to start my collection the right way

Reply #8 –
Quote from: JtFine on
I may be off-base here, but from what I understand, these switches roughly correspond to bitrate, which corresponds with quality:

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lame
-V3 --vbr-new (~175 kbps),
-V2 --vbr-new (~190 kbps),
-V1 --vbr-new (~210 kbps) or
-V0 --vbr-new (~230 kbps)

wouldn't a lower bitrate of the same codec be less transparent?


Technically lower quality, But less transparent is totaly subjective. Also its not just a bitrate issue as different Vx setting trigger different tunings.

Want to start my collection the right way

Reply #9 –
Quote from: JtFine on
wouldn't a lower bitrate of the same codec be less transparent?


Transparency is either yes or no. Different settings may be transparent for more or fewer people, for more or less demanding music, in noisier or quieter situations. But if someone can't tell the difference between the lossy encode and the .WAV, then it's transparent for that person in that situation, absolutely.

Me, I can't ABX Lame V5 on harpsichord. But I'm old. There are a couple of people who've posted ABX logs showing they can tell the difference between .WAV and Lame at the highest settings, on relatively ordinary music. There are killer samples that defeat Lame at all settings, and I think for other lossy codecs too. What a higher bit-rate gets you is a decreasing chance of getting artifacts -- not a subtle increase of quality.

Have fun

Want to start my collection the right way

Reply #10 –
So would this mean that V0 (~230 kbps) has (slightly) less chance of getting artifacts than V2 (~190 kbps)? I think this is what I meant instead of "quality" or "transparency" which have such highly-specific definitions.

Want to start my collection the right way

Reply #11 –
Quote from: JtFine on
So would this mean that V0 (~230 kbps) has (slightly) less chance of getting artifacts than V2 (~190 kbps)? I think this is what I meant instead of "quality" or "transparency" which have such highly-specific definitions.


IMO this is the wrong way to look at it (even though it may be technically correct). When you say to yourself that there is a fewer probability of artifacts, you discount the fact that these artifacts may not be audible to you. The key point is that IF AN ARTIFACT IS NOT AUDIBLE, I CAN ASSUME, FOR LISTENING PURPOSES, THAT IT DOESN'T EXIST.

I use V5 because i can't ABX even the killer samples from it. Obviously, someone with better ears will cringe at the sound of my MP3s. But not me, which is why i gratefully accept the space savings that come with choosing an appropriate V level instead of blindly using -b320 or -V0.
 

Want to start my collection the right way

Reply #12 –
Quote from: kanak on
Quote from: JtFine on

So would this mean that V0 (~230 kbps) has (slightly) less chance of getting artifacts than V2 (~190 kbps)? I think this is what I meant instead of "quality" or "transparency" which have such highly-specific definitions.


IMO this is the wrong way to look at it (even though it may be technically correct). When you say to yourself that there is a fewer probability of artifacts, you discount the fact that these artifacts may not be audible to you. The key point is that IF AN ARTIFACT IS NOT AUDIBLE, I CAN ASSUME, FOR LISTENING PURPOSES, THAT IT DOESN'T EXIST.



I think that's my bad -- JtFine is responding to my post, and I *should* have said "less chance of getting artifacts *that you can hear, if you have very good hearing or or very difficult music*."

I think the answer to JtFine is that, at this level of concern, you just have to test for yourself. I don't have much in the way of high frequencies left, and I deliberately have NOT trained myself to hear artifacts, so I certainly can't give advice from personal knowledge. Have a look at "ABX Tests" under "Listening Tests" in the Wiki.

And have fun