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: i want to rip some new cd, is ~150kbps really transparent ? (Read 12542 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

i want to rip some new cd, is ~150kbps really transparent ?

Hi

i have some new cds and i want to rip and encode
i have always used lame @256 to have a transparent result

i read in the forum that Apple AAC or AAC FhG are high considered

i would like to rip these cds to aac

is 150kb (related to these codec ) really transparent ?

i'm thinking to use CUETools or TAudioConverter to rip them

thanks

i want to rip some new cd, is ~150kbps really transparent ?

Reply #1 –
Why don't you try and ABX them. We can't tell you what is transparent to you.

Personally I'd rip to FLAC (or other lossless format) and go from there but not entirely sure what you're going to be doing with the end riips

i want to rip some new cd, is ~150kbps really transparent ?

Reply #2 –
Quote from: probedb on
Why don't you try and ABX them. We can't tell you what is transparent to you.

Personally I'd rip to FLAC (or other lossless format) and go from there but not entirely sure what you're going to be doing with the end riips

hi
thanks
but is there an equivalent of 256kb for acc ?
i tried to do an ABX test , but did not find a solution and about flac i use but i would like to rip and use on a mobile device

i want to rip some new cd, is ~150kbps really transparent ?

Reply #3 –
For a mobile listening I'd do 96 or 128 AAC. 256kbps is big waste of limited space. FhG AAC is high quality and easy to set up if you download the foobar encoder pack. For ripping anything that uses accuraterip is equally good.

i want to rip some new cd, is ~150kbps really transparent ?

Reply #4 –
Quote from: markanini on
For a mobile listening I'd do 96 or 128 AAC. 256kbps is big waste of limited space. FhG AAC is high quality and easy to set up if you download the foobar encoder pack. For ripping anything that uses accuraterip is equally good.

hi
thanks!
about FhG aac do you mean fhgaacenc or Fraunhofer FDK AAC ?

i want to rip some new cd, is ~150kbps really transparent ?

Reply #5 –
~150kbps? You mean 160Kbps? It's already over the 'usual' transparency bitrate (128Kbps VBR for stereo transparency), and slightly off-topic , i'd recommend using qaac encoder. yes, ~150, (or 160) has a bit more detail.
But, If you need it for a portable device, you're going to want to use no more than 192Kbps, and no less. Try 192 for safety.
Personally, I did loads of encodes with qaac, obsessive retrying at ~160kbps, the files were very precise, but i found there was not enough 'oomph' in the music, it was sharp, but not exactly 'full' - simply put, i needed just a little bit(s) more - I chose --cvbr 192 with Qaac v2.34 and i did not go back. It has more detail, drums more punchier, everything more filled - simply put, i wanted to listen to music again.
Try it, i promise you won't be disappointed.

Sorry if this post is long.
lame -V0
or
fhgaacenc --vbr 6 or 5

i want to rip some new cd, is ~150kbps really transparent ?

Reply #6 –
Quote from: francesco on
Hi

i have some new cds and i want to rip and encode
i have always used lame @256 to have a transparent result

i read in the forum that Apple AAC or AAC FhG are high considered

i would like to rip these cds to aac

is 150kb (related to these codec ) really transparent ?

i'm thinking to use CUETools or TAudioConverter to rip them

thanks


Difficult to tell, some people consider even FLAC not to be transparent ;-)
You should really test for yourself. Some think 80kbit/s is transparent enough, some really 'need' 320 kbit/s.

Why not consider flac? If you keep the flac files you can always transcode for portable use. You could also consider to use Lossywav and then compress to FLAC. That method is so good, under normal conditions no-one yet has proven that there is audible difference, but the flac files are really a lot smaller.

PS. I use flac for almost everything, but on my portable player (Clip zip+ and Sennheiser in-ears) I use ogg vorbis at 80kbit/s. For portable use this is enough for me. During running I don't need transparent quality.

i want to rip some new cd, is ~150kbps really transparent ?

Reply #7 –
Try out ogg vorbis (aotuv 6.03b encoder) with the parameters "advanced-encode-option impulse_noisetune=-15" and see if you smile.

i want to rip some new cd, is ~150kbps really transparent ?

Reply #8 –
Quote from: Flajerace on
Personally, I did loads of encodes with qaac, obsessive retrying at ~160kbps, the files were very precise, but i found there was not enough 'oomph' in the music, it was sharp, but not exactly 'full' - simply put, i needed just a little bit(s) more - I chose --cvbr 192 with Qaac v2.34 and i did not go back. It has more detail, drums more punchier, everything more filled - simply put, i wanted to listen to music again.
Try it, i promise you won't be disappointed.

Sorry if this post is long.


Given that this is Hydrogen Audio, this is of course determined by a double blind test.  It sounds like you are trying to say, "In an ABX test I was able to distinguish 192 encodes from the originals by the extra oomph and fullness and punchier drums in the 192"

i want to rip some new cd, is ~150kbps really transparent ?

Reply #9 –
Quote from: DonP on
It sounds like you are trying to say,


Sorry, that's not what i meant. I meant 192 sounded better for me than 160; of course i didn't provide any proper ABX tests to confirm that. Sorry.
lame -V0
or
fhgaacenc --vbr 6 or 5

i want to rip some new cd, is ~150kbps really transparent ?

Reply #10 –
Quote from: Flajerace on
sorry for this previous post(s), i haven't scratched my head, this is hydrogenaudio and i cant make a proclaiment about how quality is 'better' just cause i perceive it as it.
i meant really to say that i find it a lot better at that quality, that i'd recommend it, but sadly i went to bias.
mods, i don't see any option to edit the post, as its probably old, so please delete it.

tl;dr; this old post - its full of bias and no proper abx test, please delete.

lame -V0
or
fhgaacenc --vbr 6 or 5

i want to rip some new cd, is ~150kbps really transparent ?

Reply #11 –
Quote from: markanini on
For a mobile listening I'd do 96 or 128 AAC. 256kbps is big waste of limited space. FhG AAC is high quality and easy to set up if you download the foobar encoder pack. For ripping anything that uses accuraterip is equally good.

hi
may i ask you do you use he-aac or lo-aac?

thanks


Quote from: Flajerace on
~150kbps? You mean 160Kbps? It's already over the 'usual' transparency bitrate (128Kbps VBR for stereo transparency), and slightly off-topic , i'd recommend using qaac encoder. yes, ~150, (or 160) has a bit more detail.
But, If you need it for a portable device, you're going to want to use no more than 192Kbps, and no less. Try 192 for safety.
Personally, I did loads of encodes with qaac, obsessive retrying at ~160kbps, the files were very precise, but i found there was not enough 'oomph' in the music, it was sharp, but not exactly 'full' - simply put, i needed just a little bit(s) more - I chose --cvbr 192 with Qaac v2.34 and i did not go back. It has more detail, drums more punchier, everything more filled - simply put, i wanted to listen to music again.
Try it, i promise you won't be disappointed.

Sorry if this post is long.

hi
it's just confusing for me , my english is poor
for device mobile
Quote
Try 192 for safety.
lo-acc
and for my computer
Quote
yes, ~150, (or 160) has a bit more detail.
he-aac

thanks

i want to rip some new cd, is ~150kbps really transparent ?

Reply #12 –
Quote from: francesco on
Quote from: markanini on
For a mobile listening I'd do 96 or 128 AAC. 256kbps is big waste of limited space. FhG AAC is high quality and easy to set up if you download the foobar encoder pack. For ripping anything that uses accuraterip is equally good.

hi
may i ask you do you use he-aac or lo-aac?

thanks


Quote from: Flajerace on
~150kbps? You mean 160Kbps? It's already over the 'usual' transparency bitrate (128Kbps VBR for stereo transparency), and slightly off-topic , i'd recommend using qaac encoder. yes, ~150, (or 160) has a bit more detail.
But, If you need it for a portable device, you're going to want to use no more than 192Kbps, and no less. Try 192 for safety.
Personally, I did loads of encodes with qaac, obsessive retrying at ~160kbps, the files were very precise, but i found there was not enough 'oomph' in the music, it was sharp, but not exactly 'full' - simply put, i needed just a little bit(s) more - I chose --cvbr 192 with Qaac v2.34 and i did not go back. It has more detail, drums more punchier, everything more filled - simply put, i wanted to listen to music again.
Try it, i promise you won't be disappointed.

Sorry if this post is long.

hi
it's just confusing for me , my english is poor
for device mobile
Quote
Try 192 for safety.
lo-acc
and for my computer
Quote
yes, ~150, (or 160) has a bit more detail.
he-aac

thanks


he-aac at those bitrates is actually worse than lc-aac.

But as suggested further up in the thread: Rip to FLAC (or other lossless format). Keep a lossless library on you PC or a HDD. Then you will never need to re-rip your CD's, as you can simply convert straight from the lossless tracks.

i want to rip some new cd, is ~150kbps really transparent ?

Reply #13 –
Quote from: o-l-a-v on
he-aac at those bitrates is actually worse than lc-aac.

But as suggested further up in the thread: Rip to FLAC (or other lossless format). Keep a lossless library on you PC or a HDD. Then you will never need to re-rip your CD's, as you can simply convert straight from the lossless tracks.

thanks
but i want to save some space on my pc

i want to rip some new cd, is ~150kbps really transparent ?

Reply #14 –
I highly recommend ripping to lossless and then encoding down to a lower bitrate for portable listening.  To me, the benefits of ripping to a lossless archive far outweigh having space issues on a PC especially since hard drives are so inexpensive.  I'm not sure where you are located but big box retail stores in the U.S. are selling 2TB external USB hard drives for $60, 1TB hard drives for $40.  Those costs are low and make them a viable option for archiving.

Look at it this way: with lossless, you rip once.  You will rip your CDs once and never have to worry about ripping them again.  You can then encode those lossless files to other lossless formats, other lossy formats, other lossy bitrates. etc.  For example, if you go through all of this and encode files at 160kbps VBR and find out that you can't fit as many songs on your portable device as you want, you will have to go back and rip all of your CDs yet again to a lower bitrate.  If you ripped to lossless from the beginning, you would just have to convert the lossless files again which will take a lot less time (it takes my PC about 14 hours to encode 10,000+ lossless files to a new lossy format/bitrate using foobar2000).  It would literally take me months to re-rip all of those CDs.  So it's not about carrying around the lossless files for listening, it's about having a digital archive.  It's something you should really look into.

As for your other questions, you should download foobar2000 and the ABX plug-in so you can determine this yourself.  You might find that 128kbps VBR is more than good enough for your ears, you might need higher, or you could go even lower.  I personally think that 160kbps VBR is a good middle-ground as a compromise between file size and quality but I can already tell you that I would likely fail a blind ABX test at 128kbps even with my newer audio equipment.  Back when I used the iTunes AAC encoder (which is the same as qaac), I used the 128kbps VBR_constrained setting.  It was easy to access since it was built into iTunes and, on a Mac, that was key for me.  I don't use that anymore but if I did, I would stick with either 128kbps VBR_constrained or a quality setting that produced 128kbps VBR files.  I was always pleasantly surprised with the quality of Apple's AAC encoder.

I'm not going to tell you what I use now as it will only add to the confusion.  But everything I said above applies to what I would do in your situation.  Save up some money, buy an inexpensive hard drive, archive your CDs to lossless, and then conduct a blind ABX test to determine what lossy encoder and setting works best for you.

i want to rip some new cd, is ~150kbps really transparent ?

Reply #15 –
Quote from: kornchild2002 on
I highly recommend ripping to lossless and then encoding down to a lower bitrate for portable listening.  To me, the benefits of ripping to a lossless archive far outweigh having space issues on a PC especially since hard drives are so inexpensive.  I'm not sure where you are located but big box retail stores in the U.S. are selling 2TB external USB hard drives for $60, 1TB hard drives for $40.  Those costs are low and make them a viable option for archiving.

ok
i got it
i will use flac and i will encode to aac or mp3 for my portable device or for my car stereo
Quote
I would stick with either 128kbps VBR_constrained or a quality setting that produced 128kbps VBR files.

this setting for mobile device do you use ?
qaac.exe
-a128 -q1 -i
thanks!

i want to rip some new cd, is ~150kbps really transparent ?

Reply #16 –
Quote from: francesco on
this setting for mobile device do you use ?
qaac.exe
-a128 -q1 -i
thanks!


I used iTunes to encode everything (back when I used the Apple AAC encoder) so I didn't use the command line.  However, if I were to directly transfer the settings to the command line encoder (qaac.exe), it would look like this:
-v128

The lowercase -v signifies the constrained VBR setting which is what iTunes uses.  The "-a" command means average bitrate (ABR) which iTunes does not use for encoding when the VBR option is enabled.  I never messed with the -q settings as -q2 is enabled by default  Now, if you want true VBR encoded files (which may or may not yield higher quality, again, you would have to test this yourself), you will want to use this command:
-V63

That will result in files encoded using a true variable bitrate setting with bitrates averaging around 128kbps.  The difference between the two is that -v128 limits the Apple AAC encoder so that it stays around 128kbps whereas the -V63 setting lets it go way above and way beyond 128kbps so that the Apple AAC encoder is targeting a quality instead of a bitrate.  That means that some files can come out in the 150kbps range as they require a higher bitrate to maintain quality others can come out in the 100kbps range as they don't need a higher bitrate to maintain quality.

The choice is up to you which setting you want to use.  As previously stated, encode a few files to a setting using whichever encoder you want to start with and perform a few blind ABX tests.  What sounds good to our ears might (and is likely) different from what sounds good to your ears, equipment, and listening environment.  It is truly best for you to decide this on your own.  Plus, in the process of conducting blind ABX tests, you'll likely learn more.

i want to rip some new cd, is ~150kbps really transparent ?

Reply #19 –
No reason to set up commands, all popular AAC encoders are supported out of the box in the latest foobar2000.

i want to rip some new cd, is ~150kbps really transparent ?

Reply #20 –
Quote from: markanini on
No reason to set up commands, all popular AAC encoders are supported out of the box in the latest foobar2000.

hi
thanks right , i 'm seeing it right now
but i should i find the codec

i see itunes , nero ,and fhg aac encoder should be downloaded
sadly lame has only vrb setting and not cbr

thanks
 

i want to rip some new cd, is ~150kbps really transparent ?

Reply #21 –
Quote from: francesco on
sadly lame has only vrb setting and not cbr

You can create a manual preset with the following steps:
  • Select an existing LAME preset, then hit 'Add New'
  • From 'Encoder', choose 'Custom'
  • Change the 'parameters' field to this (change 320 to your chosen bitrate): -S --noreplaygain -b 320 --cbr - %d
  • Update the Display fields as you wish
  • Save the preset

Hope this helps  A screenshot is attached: