7 more CDs to go! Only 7 more!

[MichaelD]

So you say: "7 more until what, dumbass?"

And I say: "Only 7 more CDs to rip/encode and I will have ripped my entire CD collection to 256kbps stereo MP3's! Ahem, that would be approximately 280 CDs, give or take about 5. :Q

It has taken MONTHS...literally. EAC rips some CDs in five minutes flat, others take 30 minutes...you know how it goes. I'm not done yet (7 more!) but I'm figuring the total space will be right about 25GB.

*whew* What a project this has been. You know what comes next though; HT PC!!!!!

 

[ThisIsMatt]

Hope you didn't do 256 constant bitrate :\

 

[MichaelD]

Originally posted by: ThisIsMatt
Hope you didn't do 256 constant bitrate :\

What is wrong w/CBR? That VBR stuff is dicey...

CBR sounds great to me. I've burned CDs back to regular .wavs out of them and I can't hear the diff.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: MichaelD

Originally posted by: ThisIsMatt
Hope you didn't do 256 constant bitrate :\

What is wrong w/CBR? That VBR stuff is dicey...

If you say so...

 

[ThisIsMatt]

Originally posted by: MichaelD

Originally posted by: ThisIsMatt
Hope you didn't do 256 constant bitrate :\

What is wrong w/CBR? That VBR stuff is dicey...

CBR sounds great to me. I've burned CDs back to regular .wavs out of them and I can't hear the diff.

I think you just could've saved quite a bit of space, and had better sound if you went with 128-320 VBR

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: ThisIsMatt

Originally posted by: MichaelD

Originally posted by: ThisIsMatt
Hope you didn't do 256 constant bitrate :\

What is wrong w/CBR? That VBR stuff is dicey...

CBR sounds great to me. I've burned CDs back to regular .wavs out of them and I can't hear the diff.

I think you just could've saved quite a bit of space, and had better sound if you went with 128-320 VBR

Yeah. I think you should start all over.

 

[LukFilm]

Originally posted by: ThisIsMatt

Originally posted by: MichaelD

Originally posted by: ThisIsMatt
Hope you didn't do 256 constant bitrate :\

What is wrong w/CBR? That VBR stuff is dicey...

CBR sounds great to me. I've burned CDs back to regular .wavs out of them and I can't hear the diff.

I think you just could've saved quite a bit of space, and had better sound if you went with 128-320 VBR

In today's world of 100's of GBs... WHO CARES!

 

[MichaelD]

Originally posted by: ThisIsMatt

Originally posted by: MichaelD

Originally posted by: ThisIsMatt
Hope you didn't do 256 constant bitrate :\

What is wrong w/CBR? That VBR stuff is dicey...

CBR sounds great to me. I've burned CDs back to regular .wavs out of them and I can't hear the diff.

I think you just could've saved quite a bit of space, and had better sound if you went with 128-320 VBR

*shrug* You probably have more experience than I do w/this stuff. When I first got into it, I tried the same CD at 160, 192 and 256. I can definitely hear the diff b/t 160 and 192. The diff b/t 256 and 192 is subtle, at best, but I wanted really good quality. Someday, when I have oh, 5 months I don't know what to do with, I'll try the VBR. Thanks, though.

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: MichaelD
So you say: "7 more until what, dumbass?"

And I say: "Only 7 more CDs to rip/encode and I will have ripped my entire CD collection to 256kbps stereo MP3's! Ahem, that would be approximately 280 CDs, give or take about 5. :Q

It has taken MONTHS...literally. EAC rips some CDs in five minutes flat, others take 30 minutes...you know how it goes. I'm not done yet (7 more!) but I'm figuring the total space will be right about 25GB.

*whew* What a project this has been. You know what comes next though; HT PC!!!!!

What kind of program takes 30 minutes to rip a CD???

I just re-riped my 80 CD collection with Windows Media Player 9 using the new VBR format of WMA (average of about 128kbps). The sound is better than the older WMP7 format using CBR of 192kbps and I was able to rip all 80 CDs in two afternoons.

Ok, I'll grant that the quality is probably not quite as good as yours, but I'll bet most people can't tell the difference with normal computer speakers.

*shrug*

Total space taken up, 4.1GB, small enough that I was able to put it all on my notebook as well.

Hopper

 

[MercenaryForHire]

That isn't K++ I see hiding in your tray there, is it?

Let's hope the RIAA doesn't decide to knock on your door anytime soon.

- M4H

 

[ThisIsMatt]

Originally posted by: LukFilm

Originally posted by: ThisIsMatt

Originally posted by: MichaelD

Originally posted by: ThisIsMatt
Hope you didn't do 256 constant bitrate :\

What is wrong w/CBR? That VBR stuff is dicey...

CBR sounds great to me. I've burned CDs back to regular .wavs out of them and I can't hear the diff.

I think you just could've saved quite a bit of space, and had better sound if you went with 128-320 VBR

In today's world of 100's of GBs... WHO CARES!

Hard Disks:
Total/Free: 169.51/18.48GB
Total/Free space on:
C: 37.27GB/1.43GB
D: 55.91GB/1.66GB
F: 68.36GB/13.08GB
G: 7.97GB/2.31GB

My wallet

 

[Eli]

There is nothing wrong with CBR, don't listen to these fools.

I don't like VBR either.

I burn all my CDs to 256k also.

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: LukFilm

Originally posted by: ThisIsMatt

Originally posted by: MichaelD
CBR sounds great to me. I've burned CDs back to regular .wavs out of them and I can't hear the diff.

I think you just could've saved quite a bit of space, and had better sound if you went with 128-320 VBR

In today's world of 100's of GBs... WHO CARES!

When you've got an older Dell notebook that only has 7GB of space free on the hard drive and you want to rip your entire collection to the notebook.



Hopper

 

[Grasshopper27]

VBR buys you quality at lower bit rates. At higher bit rates, it seems to matter a lot less.

Before re-ripping my entire collection a few weeks ago, I tested a few tracks at various bit rates both CBR and VBR.

Yea, there is a difference between 128kb and 256kb, but not enough to justify twice the space in my personal opinion.

VBR 128kb average sounds as good as 192kb CBR, sometimes better on comedy tracks like George Carlin CDs.

*shrug*

Anyway, I still can't figure what took Micheal so long to rip those CDs, sounds like a defective ripping program to me.

Hopper

 

[KnickNut3]

If you decide to use (or at least try) VBR, you can just use the CBRs to encode. Since LAME VBR rarely goes above 256 anyway, it'll be the same as 128-320 VBR. Use RazorLame, throw all your files in there at once, choose not to delete source files if you want, and then overnight you'll have the same quality with about half the space. Hopefully .

EDIT: Use configuration --r3mix. I forget the site but some guy found the overall best configuration, and if you put that in, it'll automatically do all of it.

 

[kami]

What is wrong w/CBR? That VBR stuff is dicey...

Nothin, but some LAME VBR would've given equal quality w/ quite a bit less space Not that it matters when gigabytes cost mere cents nowadays...

 

[MichaelD]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
That isn't K++ I see hiding in your tray there, is it?

Let's hope the RIAA doesn't decide to knock on your door anytime soon.

- M4H

Ahahahahahahah!!!!!! That's funny. There's a reason why I don't use IM. There's a reason why I don't use Kazza, Morpheus or any of that crap. It leaves you wide open for a lot of baaad things.

I own the CD for 99% of every MP3 I have.

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27
VBR buys you quality at lower bit rates. At higher bit rates, it seems to matter a lot less.

Before re-ripping my entire collection a few weeks ago, I tested a few tracks at various bit rates both CBR and VBR.

Yea, there is a difference between 128kb and 256kb, but not enough to justify twice the space in my personal opinion.

VBR 128kb average sounds as good as 192kb CBR, sometimes better on comedy tracks like George Carlin CDs.

*shrug*

Anyway, I still can't figure what took Micheal so long to rip those CDs, sounds like a defective ripping program to me.

Hopper

actually eac with the lame encoder is considered to be the best way to rip mp3's if you have quality in mind.

If you really want to read about ripping check out the faq's at www.r3mix.net

 

[MichaelD]

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27
VBR buys you quality at lower bit rates. At higher bit rates, it seems to matter a lot less.

Before re-ripping my entire collection a few weeks ago, I tested a few tracks at various bit rates both CBR and VBR.

Yea, there is a difference between 128kb and 256kb, but not enough to justify twice the space in my personal opinion.

VBR 128kb average sounds as good as 192kb CBR, sometimes better on comedy tracks like George Carlin CDs.

*shrug*

Anyway, I still can't figure what took Micheal so long to rip those CDs, sounds like a defective ripping program to me.

Hopper

actually eac with the lame encoder is considered to be the best way to rip mp3's if you have quality in mind.

If you really want to read about ripping check out the faq's at www.r3mix.net

Thank you! The process I use is lengthy, but the results are worth it. I rip w/ EAC to 44KHz/16-bit stereo. Then, I encode with LAME using the RazorLAME front-end.

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: Turin39789
actually eac with the lame encoder is considered to be the best way to rip mp3's if you have quality in mind.

If you really want to read about ripping check out the faq's at www.r3mix.net

*shrugs shoulders*

You spend months ripping, I spend two afternoons...

Depends on how much that last 5% quality is really worth to you. It is a personal opinon, so don't think I'm putting you down here, to each his own.

Yes, I can tell the difference between the original CD and the copy, but it is "close enough" for my own personal taste.

Besides, I wanted the files small enough to fit on my notebook.

Hopper

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: MichaelD
Thank you! The process I use is lengthy, but the results are worth it. I rip w/ EAC to 44KHz/16-bit stereo. Then, I encode with LAME using the RazorLAME front-end.

Michael,

If you don't mind my asking...

If quality is REALLY that imporant to you, why not consider the lossless compression that WMP9 offers? It cuts the space a CD takes by about half, but is perfect quality and restores to the original when burned back to a CD. It also takes just a few minutes per CD to make the copy.

With the low cost of hard drives, why not? Save yourself all that time and complexity and get a perfect copy to boot.

Hopper

 

[abaez]

I rip in Secure mode for EAC with lame of course.. Takes about 30 min per cd but I know its great quality. What I do is just put eac to rip before I leave my apt somewhere. Taken me a few months but I'm almost done.

 

[Eli]

Why does everyone use LAME?

The Fraunhoffer codec is the best.

 

[kuk]

Originally posted by: Eli
Why does everyone use LAME?

The Fraunhoffer codec is the best.

You're just asking for a cyberwedgie, aren't you?

 

[Gillbot]

My father in law has ripped his entire CD collection of more than 500 cd's to HDD's He has computers running just as HDD servers for storage! I should have never gotten him that SMC 7004BR