CDs ? MP3s?

lazland wrote: I did a similar poll a little while back, and CD came out top on that. I listen almost exclusively to MP3 legal these days, with most of my CD collection ripped to the PC. That's why I only had 35 on the PA Top 100 thread in vinyl/CD - most of my collection now is downloaded.

If you purchased the files through legal channels then of course they're part of your collection.

The vast majority of my music is on CD which I convert to ATRAC3plus for my Walkman (64mps). I spend most of my time listening on my Walkman and computer through SonicStage. I also play the odd CD every now and again and listen through headphones -70% or speakers (30%). My Walkman fits my lifestyle perfectly and have none of the reported problems with SonicStage - perhaps I am not as impatient as some folk.  On rare occassions I'll play my old vinyls but I need to invest in a decent stylus - my daughter decided my old one was a nice toy. Grrr!

Edited by limeyrob - June 08 2009 at 15:17

Slartibartfast wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: Most often? I think I listen to MP3 almost exclusively these days. All legal of course ... About 90% is my own CD collection ripped to MP3, the others are mostly from eMusic.com, but also from Amazon MP3 (they opened in Germany about two months ago). I rarely ever listen to CD directly anymore ... but I still listen to vinyl, and DVD-Audio. You may have mentioned this in another thread, but what bitrate do you like.  I do WMA and I've heard that a WMA can be done at half the bit rate of any MP3 bit rate and you get the same quality (might just be Microsoft propaganda or something).

I think that WMA might still have some advantages over MP3 at really low bitrates (e.g. a 64kbit WMA will sound better than a 64kbit MP3). But at this level of compression both formats can't compete with the original signal.

I use CDex to rip the CDs to MP3 ... it uses the LAME encoder, and I configure it to a variable bitrate at highest quality settings (q=0). Usually that results in average bitrates around 256kbit. I wouldn't recommend using any less with MP3 ... with WMA I think I would also use 256kbit, mainly to be on the safe.

Slartibartfast wrote: SaltyJon wrote: I agree with Slartibartfast, in that I listen to my collection of CDs as WMA files.  Searching through my Zune software is much easier than searching through all my CDs, and while at school my mp3 player is what keeps me sane walking to and from classes.  I like my Zune.  My first player a Creative Labs one, had a hard drive failure.  My Toshiba Gigabeat filled up and starting misbehaving, plus their support was terrible.  It's still around for in pinch.  Zune's got enough capacity that is should last me for a while.  So cool to be able to carry my whole damn collection around with me.

Agreed.  Of all the varied mp3 players I've tried, iPod was annoying (as is the iTunes software IMO), several others weren't very nice feature-wise, then I found the Zune, did pretty much everything I wanted and was simple to navigate. 

A combination of CD and MP3, though I'm starting to listen to more vinyl now too.

^ " imagine re-ripping all of it at a higher bit rate? That'd be interminable torture"

This is why I am ripping them in a high bitrate - I would hate to have to do it all over again. At 256kbit you can't distinguish them from the original (this has been proven by many independent tests - I don't believe anyone who says they can hear a difference), so this is the optimum middle ground between file size and quality for me.

So ... do yourself a favor and never ever buy decent speakers ... you would be in for interminable torture, both when listening to the music and having to rip the CDs again.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ " imagine re-ripping all of it at a higher bit rate? That'd be interminable torture" This is why I am ripping them in a high bitrate - I would hate to have to do it all over again. At 256kbit you can't distinguish them from the original (this has been proven by many independent tests - I don't believe anyone who says they can hear a difference), so this is the optimum middle ground between file size and quality for me. So ... do yourself a favor and never ever buy decent speakers ... you would be in for interminable torture, both when listening to the music and having to rip the CDs again.

I work with these



A billion times better than the laptop's built-in things. If I ever decide to get some high-quality system instead, well, I'll just play my CDs. Heck knows I'm NOT going to rip 1,200 compact discs again.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ " imagine re-ripping all of it at a higher bit rate? That'd be interminable torture" This is why I am ripping them in a high bitrate - I would hate to have to do it all over again. At 256kbit you can't distinguish them from the original (this has been proven by many independent tests - I don't believe anyone who says they can hear a difference), .

mmmm, granted its hard to tell when you skip between tracks but run 2 side by side and switch A/B and you'll notice the difference. Independent experts? 256kbps that's the sample rate conversion provided by Amazon and many of the big music sites. I provide my tunes at 320kbps and you can notice the difference but it is subtle and again it really need to be done at A/B switching level on a good system. There's a better overall "soundstage". The reason the big companies compress to 256 is because it is a compromise between quality / bandwidth and download size (their costs), otherwise they would provide higher bitrate samples. But "most" listeners on most sound systems wouldn't hear the difference.

If you are one of those that can't hear the difference then there's no problem. Unfortunately some people can hear the difference. Analogue recording was infinity-bit and digital recording is by virtue of the process harsh. Noise in the form of "dither" is even added during the recording process to hide the underlying digital distortion that occurs on the way to "red book CD standard" but you can only hear this on really quiet passages of music. (well I've only heard it in quiet passages)

Listeners are being persuaded that 256 is the norm... but when your recording at sample rates of 44,100 to 96,000 the relative "BIt Rates" (i.e. how much data per second is used to carry the signal) you can hear the difference. The relative proportions are 0.256 Mbit/sec (MP3) compared to 1.35 Mbit/sec (CD) some 5 times more information. That musical information is there for a reason. It benefits the recording and the listeners pleasure. It's not there for the benefit of the CD player.

Sorry to be nerdy :)

That said I generally rip my CDs to my iPod therefore MP3s or my Nokia phone which allows .wavs.

Q


Edited by Q6 - June 09 2009 at 03:19

Q6 wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ " imagine re-ripping all of it at a higher bit rate? That'd be interminable torture" This is why I am ripping them in a high bitrate - I would hate to have to do it all over again. At 256kbit you can't distinguish them from the original (this has been proven by many independent tests - I don't believe anyone who says they can hear a difference), . mmmm, granted its hard to tell when you skip between tracks but run 2 side by side and switch A/B and you'll notice the difference. Independent experts? 256kbps that's the sample rate conversion provided by Amazon and many of the big music sites. I provide my tunes at 320kbps and you can notice the difference but it is subtle and again it really need to be done at A/B switching level on a good system. There's a better overall "soundstage". The reason the big companies compress to 256 is because it is a compromise between quality / bandwidth and download size (their costs), otherwise they would provide higher bitrate samples. But "most" listeners on most sound systems wouldn't hear the difference.

http://www.geocities.com/altbinariessoundsmusicclassical/mp3test.html

It's not just me ... if you think you can hear a difference then I won't argue about that ... *personally* I think you're imagining it, but of course I'm not you, so I can't know.

Q6 wrote: If you are one of those that can't hear the difference then there's no problem. Unfortunately some people can hear the difference. Analogue recording was infinity-bit and digital recording is by virtue of the process harsh. Noise in the form of "dither" is even added during the recording process to hide the underlying digital distortion that occurs on the way to "red book CD standard" but you can only hear this on really quiet passages of music. (well I've only heard it in quiet passages)

Analog recording is far from being "infinite" ... especially when the result is pressed onto a piece of plastic with a metal stamp. Vinyl particles (clusters of molecules) are introducing effects very much like digital quantisation.

Q6 wrote: Listeners are being persuaded that 256 is the norm... but when your recording at sample rates of 44,100 to 96,000 the relative "BIt Rates" (i.e. how much data per second is used to carry the signal) you can hear the difference. The relative proportions are 0.256 Mbit/sec (MP3) compared to 1.35 Mbit/sec (CD) some 5 times more information. That musical information is there for a reason. It benefits the recording and the listeners pleasure. It's not there for the benefit of the CD player. Sorry to be nerdy :) That said I generally rip my CDs to my iPod therefore MP3s or my Nokia phone which allows .wavs. Q

I rip the files to a VBR format. This means that the encoder at all times is free to choose the appropriate bitrate from a range between 64kbit and 320kbit. This is also what Amazon MP3 uses (except for some albums which are in 256kbit constant bit rate).

BTW: The musical information that is ommitted in the MP3 file is not audible to most people. There are some conditions that break this mechanism, like for example when you're suffering from a loss of hearing on one side.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ " imagine re-ripping all of it at a higher bit rate? That'd be interminable torture" This is why I am ripping them in a high bitrate - I would hate to have to do it all over again. At 256kbit you can't distinguish them from the original (this has been proven by many independent tests - I don't believe anyone who says they can hear a difference), so this is the optimum middle ground between file size and quality for me. So ... do yourself a favor and never ever buy decent speakers ... you would be in for interminable torture, both when listening to the music and having to rip the CDs again.

Well, I'm pretty much doomed at this point.  But you're absolutely right.  I've hooked my player up to my main stereo system and it didn't sound pretty, particularly as you crank up the volume.  But plugging in my best headphones doesn't have the same effect.  Car stereo, OK.  Computer speakers, OK.  CD's sound great no matter what I play them on. 

I tried sticking an LP in my car CD player, oh never mind.   I'm probably losing my mind along with my hearing or something.