Poll: Into which format are you ripping your CD's? (choose closest value)

[MacRumors]

Vote: Poll: Into which format are you ripping your CD's? (choose closest value) (http://www.macpolls.com/?poll_id=187&ref=forums.macrumors.com)

[Doctor Q]

I'm curious to see what people are using.

[Xcyridus]

I tried 128 AAC first but I could tell the difference between it and a CD in a blind test. I like 192 AAC a lot more.

[vniow]

160 AAC.

[AmbitiousLemon]

i haven't ripped a CD since AAC became available mostly because I am unsure of what to use that would be comparable in quality to what I use now.

I use VBR (highest) mp3 with target at 192. The files are pretty small but sound good. I can't tell the difference between these and something ripped at higher bit rates. But I can tell the difference between a 192 and 160 mp3.

128 bit rate AAC files are good but I don't think they sound as good as my mp3s (though they are a lot smaller). Since you can't use vbr with aac i'm not sure what would be best. if i ripped at 192 they would be larger than my mp3s (since the mp3s use vbr). so the next logical choice would be 160 aac. but i have yet to check to see if these are smaller and sound the same as 192 vbr mp3s.

so i am very interested in what people here have to say about this (though so far it looks like most people are choosing very low quality files if they use aac). maybe you folks using 160 aac could explain your choice.

also has anyone used AAChoo?

[vniow]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
so i am very interested in what people here have to say about this (though so far it looks like most people are choosing very low quality files if they use aac). maybe you folks using 160 aac could explain your choice.

I really can't tell the difference between a well encoded 192 MP3 and a CD so when I decided to re-rip my CDs, I remembered that the previews I heard from the Store (128 AAC) were acceptable by my ears but I would have gladly went for a higher bitrate if the option were there....

But anyhoo, when I decided to re-rip mine, I wanted a good balance between size and quality so I chose 160 AAC since the file sizes were on average 1MB smaller than 192 MP3s and they sounded the same to me, so I got the same (if not higher) quality than the MP3s they replaced and smaller file sizes.

[arn]

all AAC files are "VBR". The bit rate is a sort of target bitrate.

If you do a "get info" on your mp3 VBR files in iTunes, you'll see the actual effective bitrate (avg) of a particular song.

arn

[Rower_CPU]

AAC 128 sounds good enough to me.

[AmbitiousLemon]

Originally posted by arn
all AAC files are "VBR". The bit rate is a sort of target bitrate.

If you do a "get info" on your mp3 VBR files in iTunes, you'll see the actual effective bitrate (avg) of a particular song.

arn

i never noticed this. apparently my vbr 192 files are ~270 effective. i guess this is why the 128 aac files dont sound very good to me, im used to much higher quality. ive been planning on ripping some files at 160 aac and 192 aac and comparing file sizes and sound quality.

[Anne]

160 aac for most of my music, but 192 aac for my classical music, just to be on the safe side. (That's the music I'm really picky about.)

So far, that's working great for me. I might have been able to go lower, but it's not worth the trouble to re-rip, since I have a decent amount of space left on my ipod. And wow - my classical collection sounds spectacular on the ipod, compared to the tapes I'm used to making for my walkman. Blows me away. (and this is with the earbuds that came with the ipod. one day if I buy nicer headphones, I fear that I might float away with delight!) :D

[punter]

i use 160aac.

I heard that "most people" couldn't tell the difference between 128aac and cd quality, so I figured I'd be one notch better then that! File size isn't a concern.

For my equipment (imac hooked up thru headphone to red/white cables in stereo) I can't tell the difference between 160 and cd.

But I don't rip much. If I have the original cd I normally play off that... so what the hell am I posting here for? :s

[Hawthorne]

What about:

"I still use 8-tracks, you insensitive clod!" ;)

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by Anne
160 aac for most of my music, but 192 aac for my classical music, just to be on the safe side. (That's the music I'm really picky about.)

So far, that's working great for me. I might have been able to go lower, but it's not worth the trouble to re-rip, since I have a decent amount of space left on my ipod. And wow - my classical collection sounds spectacular on the ipod, compared to the tapes I'm used to making for my walkman. Blows me away. (and this is with the earbuds that came with the ipod. one day if I buy nicer headphones, I fear that I might float away with delight!) :D

A good pair of earphones makes a phenominal difference. I have a very nice pair, and the first thing that I did when I got my iPod was to compare the sound through each. The difference was incredible. I highly recommend getting a really nice set of earphones if that's how you like to listen to your music. (Personally, I try to avoid earphones when I can. I like to let the sound fill the space around me...)


90...

[jhershauer]

I had already ripped my CD collection into MP3s, some at 192, and some at 256 VBR, before iTunes 4 came out. I'm not planning to get rid of these while I experiment with various AAC formats.

I have re-ripped a bunch of CDs in 160 AAC using Quicktime Pro (best setting) to make more room on my new iPod. So far, it sounds OK, but I haven't done any critical listening. Note that if you use iTunes for ripping AACs, you're only getting the "good" Quicktime setting.

[Bengt77]

I used to use 256k/sec (VBR) MP3 at the highest quality. Now I use 160k/sec AAC. I wish I had more control over the output to AAC in iTunes. I know there are shareware applications that fill the gap (most notably AAChoo (http://www.ovolab.com/aachoo/)), but I want that control in iTunes itself.

Anyway, I really can't tell the difference between these two settings I (have) use(d).

[wheezl]

Ogg/Vorbis. Also check out Flac for lossless encoding for archival purposes.

[OutThere]

I'm still stuck in OS 9 and without making an extra effort with other programs I still have to rip with iTunes Mp3, 192 VBR

[yzedf]

Ogg Vorbis

Nice small file size, open format, sounds better than mp3 at same bitrate, and most of my friends don't "borrow" them because their iPod's won't play them :D

[MorganX]

I use 128 AAC with great sound, but I'm going to hold of on more AAC. I have an Xbox connected to the home theatre. With the new Music Mixer, I may want to use it to play my media files. It's digital out sounds great and is very convenient.

If the new super iPod dock with remote (wireless?) is good I may get an iPod for the home theatre instead and return to AAC. I do like it better than MP3.

[eric_n_dfw]

128AAC but I've got a couple of CD's that I'm going to re-rip at 160. Most sound awesome though.

A little OT, but is there any way to play non protected AAC ".m4a" files on Windows 2000? QuickTime 6 doesn't work and I can't seem to find any player out there for them.

[Warren]

Done about 100 cds in 160AAC. Been totally happy with it so far. I can hear very little if any difference fromt he original file.
Plus they are good for streaming. My 192 and 256 mp3s studder sometimes when I stream my collection and listen at work.

[barbaloot]

MP3 128 is what I use, but that's only cuz that's what my Clie will play.

[bertinman]

gotta love ogg, if not just for the name :P

- bert

[wdlove]

I have no idea what those values mean! :( We use Toast 5 to burn a CD! :cool:

[peterjhill]

I have ripped most of my collection in 128AAC, but have ripped some things, like the Matrix soundtracks in 320AAC. Some of the songs have sooo much going on in them, that I could definitely tell the difference.

[CMillerERAU]

I love AAC but I still like to use 160 VBR MP3 for one reason: multi-processor compatibilbity. My Dual 1GHz gets something like 12x AAc but 18x MP3, perhaps they'll add MP compatibility soon. BTW, I remember an old thread talking about encoding speed, do any of you MP/1Ghz out there get simlilar results? I have a Combo Drive, not Super unfortunately :-(

[tazo]

192 MP3

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by CMillerERAU
I love AAC but I still like to use 160 VBR MP3 for one reason: multi-processor compatibilbity. My Dual 1GHz gets something like 12x AAc but 18x MP3, perhaps they'll add MP compatibility soon. BTW, I remember an old thread talking about encoding speed, do any of you MP/1Ghz out there get simlilar results? I have a Combo Drive, not Super unfortunately :-( I don't think AAC encoding isn't MP aware, it's just more complex. My Dual G4 500 is much faster at AAC encoding than my Single G4 400 here at work. (more so than 100 Mhz difference I think)

[MacFan25]

I re-ripped all my CDs from MP3 to 128 AAC. I think they sound really good! :D

[MrMacMan]

Omg, where is my Flaw-less Ripping?

Comeon, atleast add a 320 Bit-Rate in there!

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by MrMacman
Omg, where is my Flaw-less Ripping? It's called AIFF or WAV - uncompressed. ;)

[King Cobra]

64Kbps AAC

Over 50 CDs.

[MrMacMan]

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
It's called AIFF or WAV - uncompressed. ;)

Acually on occasion I acually use flawless ripping, but not AIFF or WAV they are bulky and overall a waste, there are other compressions out there that give you CD quality for a slightly smaller file.

[crapple33]

yeah, i gotta agree. i'd do wav just for the quality, but it's a bit bulky. gotta go with higest quality vbr ogg vorbis. virtually indistinguishable from cd. now all i need is an ipod plugin...

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by MrMacman
Acually on occasion I acually use flawless ripping, but not AIFF or WAV they are bulky and overall a waste, there are other compressions out there that give you CD quality for a slightly smaller file. Ah, but the true audiophile would never use compressed audio formats! Reel-to-reel tape I tell you!

If you couldn't tell, I'm being sarcastic. Referring to the types of people who hook up osiliosopes to their equipment and use $100/foot speaker cable.

[crapple33]

well, i wouldn't say i'm a true audiophile (i must admit though, i have been tempted by these new supercd things), i still think that, though people say it's not possible, i can definitely tell the difference between even 320 kbps aac and wav. with ogg vorbis, there's no difference at all.

[senseibiz]

inported all my cd's at 128 aac. took a while but i think its worth it.

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
AAC 128 sounds good enough to me.

same here.

1. i'm not audio expert.

2. my 5 gig ipod is too small for my collection, so the thought of switching from 160 (mostly) and some 192 mp3s to 128 aac sounds good to me, filesize wise...

3. if i REALLY need the quality, i re-rip in aiff for a video or whatever i need it for.

4. my ipod has a little crack in the headphones port and i get a bit of crap sound anyways (sometimes), so 128 vs 160 is least of my concerns.

5. gotta have a 5th reason.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
5. gotta have a 5th reason.

5. Profit!

[deejemon]

I'd use Ogg Vorbis a whole lot more if only more apps understood them. I prefer the audio quality from low bit-rate Oggs to the same bit-rate MP3 or AAC.

There's an Ogg Vorbis plug-in for QuickTime: http://illadvised.com/%7Ejordy/ which iTunes happily uses when it comes across an Ogg, but it doesn't change the fact that iTunes can't handle the info tags of an Ogg properly, or that my iPod can't play them back.

[asgardn1]

Use to use 192kbps MP3 and AIFF. Now I mostly use AAC.

[nesbitt_a]

192kbps at 44.100Hz in 'normal' stereo.

mp3



Works a treat for me! -- Andrew.

[DarkSonicYouth5]

128 AAC is great for me. I have a hard time telling any difference from the cd, although I have a bit of "selective hearing". I can only pick out little nuances of the sound when it' something annoying like a hiccup or the drums on St. Anger :) I use 128 AAC becuase I'm a bit space concious and when I can get a file that sounds like a 160 MP3 in a 128 AAC, I'm perfectly fine with it.

[TheMacOS.com]

I dont even know. I use toast 6.... and burn to the default... whatever that is.

I do know that when im burning music to play in my car, I don't use itunes... cause my car player wont play it if I do. :confused:

[musicpyrite]

192 AAC, 160 AAC sounds pretty bad to me. If I had unlimited HD space, I would rip everying in 320 OGG, but I can't have on song take up 10 MB.

2,300 songs x 10 MB=23 GB

There is a point where I have to draw the line between quality and # of GB.

[wheezl]

OGG is superior.. however those dorks at Apple give me MP3 or AAC.. in that case I will take AAC...

[Nny]

http://www.recordstorereview.com/misc/aacmp3.shtml

--vey good comparisson of MP3 vs. AAC

[Jovian9]

For my top 20 bands or top 50 albums I use AAC 320.
For my least favorites (the albums on there just b/c I own them and used to listen to them I use AAC 96.
For everything in b/t I use AAC 128- AAC 192.
I keep anything from GB, Soundtrack, or Deck in AIFF format on my iPod.

[Mike Teezie]

AAC 160 for me, thanks.

[TyWahn]

I have re-ripped a bunch of CDs in 160 AAC using Quicktime Pro (best setting) to make more room on my new iPod. So far, it sounds OK, but I haven't done any critical listening. Note that if you use iTunes for ripping AACs, you're only getting the "good" Quicktime setting.

Is this true? If so wat does that mean ...
by the way .. Arn, what do YOU use?

[SiliconAddict]

2 weeks ago I finished ripping my entire CD collection into AAC format. About 90% of it is 224kb/s at 48kHz. There is about 10% that is at 320kb/s typically instrumental music. (The original Star Wars trilogy as an example.) The point being that I wanted this to be the definitive rip for my collection. As in NEVER again. Also since its a good bet that hard drive sizes will only increase in the coming years the amount of space used is inconsequential in the long run.