CD ripping: What compression do you use?

Discussion in 'Community Discussion' started by dogbone, May 17, 2006.

?

Compression settings, what do you use for your personal consumption

  1. mp3 128

    6 vote(s)
    4.4%
  2. AAC 128

    27 vote(s)
    19.9%
  3. mp3 160

    9 vote(s)
    6.6%
  4. AAC 160

    12 vote(s)
    8.8%
  5. mp3 192

    28 vote(s)
    20.6%
  6. AAC 192

    31 vote(s)
    22.8%
  7. mp3 256

    9 vote(s)
    6.6%
  8. AAC 256

    11 vote(s)
    8.1%
  9. use lossless as well as above compression.

    12 vote(s)
    8.8%
  10. only use lossless

    10 vote(s)
    7.4%
  1. dogbone macrumors 68020

    dogbone

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Location:
    S33.687308617200465 E150.31341791152954
    #1
    I've ripped all my CD's at AAC 128 and I was going to rerip everything now I have a bigger drive. But what to use? mp3 192? or AAC 160 or even AAC 192 or higher. So I thought I'd see what others do, because I don't want to think different.

    If you use a lower setting to send to others don't count that.
     
  2. WildCowboy Administrator/Editor

    WildCowboy

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    #3
    You'll find a wide variety. Personally, I rip at 160 MP3...I'm not picky.

    I'll probably buy a big external drive and re-rip in Lossless at some point, but I've been saying that for quite some time now. :D
     
  3. eji macrumors 6502

    eji

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2004
    Location:
    Inland Empire
    #4
    Apple Lossless all the way. I got tired of going back and ripping at higher bitrates when I discovered that the low bitrates weren't cutting it for me anymore. Also serves as a backup in the case the CDs get scratched. In fact, I've been able to rip a few CDs that were badly scratched to Apple Lossless error-free and then burn a new, working CD from it.
     
  4. livingfortoday macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2004
    Location:
    The Msp
  5. Lollypop macrumors 6502a

    Lollypop

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Location:
    Johannesburg, South Africa
    #6
    192kbps ACC for me, use to be 192 mp3, im not a audiophile, can hear a big difference between the two, but if ACC is better like most people are saying I wont complain! :D
     
  6. iTwitch macrumors 6502a

    iTwitch

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Location:
    East of the Mississippi
  7. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #8
    Lame with alt-preset-extreme, which I believe is around 256 VBR. AAC is nice and all, but I want something compatible with, well, everything.
     
  8. dogbone thread starter macrumors 68020

    dogbone

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Location:
    S33.687308617200465 E150.31341791152954
  9. janey macrumors 603

    janey

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Location:
    sunny los angeles
    #10
    another hurrah for lame aps/ape :D

    vbr is the opposite of cbr, where vbr is variable bit rate and cbr is constant. with vbr the bit rate fluctuates a bit depending on the complexity of the sound, instead of staying constant through the whole thing. it may seem funny to mention something like 256kbps vbr when it's supposed to be variable, but the bitrate mentioned is usually the average.
     
  10. rade macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Location:
    Belgrade, Serbia
    #11
    FLAC lossless & mp3 (lame -V3 --vbr-new) ~192
     
  11. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #12
    yep, APX sounds like CD quality to my ears.

    I still have a ton of music that's below it, since I recently started using APX, and some music is at whatever bitrate I *cough*downloaded*cough* it at. But if you know where to look, you can get *cough*legallydownloadedmusic*cough* at bitrates at APX or higher
     
  12. mad jew Moderator emeritus

    mad jew

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    #13
    Everything's at 160kbps MP3 for me. I use MP3 because it's a more universal format and 160kbps because I can't tell the difference between that and anything higher. Plus, my library's over 100GB, so I'd have to buy a bigger hard drive if I wanted it less compressed.
     
  13. TheEdisonEffect macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2006
    Location:
    Tallahassee, FL
    #14
    Anything I rip is in lossless. It's not that I'm extremely picky for everyday listening, but most of what I rip I intend to burn as well, and I like to have the burned cd be as good quality as the original.
     
  14. wrldwzrd89 macrumors G5

    wrldwzrd89

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2003
    Location:
    Solon, OH
    #15
    I'm an Apple Lossless guy - I use it because I have a big hard drive and I like my rips to sound authentic.
     
  15. miniConvert macrumors 68040

    miniConvert

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    Location:
    Kent, UK - the 'Garden of England'.
  16. Boggle macrumors 6502

    Boggle

    #17
    B4 I really knew what I was doing I used 128 MP3, now I use 256 & sometimes 320 depending on how much I like the music. But that's only b/c I have barely 25 Gigs of music total.

    But since my first Mac will be arriving next week(ish) I'll be searching this thread to learn which format will be best on my new Macbook.
     
  17. killuminati macrumors 68020

    killuminati

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2004
    #18
    192 AAC VBR. Doesn't take up too much space but still sounds ok.
     
  18. nw43 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 8, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #19
    MP3 160 for me.

    Pretty much the same reasons as mad jew (I didn't copy, honest :)) - ie I wanted mp3 for compatibility reasons and chose 160 as a trade off between quality and space.
     
  19. clayj macrumors 604

    clayj

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Location:
    visiting from downstream
    #21
    192, although I primarily rip in WMA format (using RealPlayer) and then let iTunes convert the WMAs to MP4s for iPod use.

    192 is a good compromise value, since for most people the sound quality is indistinguishable between 192 and higher values. I did some testing and found I couldn't tell the difference between 192, 320, lossless, and the original CDs. At 192, I'm able to store my entire music collection on my 60 GB iPod, with plenty of space to spare... and I'm able to back up my entire music collection to just 5 DVDs (4 DL + one standard 4.7 disc).
     
  20. OutThere macrumors 603

    OutThere

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Location:
    NYC
    #22
    May I ask why? Re-compressing is grodie...


    I rip 160 AAC. Don't really need more than that...There are to many limiting factors (sound card, sound system, analog cabling) to justify using a higher bitrate for me...if I ever happen to get a hifi sound system, then I'd probably rip FLAC or Apple Lossless.
     
  21. clayj macrumors 604

    clayj

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Location:
    visiting from downstream
    #23
    Because my Windows Media Center setup, including my two Xbox 360s, prefers WMAs.
     
  22. rjgonzales macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Location:
    Texas
  23. OutThere macrumors 603

    OutThere

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Location:
    NYC
    #25
    Right-o. Makes sense. I wish I had 2 Xbox 360s. :D

    I thought you were doing it 'just because' (I know some people who never bothered learning how to rip in iTunes and just kept importing their ripped WMAs).
     

Share This Page