Best MP3 ripper for Mac?

Discussion in 'Digital Audio' started by DaGrandMastah, Apr 1, 2012.

  1. DaGrandMastah, Apr 1, 2012
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2012

    DaGrandMastah macrumors 6502a

    Mar 19, 2011
    I'm looking to rip my existing CD collection to 320 kb mp3 but I hear that the iTunes encoder isn't that good for mp3's. Can anyone refute that claim? Is there a better ripper out there?
  2. androiphone macrumors 65816

    Dec 13, 2009
    Just use iTunes for ease, some people may say it isn't as good (although there was a thread where some posters were debating that iTunes is actually as good as any others)

    Personally mp3 is a lossy format, information from the music is going to be lost anyway I wouldn't go to any trouble trying to find a different fractionally better ripper when you're never going to be able to tell the difference.
    Truth is you probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference if you ripped to 256kbs mp3 or aac over 320mp3.

    Also remember if you rip to mp3 today and then in future a better format comes along any conversion can only use the sound quality of the lossy mp3 meaning you would have to re-rip from the CDs again, with lossless it would be as simple as convert and go (it would even keep the metadata intact).
  3. AdrianK macrumors 68020

    Feb 19, 2011
    I really like Max. It's fairly simple to use for ripping and it can do multiple codecs at a time, just spent some time in the Preferences getting it set up how you want.
  4. BlackMangoTree, Apr 1, 2012
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2012

    BlackMangoTree macrumors 6502a

    Sep 30, 2010
    XLD is by miles the best ripper. nothing comes close

    iTunes Mp3 is inferior at lower bitrates like 160 down but at 256 and above you would not be able to hear the difference between that and Lame (Considered the yes Mp3)

    The problem with iTunes that it's not a secure ripper it's impossible to know if your disc was ripped without any pops and clicks, thats a huge advantage of using XLD.

    As the above poster said going lossless is actually the best choice
  5. PAPO macrumors 6502

    Aug 24, 2009
    why are you wanting to rip in MP3 if you're going to use a lossy format use AAC it is a far superior format but still lossy, if you have the HDD space use a lossless format like ALAC
  6. Fishrrman macrumors G5


    Feb 20, 2009
    "why are you wanting to rip in MP3 if you're going to use a lossy format use AAC it is a far superior format but still lossy, if you have the HDD space use a lossless format like ALAC"

    Some folks need to use mp3 because it's a "universal format" that can be read by almost anyone using any computer.

    That's important when you're preparing a file for either commercial or free distribution.

    You want something that's instantly recognizable and playable.
  7. Destroysall macrumors 65816

    Feb 28, 2012
    United States

    I always use ALAC as well as FLAC. If HDD space is an issue, get a few external HDD and use that for your music, that's what I do.
  8. BlackMangoTree macrumors 6502a

    Sep 30, 2010
    This is not true, AAC is slightly better at lower bitrates like 96 - 128 but 160 especially 200 and up you won't be ale to hear a difference between AAC and Lame MP3. Many double blind listening tests have proven this.

    Why use AAC and lose compatibility with losts of devices.
  9. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Jan 5, 2006
    Redondo Beach, California
    Why use MP3? It is not the best format. I would rip to Apple losses using iTunes. Later if you need some other format then you can convert the lossless to that format. MP3 is very "lossy". AAC (mp4) is better and "lossless" is dead-on perfect.

    More than one person here has found after spending weeks ripping CDs to MP3 that the job had to be done over to lossless. Disk space is so cheap now there is not reason to save space.

    OK so you need mp3? I think the encoder in iTune really is the best one. I've compared it to LAME based encoders and the Franhower SP??) encoder in iTunes gets it closer to right.

    When you listen and compare encoders don't just listen for a few seconds, the difference between encoders will show up in short transients only on some songs and some types of music. In other words the differences are NOT constant over time. For example one will totally mess up some electronic drum machine sounds and the other might change the sound on some sampler. It is usually electric sounds that are messed up, simple acoustic sound is easier to encode to MP3.
  10. BlackMangoTree macrumors 6502a

    Sep 30, 2010
    ANy ABX tests to prove your claims. MAny ABX tests have proven Lame as super to iTunes.
  11. PAPO macrumors 6502

    Aug 24, 2009
    because most devices support AAC now, I used to use MP3 for this reason but now it's practically irrelevant
  12. BlackMangoTree macrumors 6502a

    Sep 30, 2010
    Most is not all like MP3 and unfortunately the iTunes metadata is only ready properly by a hand full of devices. There is simply no reason to use AAC over Lame MP3
  13. PAPO macrumors 6502

    Aug 24, 2009
    when you live in an Apple eco system there is no reason to use MP3 over AAC, my PS Vita, PS3 and 3DS have no problems with it, and there is ABSOLUTELY no reason to go out of your way to rip elsewhere then import to iTunes
  14. rhett7660 macrumors G4


    Jan 9, 2008
    Sunny, Southern California
    I have been using XLD and ripping into either AIFF or ALAC. Hard drive space is pretty cheap and I would rather have a nice uncompressed version of the song playing. I still use iTunes for managing but I rip outside of it.
  15. Yujenisis macrumors 6502

    May 30, 2002
    XLD (Free, OSS) is absolutely the best for lossless ripping and conversion.

    Max (Free, OSS) is the best software for ripping CD's into lossy formats. The interface is a bit clunky but it has pretty amazing fidelity, compression ratios, and unbeatable error correction.

    Both will also pull metadata from the Internet.
  16. BlackMangoTree macrumors 6502a

    Sep 30, 2010
    Why limit yourself to the Apple ecosystem, who knows where you might be one day. Best to use a truly universal format like MP3. Better still use lossless.

    iTunes is not a secure ripper there is absolutely no way to tell if your rip was free from pops and clicks. Thats why apps like XLD are excellent for ripping.
  17. PAPO macrumors 6502

    Aug 24, 2009
    because I have mostly Apple products, because I like them, but even my non Apple stuff supports AAC, in this day and age if it doesn't support AAC it probably isn't worth buying (assuming it supports lossy formats at all)
  18. Scarpad macrumors 68000


    Jan 13, 2005
    Yeah I'm strictly Lossless now, I've ripped to lossy formats in the past and with the price of drives now there is no reason to. Rip once in lossless and be done, then convert to lossy formats as you need
  19. BlackMangoTree macrumors 6502a

    Sep 30, 2010
    Lots of devices play back AAC but they don't support Apples metadata and won't do gapless playback.
  20. ravichayal macrumors newbie

    Apr 5, 2012
    Max is the best MP3 ripper for Mac because it's too simple to using for rapping.. It creates a multiple codes at a time.
  21. Benway macrumors newbie

    Oct 20, 2010
    I'm currently studying audio tech, 1 and a half years in [not that credentials mean a lot].
    I'm not claiming to be a professional, pretty far from,
    but I CAN tell you the best thing to rip to is .WAV.
    WAV is lossless. It is universal.

    AAC and the other apple proprietary AIFF are just WAV with stupid apple specific coding on them, much like wmp3 is just an mp3 with stupid microsoft coding on it. AVOID proprietary formats.
    WAVS are perfectly readable across all systems.

    WAV is CD quality, and you will probably note that MOST CDs have their tracks in WAV format!
    It's got to be above 90% of music CD's are formatted that way.

    Then, you can convert WAV to any other file type easily whenever you need to
    [such as if you want to import it to your ipod, you can select in preferences to convert tracks to AAC when moving them into the ipod].

    I won't go into too much more detail.
    But trust me on the WAV.
    Lossless. Universal. That's about all that needs to be said!
  22. ScottishCaptain macrumors 6502a

    Oct 4, 2008
    Hey, hey guys! Listen! Listen! Hey guys listen!

    This guy is studying audio tech! Hey guys! We've got a real audio tech here! He knows everything! We should all listen to him!

    Metadata? Tagging? Lossless compression? Who needs all that stuff! Real men cat uncompressed binary files straight to their sound card device node! Bring on the terabyte sized music libraries! Long live lossless universal audio!

  23. 50548 Guest

    Apr 17, 2005
    Currently in Switzerland
    I don't see any basis in that assertion about iTunes - in any case, you may try Max or XLD as others have suggested. Or perhaps forget about mp3 and converting everything to a lossless format such as ALAC.


    What a bunch of crap - WAV doesn't even accept metadata, so it's pretty dead from the start...ALAC is widely accepted and lossless, not to mention AIFF which is non-compressed, lossless and also takes metadata in.
  24. roadbloc, Jul 27, 2013
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2013

    roadbloc macrumors G3


    Aug 24, 2009
    Don't listen to this moron. WAV lol. What a waste.

    OP: I urge you to use whatever audio format that suits you best. I personally use MP3 at 320kbps, but if you have a desire for quality, something lossless will suit you more. Just not WAV. And know that if you choose an obscure format, it may not be able to play on every device. As for CD rippers, I understand Max is a quality bit of software for OS X I've used to import audio a few times.
  25. cheekypaul macrumors member

    Apr 22, 2005
    if what you want/need is mp3 320 you can definitely go ahead without worrying. ripping your cds at 320 using itunes is as good as any mp3 ripper can muster. i am very confident of the itunes mp3 rip quality (at 320 from cd, wav, aiff, master files).

    where a lot of arguments emanate are how good rips at lower rates sound. so using a different method can save you some disc space because you can rip at lower rates and theoretically get the same sounding results.

    but really, where you're up at 320, and lossy, you're splitting hairs. ripping at the highest rate for lame, ogg, mp3, aac will all render extremely close to each other (when ripped from cd at 320 or their equivalent top high quality rip).

    mp3 used to be the way to go for compatibility, but that's not true any more. mp4/aac, is also pretty well accepted. as are flac, alac, wav, aif (unless you're using a predominantly pc...)

    the poor study guy that recommended wav was attacked. his suggestion is fine but flawed. wav is limited as music rip format, because of the tagging/metadata. although it's not true to say it can't handle it, it just doesn't work well in the con/prosumer world.

    if you can afford the disk space, rip lossless, any kind that suits you best.
    otherwise use itunes.

Share This Page