Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I re-encoded my cd's 3 times until I wised up and imported for one final time using apple lossless. Disks are getting bigger all time time.

6400 songs encoded in apple lossless are taking up 170 GBytes of space on my machine to give you an example.
Since the difference that I can hear between lossless and 192 kbps is negligible (if any), I'm able to use about the same amount of space for over 30,000 songs. Quality is still superb and I get to enjoy all my music without consuming too much space.
 
If you re-rip, the songs will be new songs to your library, and will have a zero play count.

If the songs on CD match the info of the songs already in your library, iTunes will ask you if you want to replace the old versions with the new rips - in this case play counts, ratings, and everything else will be maintained.
 
Since the difference that I can hear between lossless and 192 kbps is negligible (if any), I'm able to use about the same amount of space for over 30,000 songs. Quality is still superb and I get to enjoy all my music without consuming too much space.

Everybody has a different threshold on what they can hear difference between. I can hear difference between 192 and lossless on about 1/5 songs. Have not yet been able to hear difference at 256, so 320 is probably safe. Of course encoders might have improved since I tried this. I ripped a bunch of stuff at 320, these days I just use lossless. One day I might have a better system, or, my ears might learn to tell the difference - I don't want to have to rerip, disk space is cheaper than my time now!
 
I'm sure this has been answered before, but I am thinking about redoing my library in higher quality, and I was wondering if it is possible to keep your play counts, last played and that kind of information, or if its going to be lost when you rerip?

Use an external program like XLD for ripping your CDs, and make sure that the files are named exactly like your current ones. Then you can just replace the old files with the new ones. That way, all iTunes metadata that isn't part of the files themselves is kept, like play count, last played, date added and that sort of stuff.
 
I can easily hear the difference between 320 kbps files and Apple Lossless, both on my home system streamed through an Apple TV and in the car.

Listen to the cymbals or other high frequency tones, and the sense of space - especially height and depth, in the recording. It gets smeared and crushed even at 320 kbps.

Now, many of you might not yet have systems resolving enough to tell the difference, but perhaps in the future you will? Is it really worth wasting so much valuable time in not ripping correctly to begin with over something as cheap and negligible as hard disk space?

I tell you, you will regret it down the road. I bought a 1 TB WD external hard drive for $59 at Best Buy recently that can easily hold my entire collection of a couple thousand CD's ripped lossless.

Considering how long it takes to rip a substantial CD library, is it really worth cheaping out over 59 bucks? Like they say, life is too short.
 
I totally agree, we need to see some sort of proof like the results of a double blind ABX test.

Did it with my dad on his stereo and was surprised to be able to hear the difference between 320 AAC and Lossless. Wasn't a huge difference but enough to hear it.
And as was said before, with storage getting bigger by the year I am going to rip everything Lossless from now on (had everything in 320 AAC).
 
I'm sure you'd be just as surprised upon failing an actual test.

Seriously, you can't just let it go? Why do all the people just have to go on repeating popular opinion that there is no difference. It's annoying as hell. You have your opinion, I have mine. If your equipment or ears aren't good enough to hear a difference then ok, rip at whatever you like. Mine are so can we just leave it at that? Thanks.
 
Let what go. There's not really much discussion.

There's only one way to get actual reliable results that you can discuss with someone : a double blind ABX test. Whatever you think you can do may be true but it's still one hell of a big maybe even to you without proper testing.

Oh and I've never ripped to anything but lossless, and my equipment and ears are just fine thank you very much.
 
Let what go. There's not really much discussion.

There's only one way to get actual reliable results that you can discuss with someone : a double blind ABX test. Whatever you think you can do may be true but it's still one hell of a big maybe even to you without proper testing.

Oh and I've never ripped to anything but lossless, and my equipment and ears are just fine thank you very much.

I am intrigued, what's your reason for ripping Lossless if not sound quality?
 
Sound quality is the reason. Lossy compression can be more noticable on some tracks rather than others. With lossless I don't have do worry about that at all.
 
Sound quality is the reason. Lossy compression can be more noticable on some tracks rather than others. With lossless I don't have do worry about that at all.
True enough. To complicate things more it depends on the codec used and it's weaknesses.

Also, perception has more to do with how well your brain adapts (not how well you hear) than anything else really. The human brain is amazing at error correction both in hearing and sight.
 
Mine is complete. 22k tracks all in 256k AAC format. Special thanks to iTunes match, saved me from having to re-rip 75% of my library since it was mostly 128-192k mp3/aac files. Everything is exactly the way I want it. All my CD's are boxed up and in storage with possible pending sales.

I'm done with the CD. I have no need for a high quality format as the next best format is the Lossless file itself. And since I can't hear the difference between 256k and Lossless, having a separate Lossless library is not worthwhile. And if there is a change to files down the line (say, 24 bit/96k files), I'll have to repurchase my favorites again anyway, so again 256k AAC is all I need.

Thread resurrection ftw.
 
Are you guys saying that you give away or sell your original cd's after ripping them?

I struck gold yesterday - in my quest to turn my library into 100% legal music, I found a used cd & record place that has tons and tons and tons of cd's for $2 a pop. Mostly the 80's and 90's top 40 pop crap that I listen to. I'm going to be able to replace a lot of the stuff I got from questionable means at very reasonable prices.

This reasoning always gets my goat. Buying second-hand CDs is not much different than plain stealing music - neither the artist nor their record company gets compensated in either case.
 
This reasoning always gets my goat. Buying second-hand CDs is not much different than plain stealing music - neither the artist nor their record company gets compensated in either case.

Really, you can't be serious? It is perfectly fine

If I sell my car, should Toyota get some of the proceeds? What about Apple if I sell my ipod? Hmm, maybe authors if I sell some books. :rolleyes:
 
This reasoning always gets my goat. Buying second-hand CDs is not much different than plain stealing music - neither the artist nor their record company gets compensated in either case.

Really? OMG you better inform the government so they can get the first sale doctrine changed really fast!
 
This reasoning always gets my goat. Buying second-hand CDs is not much different than plain stealing music - neither the artist nor their record company gets compensated in either case.

It is different in one very important way: It is completely legal.

It is different in another way as well: You say the artist or record company aren't compensated. But that isn't true. The original buyer of the new CD had to make a decision: To buy or not to buy. By planning that the CD would later be sold as a used CD, the effective cost went down, so that buyer was able to buy more CDs. Some of these CDs wouldn't have been bought in the first place if they couldn't be sold as used later on.
 
It is different in one very important way: It is completely legal.

It is different in another way as well: You say the artist or record company aren't compensated. But that isn't true. The original buyer of the new CD had to make a decision: To buy or not to buy. By planning that the CD would later be sold as a used CD, the effective cost went down, so that buyer was able to buy more CDs. Some of these CDs wouldn't have been bought in the first place if they couldn't be sold as used later on.

No, people do not go out and purchase new CDs so they can gain the ability to sell it used. That's really pushing it.

To the others, I never said it was illegal to sell used CDs. If so, please point it out in my post. The record industry certainly doesn't like it though. A simple Google search will prove this evident. But, they know they have no legal recourse, so they let it happen.

One of the main reasons people chose to buy a CD/record/DVD/created intellectual property is that the creator (musician, in this case) is fairly compensated for their work. If you chose to just buy a CD over stealing it off the Internet just because "it's illegal to pirate music", then you're really think concretely, like a 3rd grader. We chose to not steal it because if we do, then the musician will not be fairly compensated and they may be forced to get a waiter/waitress job and not have time to create music.

By purchasing a used CD, in terms of supporting the artist, you are no better than the person who pirates music. The only difference is that you are supporting the used CD store.
 
No, people do not go out and purchase new CDs so they can gain the ability to sell it used. That's really pushing it.

You may think it's pushing it, but I do occasionally keep resale/lasting value in mind when considering buying physical copies versus e-copies of books/movies/music.

e-copies definitely have no resale value, while the physical ones are easy to resell (Amazon.com easysell, eBay, ...) or even donate to the public library when I am done with them.

Most recently this came up with a book my son wanted. We decided to buy the hardcover and donate it to the school library once he was done reading it.

For the most part though. I prefer to buy e-copies of books and movies and am adopting a PPV approach to most movies where I might previously have bought a DVD or BluRay.

B
 
One of the main reasons people chose to buy a CD/record/DVD/created intellectual property is that the creator (musician, in this case) is fairly compensated for their work. If you chose to just buy a CD over stealing it off the Internet just because "it's illegal to pirate music", then you're really think concretely, like a 3rd grader. We chose to not steal it because if we do, then the musician will not be fairly compensated and they may be forced to get a waiter/waitress job and not have time to create music.

By purchasing a used CD, in terms of supporting the artist, you are no better than the person who pirates music. The only difference is that you are supporting the used CD store.

I don't know where you get your data that "most people choose to buy a cd to support the artist"

Do you buy new furniture to support the designer, rather than buying used furniture on craigslist, since the manufacturer has already been paid?

How about a used car?

There is no difference than any other used consumer good, other than people have an emotional attachment to media.

I do not purchase cd's with my first thought on supporting an artist. That doesn't even fit into the equation. In fact, I don't buy new cd's at all, and haven't in years. I buy used cd's because I can get them in practically new condition all over Los Angeles at a buck a pop, and I like having physical media. I don't download music, period. Legally or otherwise.

There is no emotion involved here - artists have gotten compensated legally by their original purchase.

I don't know where you get the idea that the second hand market is no different than piracy, but you really may want to read up on the legalities of the first sale doctrine. This is, in fact, the very same argument Garth Brooks tried out many years ago against secondhand music stores. And lost.

I'm not interested in emotion when it comes to purchasing physical media - be it books, dvds, cd's, vinyl, etc. - only in what's legal, and in continuing to grow my collection in a way that fits into my budget.
 
I don't know where you get your data that "most people choose to buy a cd to support the artist"

Do you buy new furniture to support the designer, rather than buying used furniture on craigslist, since the manufacturer has already been paid?

How about a used car?

There is no difference than any other used consumer good, other than people have an emotional attachment to media.

I do not purchase cd's with my first thought on supporting an artist. That doesn't even fit into the equation. In fact, I don't buy new cd's at all, and haven't in years. I buy used cd's because I can get them in practically new condition all over Los Angeles at a buck a pop, and I like having physical media. I don't download music, period. Legally or otherwise.

There is no emotion involved here - artists have gotten compensated legally by their original purchase.

I don't know where you get the idea that the second hand market is no different than piracy, but you really may want to read up on the legalities of the first sale doctrine. This is, in fact, the very same argument Garth Brooks tried out many years ago against secondhand music stores. And lost.

I'm not interested in emotion when it comes to purchasing physical media - be it books, dvds, cd's, vinyl, etc. - only in what's legal, and in continuing to grow my collection in a way that fits into my budget.

First, I never brought up anything about supporting designers of furniture or cars. You did. But, since you did, I'll bite. CDs are certainly not the same as cars or furniture. People buy cars and furniture because they have material and functional value. You buy a car for its transportation function and furniture to sit on. The only function of a CD is as a table coaster, a mirror, or something you hang from your rearview mirror. A car has intrinsic value; it's made of parts that cost money, one could sell them if they wish. A CD has neglible material value; it's made of plastic and it likely costs about a quarter to make. So why does it cost over $10? Because it contains intellectual property. That's the value of it, not the physical CD. This is proven by digital sales; they cost nearly as much as physical CDs themselves. It is the data on the CD that one pays for.

By your logic ("artists have gotten compensated legally by their original purchase"), you can go buy software, then go around to all your friend's houses and install the software on their computers. The artist (software engineer, in this case) was already compensated when you initially bought the software-containing disc, right? Is it alright if I go to my friend's house and rip 100 of his CDs on to my portable hard drive? He already payed all the royalties and such, right?

As for the Garth Brooks case, look up the definition of a straw man argument and get back to me on that one. I never said buying or selling used CDs was illegal, just an unfair practice and an ethical gray area. But, as you point out, you have no emotional attachments.
 
First, I never brought up anything about supporting designers of furniture or cars. You did. But, since you did, I'll bite. CDs are certainly not the same as cars or furniture. People buy cars and furniture because they have material and functional value. You buy a car for its transportation function and furniture to sit on. The only function of a CD is as a table coaster, a mirror, or something you hang from your rearview mirror. A car has intrinsic value; it's made of parts that cost money, one could sell them if they wish. A CD has neglible material value; it's made of plastic and it likely costs about a quarter to make. So why does it cost over $10? Because it contains intellectual property. That's the value of it, not the physical CD. This is proven by digital sales; they cost nearly as much as physical CDs themselves. It is the data on the CD that one pays for.

By your logic ("artists have gotten compensated legally by their original purchase"), you can go buy software, then go around to all your friend's houses and install the software on their computers. The artist (software engineer, in this case) was already compensated when you initially bought the software-containing disc, right? Is it alright if I go to my friend's house and rip 100 of his CDs on to my portable hard drive? He already payed all the royalties and such, right?

As for the Garth Brooks case, look up the definition of a straw man argument and get back to me on that one. I never said buying or selling used CDs was illegal, just an unfair practice and an ethical gray area. But, as you point out, you have no emotional attachments.

Your argument does't hold up. It is perfectly fine to buy a used disc as there is only one physical copy. If you rip your friend's CDs then this would be illegal as you could both listen to the same song at the same time for which the artist in this case wouldn't have been compensated. If you sell the physical copy and don't retain a digital one it is perfectly legal and ethical as the artist has been compensated for the one copy already. Just because a different person can now listen to it doesn't mean he has to be compensated again. The price of the original copy includes the artist's remuneration for that physical copy and its future use.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.