iPod Re-Rip CD Collection into Lossless?

[Fiveos22]

Actaully, I am just a homeopath, but I had already invested an enormous amount into my CD collection over the last 20 years, and music is very important to me. Losing that data would be an absolute disaster, hence the triple backup.

I would have done only two, but I learned as a system administrator while I was in school that keeping a backup off-site is essential if you absolutely must not lose your data. Burst pipes. Fire. There are so many ways to lose the data you keep at home.

Interesting, the only time I've lost data on any of the past five computers I've used, was when I did something stupid...such as breaking my backup DVD or accidentally deleting something. I suppose as far as catastrophes are concerned, I've been blessed.

 

[Angelus520]

Just rip them as AIFF files and be done with it. Then you won't have to worry about reripping them in the future. You can get a 500GB drive from OWC for $299 complete. Then just convert them to 128k AAC for your iPod.

 

[CANEHDN]

waste of time, in my opinion

 

[bug]

Well I know where you are coming from. I tried to replace my vinyl with CDs years ago. It is just fine with rock, but there is something very cold about listening to Puccini on compact disc. Compressing it further is just an unpleasant experience. If you are listening on an airplane or in your car, 192 is OK, otherwise it is terrible. Have you considered SACD for your classical? It is well worth the money with classical or opera.

I agree with your sentiment completely, but I think there are ways to get by with just CDs. One of the things I have against vinyl and SACDs in general is that I have to deal with a physical object - yes, basically I am saying I'm too lazy to get off my ass all the time to change the disk. I do own vinyl and think its hard to beat, so don't get me wrong.

Now, both of my following statements could get me flamed to cremation, but this is just how I feel:

Most CD players (and digital devices in general) have pretty bad DACs. This has a much larger impact on sound than you might think, IMHO. Getting a dedicated external DAC might help.

The other suggestion, which I'm sure will bring about calls of heresy, is that I actually like what tubes do to CDs. Yes, tubes add distortion - I just happen to think that the distortion they add is really nice and helps to combat the 'coldness' you talk about with CDs.

I also think that the argument against tubes is pretty valid, like I say - I know they are adding distortion and I happen to like the specific distortion they add. I'm in the minority. I use an X-10v3 as it just adds a hint of tubi-goodness.

YMMV

EDIT: The reason using CDs means you don't need a physical object is that its much easier to rip them lossless than vinyl or SACDs. ...just in case I sounded crazy.

 

[JeffGilly]

Save some money, and go to concerts. Support your local musicians and music students!

Why are you on this forum?

 

[Diatribe]

Just do it. If you ever get a really nice stereo or some nice headphones you'll be glad you did. As for Aiff over ALAC, I can't hear the difference, not on Grado RS-1 headphones nor on B&W 801 speakers. Maybe I'm deaf, but for me it sounds the same. Now compressed files sounds like **** on those systems.

 

[JonHimself]

I just finished doing this. I then dumped the Apple Lossless ontop an external drive and ripped everything to 192 AAC to keep on my notebook (and ipod). The main reason I did this was that if I have to re-rip cds for whatever reason I don't have to worry about physically switching from cd to cd to cd to cd over and over again; keeping them on the external drive means they will all be in one place. Eventually I'll probably burn the Lossless onto DVD's just to have a back-up copy incase the external drive fails or whatever else could go wrong. I say if you have the space and the time to do it, then do it... you really won't be hurt by going through the process (other than, like I said, by using time and HD space)

 

[Fiveos22]

I just finished doing this. I then dumped the Apple Lossless ontop an external drive and ripped everything to 192 AAC to keep on my notebook (and ipod). The main reason I did this was that if I have to re-rip cds for whatever reason I don't have to worry about physically switching from cd to cd to cd to cd over and over again; keeping them on the external drive means they will all be in one place. Eventually I'll probably burn the Lossless onto DVD's just to have a back-up copy incase the external drive fails or whatever else could go wrong. I say if you have the space and the time to do it, then do it... you really won't be hurt by going through the process (other than, like I said, by using time and HD space)

Only about half of my digital music collection is at 192 AAC and I'm tipping the scales at 59 gigs and change. There is no way I could have my whole collection at 192 and fit it onto my laptop's harddrive.

I think I'll pick and choose.

 

[Baron58]

I have an iPod solely for use in my car with a DICE interface to the head unit. I wanted pure CD quality, so I ripped CDs into iTunes as AIFF (NOT Apple Lossless), and now have 30gig of AIFFs on my iPod that are completely indistinguishable from CD.

 

[ham_man]

I have an iPod solely for use in my car with a DICE interface to the head unit. I wanted pure CD quality, so I ripped CDs into iTunes as AIFF (NOT Apple Lossless), and now have 30gig of AIFFs on my iPod that are completely indistinguishable from CD.

They're prolly indistinguishable using LAME MP3 set at --alt-preset standard...

 

[Sesshi]

It depends on what you're using but in most portable (and I'd say in-car situations) 192K AAC should be virtually indistinguishable from AIFF. However many self-proclaimed audiophiles declare themselves able to tell the difference, despite environmental conditions dictating otherwise. Whatever shakes your booty as it were.

AIFF = ALAC in terms of quality. Decompress ALAC and you get AIFF, and the decompression is not exactly placing the portable under stress, nor is it subject to error as long as the file is intact. I guess it's more compatible but there's not really that much sense in using it in an operational sense compared to ALAC.

 

[garybx]

I'm getting ready to start a massive task of ripping my CDs and am looking for some guidance so that I don't waste time having to do this more than once!

I've got over 10,000 CDs (and about 5,000 LPs that I probably won't live long enough to rip). I've already bought a 400GB external drive. That would probably be big enough to hold all my CDs if I encode to 128 kbps AAC (or maybe even 192 kbps AAC). However, since I will eventually get a high-end networking device (maybe a Slim Devices Transporter), it would be nice to have all my music in a lossless format (ALAC). I guess I could rip the CDs to ALAC and then convert all those files to AAC for the iPod. But the necessary disk space is VERY high!

Can iTunes access the songs if they are spread across multiple hard drives? If so, can you point me to a source of further info about the process.

Thanks,
Gary

 

[IscariotJ]

Can iTunes access the songs if they are spread across multiple hard drives? If so, can you point me to a source of further info about the process.

I'm guessing the only way this can done ( unless you don't mind multiple libraries, there's an app on Doug's Scripts that will handle that ), is to use symlinks ( ln -s ). It shouldn't be that hard to knock up a script to create the links so that you don't have to create them by hand.

 

[ehayut]

I consider myself to have a pretty good ear, and feel like 160kbps is as good as CD quality. I think lossless is a waste of space, and it's entirely psychological when people think higher bit rates than 160 actually have an improvement in sound quality

 

[Xeem]

If your collection was in 128 AAC, I'd say that re-ripping might be worth it. But at 192 kbps, I think that your songs are close enough to CD quality that you'd have to go very high-end (read: insanely expensive) with your stereo system to tell the difference.