Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Technical Questions Ripping CDs to your computer -- the audiophile way

Because of all the HTPC projects hovering around, I'd thought I would share with some of you a wonderful program called Exact Audio Copy. If you take your music seriously, Exact Audio Copy (EAC) will give you the best results in ripping your music, period. Any mp3 encoded by say, iTunes doesn't hold a candle to the quality you could get with EAC. It may take a while to set up, but this guide makes it incredibly easy and is very detailed.

Link

My recommendations:

If you want to go the MP3 route (for compatability reasons) I would highly recommend encoding all of your music at 320 kb/s. It's the last option they give in the guide for the LAME mp3 encoder named "CBR (best quality)"

I would recommend going the lossless audio route. Lossless audio files lose no quality whatsoever compaired to a CD. Some of you who use squeezeboxes, no go. You are going to need to use winamp as your mp3 player to play these files. It's arguably the best one out there, anyways. For lossless audio, I use a format called Monkey's Audio with .ape extensions. Kinda funny, but it is an excellent file format.
In anticipation for my axioms to arrive, I started to encode all of my music in 320 kbps format. I just switched to a lossless format and havn't looked back. Even with 320 kbps, you are going to lose a ton of high end. Cymbols will not have the crunchy, crisp sound they should have. I looked a software stereograph, and after a certain high frequency, the highs were litterally just lopped off after a certain frequency. In mp3 files, the high end is what gets comprimised.

Lossless audio is going to weigh in at around 20-30 MB per song, but it is very worth it.

I have no idea how many people will be actually interested in this, but if you are, I'm open for questions!

I didn't want you guys listening to inferior music on your HTPC's. Do your axioms a favor and feed them high quality music.

You'll probably get some opinions. I don't know enough to have any

Why not VBR?

Does EAC create folder trees nicely and automatically?

That is a very cool link and I really appreciate you sharing your expertise.

How does the software you suggest compare with Nero Burning? I do a lot of CD ripping, but it's mostly speech (training CDs) and I can't really tell the difference between the original and the ripped MP3 files I use. I guess that's just speech, though.
What is this "software stereograph" you mention? Where did you get it? I'd be interested if you can pass this info along. Thanks.
--Martin

Now your speaking my language! (Computers is my primary hobby/job).

At work, I use a very unique method of "ripping" that I have yet to find a replacement that works the same way...

Years ago, Plextor used to have a software called "Plextor Manager 2000" that had came with a device driver (written by Oak Technology I believe it was, now owned by "Simplisoftware") that was called the "AFS driver". The software has looooonnnnnnggggg since been abandoned, and Simplisoftware doesn't even support the driver anymore.

Basically, at work I have all the computers setup with limited user access rights (I'm the admin). Most of the software we use (Vegas Audio, SoundForge, etc) that has built in ripping capabilities DOES NOT WORK unless the user has full admin rights.

So, as a workaround, I "extracted" this driver out of the old Plextor software and install it. Since it operates as a device driver, it bypasses the user access restriction problem.

Basically what it does is allow you to:

a) Drag and drop files off a CD just as if they were files on the hard drive
b) Treats all audio cd files (with the normal .cda extension) as .wav files. So if you browse with Windows Explorer or whatever, they show up and act just like .wav files
c) Allow files to be opened up directly from the CD instead of having to go thru a separate "ripping" process. The "ripping" is actually done "on-the-fly" and is completely transparrent to the user. As far as the user is concerned, they are just .wav files on the hard drive.

The only caveot to this driver:

1) It only works in Windows 2000 or LOWER (not XP compatible)
2) Only supports PLEXTOR drives. Will NOT work with ANY other brand

I have YET to find ANY other solution that works like this driver. I *think* Linux/Unix and maybe some other alternative OSes has the function to treat audio CD tracks as .wav files built in, why doesn't Windows?

-Alan

Tom: in the guide they give a recommended VBR setting for the LAME mp3 encoder.

Basically, once you are going that high, my opinion is that you might as well just go 320 kbps and be done with it.

Space really isn't an issue for me, so, if space is an issue, VBR would be best.

Anyways...EAC can make trees however your heart desires. In the tutorial under "File" I think they show you. You can have folders nested however you like, and your files named however you like.


Vikingships:

With speach, you can get away with very low bitrates and speach will sound just fine.

The general advantages are with EAC:

1) The audio off the CD is ripped to a .WAV (uncompressed) audio file and lots of error correction takes place. Basically, if you have a scratch in your disk, there won't be pops in your music.

2) The external MP3 encoder (in this case, the LAME mp3 encoder) that turns the .WAV file into an .mp3 file is of a much higher quality. Basically, you are going to get a higher-quality mp3 even if it is encoded at the same bitrate. It's a much more efficient encoder than anything else out there.

For casual listening, you won't hear a difference. But if you want to squeeze every once for serious listening sessions, this is the way to do it.

^^ edited the above post some

I forgot to mention, the method I use to "rip" does NOT do encoding. You still need an encoder such as the one the origional poster referred to, or in our case, the endcoders built into our audio editing software. All the driver I have does is cause .cda files to show up as .wav files (which allows them to be directly opened by any audio player/editor) and allows for drag-and-drop capability within any windows program.

But so far, the really cool thing is even though this driver was abandoned looonnnngg before Plextor even made their first DVD burner, it still functions with their current models! And, it does not interfere with any other specialized applications such as AnyDVD, DVD Decryptor, etc.

-Alan

I spent some time in the past researching this and I got excellent results using CDex together with LAME using the default -alt -preset -standard. I get really small file sizes < 7MB and very good resoloution.

I have not experimented alot since though and I did not try this setting in critical listening.

Do you find that the above missed lots of detail ?

CDex is also an excellent ripper. It's a simplified version of EAC. I think I tried it before and got mixed results.

Anyways, yes, I can hear a definate difference between mp3's at 320 kbps and uncompressed.

Cymbols have more detail and punch, and the soundstage is much more clear and defined. Mp3's tend to flatten the soundstage.

For casual listening, by all means, use mp3's. But, if you like to sit down and just listen for every bit in a recording...uncompressed is the way to go.

In reply to:

---

I didn't want you guys listening to inferior music on your HTPC's. Do your axioms a favor and feed them high quality music.

---

Well I appreciate your recommendations and respect your right to your opinion, statements like this one, and similar statements in several of your other posts, tend to come across as if one does not do you as suggest, then we have wasted our time and investment on our systems. You seem to feel that what you use or what you feel are the best products is the only option: choose a differant path, and one will be settling for less quailty of sound.
Many of us forum memebers have been involved in the audio/video/computer enviroments way longer than you, so please, give us some credit for our experience and knowledge. Between my roomies and I we have over 52 years of computer expierience, and I have been playing with audio/video for over 38 years.
So as for the software we use to rip CDs, the Squeezebox to stream them to the HT system, please give me some credit for knowing what I'm doing, and do not tell me I will have an inferior sound compared to yours.

Dennis

Well put Dennis! Dan needs to realize that most of us were around when 8086's and 286's were the cream of the crop for processors, and a 20MB (not gb) hard drive costs thousands. I've been out of college now for almost 15yrs, and have learned that I was not as smart as I thought I was with my bigtime BA and MIS degree. Once Mr. Dan, goes into the real world and gets a job, he will realize everything he learned doesn't mean [censored], and he will be starting over. Hopefully then he will realize the importance of respecting people that have been building computers longer than he has been alive.

No need to crap all over the poor guy. I think he's just trying to contribute. Granted, his tone comes off as a bit "know-it-all"-ey, but it's obvious he means well.

Isn't it?

Being an audio-related board and seeing absolutely nothing on the topic of audio-related ripping of any means, and realizing that these programs were recommended to me from various people older than myself, and that they are very highly regarded in the CD-ripping world as one of the best. I've looked at countless audiophile forums and websites, with this being the popular favorite and standard. I was suggesting the whole thing as a recommendation. Did I not say that? It was under my impression that most people here listened just to straight CD's, hardly anyone was talking about streaming from a computer. And, if they wanted to do so, I was hoping this would give them a spark to get invested in some of the best programs out there, or at least a place to start their search.

Am I allowed to share? It's okay if you disagree with me.

I would appreciate conversation-stimulating posts about if you have had any experience directly relating to ripping music such as this, what you use, what you have found to be the best, what are your opinions? If I am wrong in any way please let me know! Is there some other great way you found doing what I described?

Or, if everyone wants, they can make a crap-on-Dan thread separate from this one an I'd be cool with that. Let's at least hear what everyone thinks about the topic rather than taking it to a personal level. I'd appreciate that, thanks. I've had enough of my share of getting picked on in my life, I don't see a need for that to continue anywhere else.

All things aside, back on topic.

VikingShips asked about the spectrum analyser.

Basically, it's a plot graph of each frequency. An mp3 program called foobar2000 has a very advanced one. It's an mp3 program that blows my mind in its complexity. Anyways, I fashioned some pictures so you can see what I mean.

I took a screenshot of the same song encoded in 192, 320, and uncompressed.

Uncompressed graph:


320 Kbps graph:


192 Kbps graph:


Notice how the tops of the mp3 files kinda get lopped off. I was really suprised to see this. Anyways, even at 192 kbps mp3 quality is really very good. For casual listening, it's almost impossible to tell the difference for me anyways.

The Squeezebox 3.0 supports FLAC lossless directly, and will convert WMA lossless (as long as it is not DRMed) at the server and stream it as PCM.

Squeezebox FAQ

Never knew that.

Looks like it supports Apple Lossless as well as WMA Lossless too.

EAC is a good program; currently all ripping and encoding is done from a Unix (Solaris) system where it isn't available, but LAME is used for the encoding aspect. The only advantage EAC has over this is the ability to retry read failures/skips which is usually only an issue with a damaged or scratched CD, which thankfully I have very few of due to maticulous care.

320kbps may give a near perfect copy of the music, but it is extreme overkill in terms of size/quality. There are very, very few people who can notice a sound difference above 160kbps, even with good speakers or headphones; even with my sensitive ears anything above 185kbps is really difficult to discern a difference from the original source. Using LAME's 'standard' preset gives mp3s that average 180-220kbps which is more than enough for nearly all listening situations I have found.

I have played wav files (the most common lossless format) and honestly can tell a difference, even in the high end. If anything, I usually find limitations in the original audio source due to poor mastering, particularly with anything semi-popular today where the motto "louder is better" is the mantra of the major record labels. The significant size difference with minimal sound improvement (particularly from most CDs - DVDs , DVD-As and SACDs are an entirely different story (and not easily transferred to online formats)) simply isn't worth the additional cost of larger drives, along with far greater transfer times if I want/need to access the music from elsewhere (which I do frequently).

Now, please don't take this as an indication that you shouldn't go the uncompressed route; if it is worth it for you, then by all means continue to do so. It's just that for me the tradeoff between size and quality is too great to follow that route, along with other reasons for remaining with mp3s. Eventually I will convert my collection to Ogg Vorbis (a completely patent free codec, unlike mp3), but for now, the high-end VBR mp3s I use are sufficient for my listening purposes. I appreciate your input, however.

I was not starting a crap-on-Dan thread, I simply responded to a statement you made, I do agree with Peter, and give you the benefit of doubt you mean well.

Dennis

I agree that 320 is probably overkill. I go with the -V 2 --vbr-new setting and it sounds find for my iPod and Grado Sr60 headphones.

I like the idea of lossless as well though, and see the value in it. When I get a full-blown HTPC I'll probably be ripping to FLAC or Apple Lossless (just due to the iPod) just for the sake of having perfect copies stored somewhere.

But for most cases EAC + Lame and the recommended VBR standards should be more than enough.

Wow... Dennis and Randy... maybe you were a bit harsh... I think it was a matter of Dan perhaps being too bold in his statement, but take it easy on the guy!

As for me... I BUILT my first audio digitizer (a 4-bit one for the C64 based around a 0820ADC IC)... though to this day I'd still like to know why in god's green acres my "clip" light didn't work... unless I had a faulty "overflow" leg on the IC.

I use CDeX and Lame @ 256kbps for my own stuff (for the car) and EAC for the stuff I borrow off bro (he's got a nasty habit of CDs and jewel cases never being in the same place)

As for HT/Home/Office listening. It's Redbook only for me.

Bren R.

I agree everyone, Dan please accept my apologies.

I was having a bad day as the web balancing for one of our web servers was having issues. Turned out one of them was missing a Microsoft Patch for allowing 20MB plus files.

There have been many posts where Dan came across to a few members relating to computer based topics and building Thousands of computers (unlikely), which undermined some of us that have been around computers since he was in elementary school.

Anyway, no harm no foul, lets get back to talking about AV shhhhtuff.

No harm taken.

I did work at a computer manufacturing company for about a year...and I really have built that many computers. Anywhere from 5-20 in a day. Anyways, that's beside the point.


Does anyone use just their PC to play music like I do? Using winamp or whatever.

And, I'm sitting like...2-3 feet from my speakers therefore I think I can tell the difference much easier between bitrates.

In reply to:

---

Does anyone use just their PC to play music like I do? Using winamp or whatever.

---

Not even when I'm at my computer. I have an H/K FL-8550 5 disc carousel hooked up via coaxial digital.

I likes me my uncompressed shiny discs that require no processing power to play.

Bren R.

Your distance from the speakers doesn't really have much to do with how clearly you can hear the differences -- unless your amp is crap and turning it up to compensate for greater listening distances introduces distortion.

Actually, yeah, I use Winamp on the PC to listen through my 2:1 HK speakers. I'm satisfied, especially with the midrange, but don't consider myself a hardcore audiophile (yet). I was even satisfied with the JBLs that came with my 1996 Compaq Presario, 'cept for the utter lack of bass.

On an unrelated note, the prewiring is done on the HT and I'm about to order the Outlaw 990 & 7125 - yee-hah! Will be up and running by March Madness, hopefully. Hoops-fully? [groan]

medic8r

Thanks for posting. To date i've been frustrated with the packages i've been able to find online, so this was the answer to the question I hadn't even posted yet

In reply to:

---

Does anyone use just their PC to play music like I do?

---

I have been doing it before Napster (RIP) and since day one it's been EAC and Lame and 320. All played through Winamp unless I'm doing a lot of work on the computer. If I need all the resources I can get, I use Foobar2000 as it has a much smaller foot print then Winamp.

I can honestly say that I think I'm coming up on year 7 or 8 of having my computer feed my HT system with music! :-)

I've been having great results with the lossless WMA codec.

At first, I wasn't warm to embrace yet another Micro$oft product, but it does work well.


.

I had to revive this thread after reading about a rather expensive but very cool toy coming soon from Olive: 400GB of storage, integrated 802.11g, Burr-Brown 24-bit DACs...for the low, low price of $3000.

Might as well build an HTPC for what they are asking for that. You would get a lot more functionality.

Ouch.

All the specs of a moderate PC at a much higher price.

Bren R.