Ripping my collection - WMA/Pro/VBR or Lossless - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

Ripping my collection - WMA/Pro/VBR or Lossless

Penny Saver Avatar
6y, 6m agoPosted 6 years, 6 months ago
which will preserve the BEST in sound quality? I'm not bothered about file size, unless we're talking HUGE files for one or other...

I've already ripped everything (on basic/default settings) but have noticed a VERY slight difference in sound quality from CD to ripped track, something I'd like to amend - if it means re-ripping everything, then so be it...
Other Links From WMA:
Penny Saver Avatar
6y, 6m agoPosted 6 years, 6 months ago
Options

All Comments

(26) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
#1
dcx_badass
Never wma, go for something open like mp3, m4a etc.


Why? Is there a better quality of sound available?
#2
Depends on how you listen to your music back as well.
Loseless is obviously the best but can eat into hard drive space very quickly. I usually do rips at VBR, as you get a better quality to size ratio compared to CBR.
#3
Use Vorbis/Ogg, performs better in tests than most other formats:

Listening tests have attempted to find the best quality lossy audio codecs at certain bitrates. Some conclusions made by listening tests:
Low bitrate (less than 64 kbit/s): the most recent public multiformat test at 48 kbit/s shows that aoTuV Vorbis has a better quality than WMA and LC-AAC, the same quality as WMA Professional, and a lower quality than HE-AAC.[30]
Mid to low bitrates (less than 128 kbit/s down to 64 kbit/s): private tests at 80 kbit/s and 96 kbit/s shows that aoTuV Vorbis has a better quality than other lossy audio codecs (LC-AAC, HE-AAC, MP3, MPC, WMA).[31][32]
High bitrates (more than 128 kbit/s): most people do not hear significant differences. However, trained listeners can often hear significant differences between codecs at identical bitrates, and aoTuV Vorbis performs better than LC-AAC, MP3, and MPC.[33]
#4
dcx_badass
Because wma is rubbish and is a proprietry format, mp3 is open and can be played by anything, m4a is similar aswell, but better quality afaik.


I have no idea. I just go with what's here. WMA is here, and it's always fulfilled my needs thus far, as well as being user friendly... I've always been able to transfer playlists onto other devices easily enough.

If lossless is best but takes up huge space would I be better just re-ripping the really good stuff that I want to hear in super high quality and leaving the other stuff?
#5
Penny Saver
Why? Is there a better quality of sound available?


Not exactly, but wma will limit you more, mp3 and even m4a are more often used and widely compatible.
#6
InfernoZeus
Use Vorbis/Ogg, performs better in tests than most other formats:


Sorry how old is that source? It says high quality rips ie over 128kbit/s...Damn! The minimum I will rip is 256kbit/s, majority is 320kbit/s. Then I do have a few albums I love which are about 1MB/s :w00t:

And quote the rest of that test:

"Many of these results, however, are difficult to keep up to date due to the ever-evolving nature of the codecs."
#7
i'd go VBR personally =]
#8
awoodhall2003
Sorry how old is that source? It says high quality rips ie over 128kbit/s...Damn! The minimum I will rip is 256kbit/s, majority is 320kbit/s. Then I do have a few albums I love which are about 1MB/s :w00t:

And quote the rest of that test:

"Many of these results, however, are difficult to keep up to date due to the ever-evolving nature of the codecs."

Hmm... good point.. Didn't think to check the age of the source :S Seems to have been 2005.
#9
awoodhall2003
Sorry how old is that source? It says high quality rips ie over 128kbit/s...Damn! The minimum I will rip is 256kbit/s, majority is 320kbit/s. Then I do have a few albums I love which are about 1MB/s :w00t:

And quote the rest of that test:

"Many of these results, however, are difficult to keep up to date due to the ever-evolving nature of the codecs."


This is the kind of info I wanted. I've now deleted one album and reripped at top available quality. It's gone from 60mb to 460mb. That's certainly going to eat some hdd space. May have to ponder it a while and see if there's a discernible difference.
#11
FLAC is the best to rip to its about half the file size of CD its lossless and you cannot hear any difference to cd you need to down load dbpoweramp to rip link below

http://download.cnet.com/dBpoweramp-Music-Converter/3000-2140_4-10042534.html
#12
InfernoZeus
Hmm... good point.. Didn't think to check the age of the source :S Seems to have been 2005.

Hehe. I thought you might have overlooked that, I can easily hear the difference between 128 and 256, how they said listeners could barely notice the difference I don't know. :thumbsup:

Penny Saver
This is the kind of info I wanted. I've now deleted one album and reripped at top available quality. It's gone from 60mb to 460mb. That's certainly going to eat some hdd space. May have to ponder it a while and see if there's a discernible difference.

I'd suggest 320VBR, you would be looking at around 75-125mb per album dependent on the length of the album. Personally that is about the sweet spot, small enough to still transfer to mobile devices, but large enough for good quality. :thumbsup:
#13
skygnome
FLAC is the best to rip to its about half the file size of CD its lossless and you cannot hear any difference to cd you need to down load dbpoweramp to rip link below

http://download.cnet.com/dBpoweramp-Music-Converter/3000-2140_4-10042534.html


A CD is around 700mb, I've just checked an album I have in FLAC and it is 500mb...that is a huge footprint for one album. :thumbsup:
#14


+1

Takes up more space but worth it if you value the music and have a decent system to play it on imo.
banned#15
wav 44.1k

then you wont lose anything at all (650mb per cd!)
#16
From my tests i reckon 320 MP3 is the way to go for a smaller file size or lossless eg FLAC anything less than that and personally i notice to much deterioration in sound quality.
banned#17
Have you tried ripping an album at different bitrates in different formats to see what difference you notice? Ultimately, it's what sounds best to you that matters here.

Personally, I don't notice any difference between a 256 or 320kbps mp3 and the original CD so don't see any need to use anything else. It sounds good to me, the file size isn't huge and pretty much everything can play mp3s.
#18
Yeah, I've tried it now. I ripped my all time favorite track in a variety of bitrates and have bored the household silly listening to them all really loud. I've had hubby blindfold me (while the kids were still up!!!) and play them at random to see if I really could tell any difference. I have decided to rip (or re-rip) the very best stuff that I actually 'listen' to at 940kbps (as I really couldn't tell the difference from the CD) and stick with the generic stuff (already ripped) that just gets put on (rather than properly listened to) at the default bitrate of 128kbps. I will be ripping future cds at 355kbps and just using the top quality for the premium stuff. I've got over 300 albums so whilst I initially thought hdd space wasn't an issue, at nearly 500mb per album, it rapidly will become one.

Thanks for all the help though, will rep when I get chance. :thumbsup:
#19
dcx_badass
Still using the horrible wma though?


Yeah, sorry. I like it!
#20
dcx_badass
You do now until you get one of many players that can't play it, and then all your files are useless and you have to re rip it all again in mp3 which every single player can use.


I don't tend to use any 'other devices atm, but I take your point...
banned#22
lamp mp3 encoder and exact audio copy ripper, use mp3 at the default rates (or paranoid settings!)- many people have contributed to make it the best and completely transparent so you cant tell the different, it will also make sure a cd glitch wont affect the sound

using windows media player is awful, the fast converter in that is dire, and will glitch on the slightest imperfection
to say nothing of wma which wont play on most mp3 players
#23
dcx_badass
Only works if your wma isn''t copy protected, each time you convert it lowers the quality, and you really want to do that everytime? Why don't you just change it? It's one setting that won't affect you now but will make your life a million times easier in the future, this is why I normally don't bother helping people anymore, because they ignore you anyway.


Aww, don't be like that, you've been very helpful. Am I right in saying that the 'sync' tab on the WMP automatically converts the playlist to whatever suits the portable device? I've only done it a few times, and never had problems on some really cheap and nasty devices...
banned#24
Apple Lossless if you have space.
#25
Am I able to rip higher than 320kbps as mp3 though? I really am after best quality rather than most transportable.
#26
Penny Saver
Am I able to rip higher than 320kbps as mp3 though? I really am after best quality rather than most transportable.


Yes you can rip higher than 320kbps in mp3 but it's called freeformat (upto 640kbps) and your player will have to support it. 320kbps) is the highest bitrate a standard mp3 will go to above that and it's freeformat

Come on make your mind up though :lol

Penny Saver
Am I able to rip higher than 320kbps as mp3 though? I really am after best quality rather than most transportable.
.

Wav - Flac

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!