Bitrate to rip music

I recommend using VBR(variable) at the highest quality, 245 average. I feel that this gives excellent quality mp3 sound while not wasting space.

Generally, there's not a huge difference when you go from 192 upwards when it comes to CBR; most people don't really hear any difference, and you are unlikely to unless you listen very carefully. As GreatDane said, using VBR is a good idea; smaller file sizes, good sound quality, and increased battery life (though that last one isn't too noticeable, I'd say). The only issue that VBRs can have is that certain parts of a song, where you'd expect lower bit rates, could be seen as parts that require higher bit rates by the ripper; you have to chose your programs carefully sometimes. However, generally, VBR works.

I would recommend 320kbps. For portable listening a good VBR setting is fine, but with some songs there are noticeable flaws that get more noticeable as you upgrade your gear, and 320kbps saves you from having to rerip - it's almost as good as lossless without the space drain. But it all depends on you, really, if you never step into mid-fi or hi-fi then don't worry about it, just use VBR.

The quality of the recording matters a lot more than the bitrate after 192kbps, anyways, imo

Just rip in lossless, hard drive space is cheap. Then from ther you can do what ever with the songs, without having to re rip the cd. Plus it sounds WAY better.

yes rip to lossless then transcode to whatever your portable player needs from there... as far as which format i find Monkey's Audio consistently gives the best compression ratios with 16bit/44.1KHz it's a little less consistent with 24bit audio sometimes FLAC or wavpack will compress better with 24bit

Quote:

Originally Posted by sahwnfras 

Just rip in lossless, hard drive space is cheap. Then from ther you can do what ever with the songs, without having to re rip the cd. Plus it sounds WAY better.

Exactly. There is really no need for MP3 or AAC anymore unless your music is destined for a portable device with low capacity.

For personal use, maybe so. It could make sharing music with other people slightly cumbersome, tho, seeing as albums become several hundred megabytes instead of ~40-100.

If hard drive space is a big issue for you, i.e. you can't afford a larger one or don't have any real capacity, stick with your 256, maybe upgrade to 320 (for instance, I have Coheed and Cambria's new album ripped to lossless and 320 for mp3 player compatability, and the 320 takes up 123mb of space, it would be about 60 to 80ish in 256, lossless comes in at a whopping 434mb).  If you have no problem getting a new HD (either internal or external) of about 500GB to 1TB, then go lossless and transcode as you need to.  That way, if you lose a cd, or it gets really badly scratched, you'll still have a bit-perfect copy to make a new archive CD.

Having said that, the ideal situation is to have two large hard drives to back up your archive lossless, but this is sometimes cost prohibitive.  Bottom line: rip to what sounds good to you unless you want a backup copy.

As you see it depends on the individual. I use V0, as it is the best variable bit rate, and it uses way less space than 320. Also, I just dont have to HD space (or ratio buffer) for FLAC.

Know that at 256/V0/320 you are really getting almost nonexistent audio quality difference. Even 320 to FLAC is negligible for ALL people, and inaudible to most people. Suggestions that FLAC is 'WAY better' are simply incorrect. Better? Maybe. Way better? No way.

This guy is so right about having 2 hard drives. I had 700+GB of flacs go poof into thin air when my hard drive crashed and burned. I had to redownload all of it and it RUINED my ratio on the sites I use so now I have to leave my torrent program on 24/7 everyday to try and catch back up my ratio a HUGE PAIN IN THE ASS. I now have a RAID 1 external drive with 2x 1TB drives inside giving me mirrord backup 1TB space.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zarathustra19 

If hard drive space is a big issue for you, i.e. you can't afford a larger one or don't have any real capacity, stick with your 256, maybe upgrade to 320 (for instance, I have Coheed and Cambria's new album ripped to lossless and 320 for mp3 player compatability, and the 320 takes up 123mb of space, it would be about 60 to 80ish in 256, lossless comes in at a whopping 434mb).  If you have no problem getting a new HD (either internal or external) of about 500GB to 1TB, then go lossless and transcode as you need to.  That way, if you lose a cd, or it gets really badly scratched, you'll still have a bit-perfect copy to make a new archive CD.

 

Having said that, the ideal situation is to have two large hard drives to back up your archive lossless, but this is sometimes cost prohibitive.  Bottom line: rip to what sounds good to you unless you want a backup copy.

I know this is probably a dumb question, but how do you convert MP3's to FLAC?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Remmy420 

I know this is probably a dumb question, but how do you convert MP3's to FLAC?

Generally, going from lossy to lossless results in reduced quality, so it's not recommended.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hahahigh 

Generally, going from lossy to lossless results in reduced quality, so it's not recommended.

Where'd you hear that?

It results in files that are much larger than they should be, but a FLAC made from an mp3 file will be an exact copy of the mp3 sound-wise.

It's going from lossy to another lossy that reduces quality. Hence why many people here suggested with good reason to rip in lossless and forget it.