Ripping lossless and how much better is it?

[afireinside]

What's the best way to rip to lossless? I'm using apple lossless through itunes but is there a better option? And how good of a setup do I need to tell a difference? with my x-fi and SR60s I can't tell between lossless and 320k MP3s.

 

[lordgibbness]

Quote:

Originally Posted by afireinside What's the best way to rip to lossless? I'm using apple lossless through itunes but is there a better option? And how good of a setup do I need to tell a difference? with my x-fi and SR60s I can't tell between lossless and 320k MP3s.

The folks over at hydrogenaudio say that you cannot tell the difference between lame alt. preset standard (VBR ~228kbps) and the original cd source. However, lossless is a good idea for archiving and you can switch between different formats without losing quality. If I were to re-rip my cd collection, then I would use EAC and encode using FLAC. But I would still make a copy using LAME alt. preset standard for general use (I'd prolly put the FLACs on an external HD, purely as a backup).

 

[Sycraft]

In all likelyhood, with 99.9% of music out there a system does not exist that is good enough for you to tell the difference between 320k and lossless.

The two main reasons to rip lossless are:

1) It's as good as ti can possibly be, so you'll never have to re rip because of better technology.

2) It allows for post processing. MP3s and such can be rpoblematic when you process them, like EQ, compress, etc. Flaws that were inaudible can become audible.

Basically my recommendation is if you've the space, do lossless. If you don't don't worry about it, high bitrate lossy is fine.

 

[K2Grey]

If you can't tell the difference between 320kbps and lossless, then there is nothing wrong with you. It's not like they rip out half the audible frequencies or anything.

If you wanted to, probably there are places on hydrogenaudio with short clips of problem samples and descriptions of what the artifacts are.

 

[lator]

Telling the difference is unique for every person and also for every different system. If you have a system with revealing nature you can tell the difference. With ripping lossless you can't go wrong. HD space is practically free these days so that shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Uncle Erik]

lator is right. From a practical standpoint, big drives are cheap. I picked up a 300GB Seagate for $70. Heck, I could have afforded that on my high school wages. You can argue codecs back and forth, but it's easiest to just get a big drive and rip everything lossless. By the time you fill the drive, you can get a second one for even less. It's a good as an archive, too.

 

[lordgibbness]

Just to add one more thing.

If you are going to encode with lossy then I wouldn't recommend encoding mp3s at 320kbps as you will not be gaining very much at all over the LAME alt. preset standard or extreme settings. The files will be a lot bigger, but no better in perceivable sound quality - this has been proved in many many tests.

If you are going to encode to lossy then use one of those lame presets, otherwise just encode with lossless. As I said earlier encoding to lossless will give you the most options in the future.

 

[Gino]

Decide on your system then hear for yourself. In my case I decided .flac sounded best on my system. I rip by using Toast 7 on my Ibook. I use that for playback too.

I rip not so much to save space but rather to have my collection portable on my lappy.

 

[Rambaud]

I use EAC to rip my albums to WAV, and then to APE files (lossless) with Monkeys Audio

http://www.monkeysaudio.com/

I can then listen to them via WinAmp, WMP10 or Foobar, with the relevant plug-ins.

 

[Chri5peed]

As time moves on that $70 Uncle Erik paid for a 300GB drive will one day buy a 1TB drive, then a bit later a 3TB drive.

However FLAC file sizes will always stay the same, so on your PC not storing in Lossless is time-wasting down the line.

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordgibbness The folks over at hydrogenaudio say that you cannot tell the difference between lame alt. preset standard (VBR ~228kbps) and the original cd source.

The folks at hydrogen audio would say that most people cannot tell the difference between --alt-preset standard (known in more recent versions of LAME as -V 2) and the original source, but they wouldn't say what any particular individual can or cannot hear. --alt-preset standard tends to average somewhere around 180kbps to 205kbps.

 

[Chri5peed]

A tiny percentage of people can hear any difference, which is ironic because I bet its the same tiny percentage of audiophiles here who have $X000 set-ups.

 

[Cjattwood]

I have a fairly cheap and basic setup, and I honestly can't hear the difference between lossy and lossless. So why do I rip to lossless (FLAC)? It's great for archival purposes as already said, and can be transcoded without any negative artifacts. I've only got an 80gb HD and I'm not close to filling it up but when that time comes I won't feel anything putting down a small price for a huge harddrive, as the GB/price ratio is so little these days it doesn't really matter.

 

[ilovesocks]

IMO being able to hear the difference between lossy/lossless may differ from song to song also.

 

[daggerlee]

Hard drive space may be cheap, but remember to always have backups! Or else you may lose all your music in one fell swoop. maybe even look into getting a RAID5 setup.