Audio converters/rippers [freeware]
- Thread starter CivicFan
- Start date
- Status
If you're doing it for archival purposes lossless is the only way to go. This [censored] contest of who can hear what is irrelevant - with lossless format all of the information is captured, with other formats a portion of the data is lost. No matter whether you can hear it or not.
I like 320 just fine myself, but FLAC is the wave of the future.
I like 320 just fine myself, but FLAC is the wave of the future.
Yep, and truly, I don't see the point in converting my CD-s to MP3 if I can do it in FLAC. In the old days when storage cost quite a lot MP3 made some sense for archiving and a lot of sense in sharing.
But 1TB of portable HD costs a little more than $130 so no point in trying to save capacity. And I don't share music so that's of no significance either.
But 1TB of portable HD costs a little more than $130 so no point in trying to save capacity. And I don't share music so that's of no significance either.
Originally Posted By: JOD
As I said, no one can tell a difference, and people who think so are kidding themselves. There's an entire forum dedicated to proving this assumption wrong, and yet no one has been able to do it.
Then...
Originally Posted By: JOD
]I'm one of the few people I know who has legitimately been able to tell the difference between 320 kbps and lossless though an actual ABX comparison,
So JOD, I am beginning to get the sinking and unmistakable feeling that I have misunderstood you somehow, because I am left confused my these contrasting statements... Let's pretend (ahem) for a moment that I am unusually stupid and need to be told things in the simplest ways possible; probably just with verbs and nouns. TO RECAP: I had made a comment that files of lossy compression - especially those of the .mp3 variety - introduce audible artifacts that someone with a trained, experienced ear and high quality playback equipment can discern reliably. Reading your responses, it seemed awfully obvious to me that you were taking a contrary stance to my assertion, and taking it in a way that felt; and I mean no offense here, arrogant, condescending, ignorant and standoffish. I may have misread both the letter and the spirit of your posts, and if so, I apologize. I don't have the time to keep coming back here (too busy recording audio! :^) ), and I sure as shootin' don't care for an internet bar fight, so I will leave it like this:
I am stating that:
1) Nowadays it is best to compress audio losslessly, given the capacities of modern hard drives. Many players these days - even those of the DRM-supporting kind, can play lossless formats of some sort; and one day we'll need not compress audio at all and it'd be nice to have a bit-for-bit restoration of our stuff.
2) Ear buds, ghetto blasters and even some car audio systems are lo-fi enough that most reasonably compressed (ie. NOT 64kbps for "busy" stereo pop or rock, but rather in the neighbourhood of as low as ~160kbps) audio sounds passable.
3) What matters most is the enjoyment of *music*. I feel deeply in love with music listening to cassette tapes and cruddy old worn-out records on a cruddy old worn-out stylus. Now with my bazillion dollar mics and speakers I swear there's something missing sometimes. Maybe I should sample and loop some 60Hz hum, some tape hiss, slap a bandpass filter on my mixes and compress to holy heck out of them... Or maybe I should encode them all 128kbps .mp3! Who knows?
As I said, no one can tell a difference, and people who think so are kidding themselves. There's an entire forum dedicated to proving this assumption wrong, and yet no one has been able to do it.
Then...
Originally Posted By: JOD
]I'm one of the few people I know who has legitimately been able to tell the difference between 320 kbps and lossless though an actual ABX comparison,
So JOD, I am beginning to get the sinking and unmistakable feeling that I have misunderstood you somehow, because I am left confused my these contrasting statements... Let's pretend (ahem) for a moment that I am unusually stupid and need to be told things in the simplest ways possible; probably just with verbs and nouns. TO RECAP: I had made a comment that files of lossy compression - especially those of the .mp3 variety - introduce audible artifacts that someone with a trained, experienced ear and high quality playback equipment can discern reliably. Reading your responses, it seemed awfully obvious to me that you were taking a contrary stance to my assertion, and taking it in a way that felt; and I mean no offense here, arrogant, condescending, ignorant and standoffish. I may have misread both the letter and the spirit of your posts, and if so, I apologize. I don't have the time to keep coming back here (too busy recording audio! :^) ), and I sure as shootin' don't care for an internet bar fight, so I will leave it like this:
I am stating that:
1) Nowadays it is best to compress audio losslessly, given the capacities of modern hard drives. Many players these days - even those of the DRM-supporting kind, can play lossless formats of some sort; and one day we'll need not compress audio at all and it'd be nice to have a bit-for-bit restoration of our stuff.
2) Ear buds, ghetto blasters and even some car audio systems are lo-fi enough that most reasonably compressed (ie. NOT 64kbps for "busy" stereo pop or rock, but rather in the neighbourhood of as low as ~160kbps) audio sounds passable.
3) What matters most is the enjoyment of *music*. I feel deeply in love with music listening to cassette tapes and cruddy old worn-out records on a cruddy old worn-out stylus. Now with my bazillion dollar mics and speakers I swear there's something missing sometimes. Maybe I should sample and loop some 60Hz hum, some tape hiss, slap a bandpass filter on my mixes and compress to holy heck out of them... Or maybe I should encode them all 128kbps .mp3! Who knows?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked