Suggestions for cd ripper...mp3 or wav?

Greg Frith gfrith at gmail.com
Sat Sep 30 07:53:30 UTC 2006


On 29 Sep 2006, at 15:54, Ian Malone wrote:

> On 26/09/06, Daniel Hedlund <daniel at digitree.org> wrote:
>>
>> R. G. Newbury wrote:
>> > I'm also looking for comments on the relative advantages of  
>> ripping to
>> > mp3 versus wav files and the 'best' software to play those files  
>> back
>> > from the harddrive.
>>
>
>> the FLAC audio format provides exactly the same quality (lossless) as
>> the WAV format but are only a fraction of the size.  Compatibility  
>> with
>> audio applications is medium to low...but for lossless  
>> compression, it's
>> worth it over WAV.
>
> Of course, if you have a flac, you can make a lossy copy of it any  
> time
> you want (e.g. keep flac on your hard disc and use it to make mp3s
> for a portable player). So compatibility isn't so much of an  
> issue.  If
> I rip anything that's going to be difficult to re-rip (e.g. vinyl),  
> I'll keep a
> flac copy.  That way I can go back to the recording.
>
>> - the MP3 audio format provides a very close (but lossy) version  
>> of your
>> audio.  Filesize tends to be a fair bit smaller than FLAC (maybe half
>> the size with default 128k settings).  MP3 support does not work  
>> out of
>
> 168 or 192kbps is a better choice.  Of course it depends whether you
> can hear the difference, but I used to find 128kbps mp3 didn't sound
> great.
>
>> the box with Fedora due to certain patent/licensing restrictions.   
>> MP3s
>> are very compatible with portable devices and audio application on  
>> other
>> operating systems (iTunes, Windows Media Player, etc).
>>
>> - the OGG Vorbis audio format provides a very close (but lossy)  
>> version
>> of your audio.  Some people argue that it's a little better  
>> quality than
>> MP3, but they're close enough for most people.  Filesizes tend to be
>> slightly smaller or about the same as MP3.  The big difference  
>> between
>
> Depends what bit-rate you use, some people will claim you can do
> lower bitrates with Vorbis at the same sound quality, some (a very  
> few)
> will claim the other way around.
>
>> the two is the OGG vorbis support is much better under Linux  
>> because it
>> doesn't have any patent/licensing problems.  However, portable  
>> devices
>> and audio players under other operating systems are not very  
>> compatible.
>>   You'd probably need to download a special audio player or codec  
>> under
>> Windows to play them for example.
>>
>
> Winamp will play out of the box, most of the other major players  
> (RP, QT,
> WMP) have plugins available.  Many of the more community based players
> (foobar, MuiskCube, VLC) support Ogg/Vorbis natively.
>
> The big problem is usually hardware, though this is getting better,  
> with
> most quality manufacturers supporting Ogg/Vorbis (there is one
> glaring exception of course but, let's face it, they're overhyped  
> anyway).
>
Hi all,

I note the conversation creeping into bitrate/quality territory...  A  
quick comment:  I'm currently in the process of re-ripping my entire  
CD collection at 196k from the prior 128k as I now use the audio on  
SD Cards in a BOSE stereo system in my car.  I don't  play music  
thumping or loud!, but with a relatively untrained ear can here the  
difference on classical and mainstream.  This difference wasn't  
audible on my... err, ipod.  :-).  In short there isn't a lot of  
filesize difference, space is relatively cheap, so don't waste time  
with lesser bit rates now.

Greg.
> -- 
> imalone
>
> -- 
> fedora-list mailing list
> fedora-list at redhat.com
> To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

--
Greg Frith
gfrith at gmail.com



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20060930/9ba398af/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the fedora-list mailing list