Originally posted by slartibartfast01 I am surprised nobody has mentioned Exact Audio Copy.
Exact Audio Copy
I assume your laptop has 8 GB of RAM not 8MB
Okay, I'll mention it now! This was the other option that was highly recommended to me when I decided to go with dBpoweramp. I can't remember why I didn't want to use it, but yeah, this is the other option that came highly recommended to me a few years ago.
Originally posted by ZombieArmy I think for casual use this doesn't matter. My brother has tried to tell me to "properly" rip my cds for years now and honestly I couldn't care less, and my main music library is in Itunes since my main music device is an ipoid 7th gen so honestly it's just convenient for me.
OP I'd suggest ripping into FLAC or ALAC for the best size ratio for a lossless format
People say you can't hear the difference with an MP3 file but even my dad can tell the difference 80% of the time in a blind test.
I think there is some confusion about the software used for audio conversion and library management software and playback software. I like iTunes, a lot, for library management, but
*not* for the initial conversion for reasons that I have already stated more than once.
Originally posted by ThorSanchez Pretty much no one can. The Lossless/RAW analogy someone used earlier in the thread is fine, but nobody ever crops an MP3 to zoom, nobody pulls shadows or highlights or fixes white balance in a music file. They just listen. And in the vast majority of use cases even a 192kps MP3 is indistinguishable from the best lossless formats.
If someone wants to use up a ton of space on their hard drive with a high-end lossless format, go for it. Just don't do a blind test to prove to yourself it sounds any better than a good mp3.
Storage is cheap. The RAW analogy was only intended to illustrate the value of having an archive with the full amount of original data, but you took it in a direction I didn't intend. I would extend the analogy like this: You might only initially want to view a photo on your phone, or send it in a text message to someone. In that case, I lower quality or downsampled JPEG is just fine, but what if you someday want to make a giant print of it for your living room wall? Well, in that case you will sure be glad you retained the RAW file so that you can output a much higher quality JPEG for that purpose. That is the same logic behind starting with the creation of a collection of lossless audio files when converting from CD.
Originally posted by ZombieArmy Maybe if you're deaf. MP3 artifacts are very easy to hear, especially at lower bitrates. There are much better modern formats for lossy music than mp3 these days.
Personally however, why bother spending time reducing the quality of my music when storage is so cheap these days.
Agree. Storage is cheap. Also agree that MP3 is a poor choice for compression at lower bitrates, however it is basically universally compatible with any audio player, so there's that, and yeah, at 320 kbps and in 90% of common listening scenarios (in the car, jogging with earbuds, steaming to a Bluetooth speaker while cooking in the kitchen - all common in this household) it isn't going to make one bit of difference. Critical listening on decent equipment or a decent pair of IEM or over-ear headphone it is going to make a difference.
Originally posted by ThorSanchez That's a huge exaggeration unless by lower bitrates you mean a lot lower than 192kps.
But yes, storage is cheap, go ahead and use lossless if you want. I ripped my CD collection over 15 years ago to 192kps MP3s and never once have I said "oh dear, I can't listen to all these artifacts."
Totally agree with this, however it all depends on the kind of listening one does, how "tuned" ones ear is, or considerations if that ever might change in the future. I say if there is any chance higher quality audio will be wanted in the future, it is best to lay the groundwork by creating a high-quality archive now.