[ZombieArmy]

Hope it's not 8MB. I remember my first PC (486DX2) - upgraded to 8MB - couldn't playback MP3s at the time

Frankly I'm not convinced a computer with 8MB of ram could browse these forums effectively

[ThorSanchez]

Hope it's not 8MB. I remember my first PC (486DX2) - upgraded to 8MB - couldn't playback MP3s at the time

I'm fond of telling my kids that my college computer (IBM PS/2 model 25) couldn't fit a K-3 II RAW file on its 25 Mb hard drive.

[jon.partsch]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[35mmfilmfan]

I use fooBar2000 - free, frequently updated, rip to any format you like and almost infinitely customisable.

foobar2000

[tokyoscape]

This. I often buy and rid CD's for the car or phone and use media player at the top rate of 320kbps.

If I were younger, I may want to investigate the alternatives, just to know if I can hear any difference. At my age, I doubt I would.

Yes, the quality of sound things. I used to have a similar question of how high the quilt I should be using when rip a music cd concerning the size of my usb sick sometime ago when those memory stick and hard drive were still relative expensive. The normal hearing of a healthy person is about 20 to 20,kHz, and standard CD-quality audio uses a sample rate of 44.1 kHz. So to me, I always change it to cover human hearing bases at around 22kHz and save the space for more song. I am not an expert, I just did what make sense and I might be wrong.

[slartibartfast01]

Yes, the quality of sound things. I used to have a similar question of how high the quilt I should be using when rip a music cd concerning the size of my usb sick sometime ago when those memory stick and hard drive were still relative expensive. The normal hearing of a healthy person is about 20 to 20,kHz, and standard CD-quality audio uses a sample rate of 44.1 kHz. So to me, I always change it to cover human hearing bases at around 22kHz and save the space for more song. I am not an expert, I just did what make sense and I might be wrong.

So what did you do? It isn't clear.how you saved space. A sample rate of 44.1 kHz is needed for a frequency response to 22kHz. If you changed the sample rate to 22kHz you limited the frequency response to 11kHz.

[tokyoscape]

So what did you do? It isn't clear.how you saved space. A sample rate of 44.1 kHz is needed for a frequency response to 22kHz. If you changed the sample rate to 22kHz you limited the frequency response to 11kHz.

yes, you right, I guess I did it wrong by cutting it in half but I still can't hear much difference when listen in the car. Don't really do that things any more.

[robgski]

I still can't hear much difference when listen in the car.

I have used WinAmp, Windows Music Software, and Apple iTunes for ripping CDs, I probably listen to music 60% of my time in the car, 15% through Sennheiser headphones, 15% through earbuds, 10 % through some Bose speakers hooked to either a CD player or my laptop. I prefer the Sennheiser headphone experience with CDs most of all, but I have the least time for that.

[RGlasel]

Just for a reference, the bitrate of CD audio is 1,411 kbit/s, so even 320 kbit/s is missing a lot of potential information. I say potential because it doesn't take 1,411,000 bits to accurately represent a second of silence. Which is the basic idea behind lossy compressed audio (and video and still images). The compression algorithm uses mathematics to approximate the sound recorded without using as many bits of information. Sampling audio at two times the frequency range (so 44.1kHZ sampling should give us 22kHz bandwidth) is based on the Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem, which states that a sine wave of a given frequency can be interpolated by taking discrete measurements of the amplitude of the wave twice during every cycle. Human hearing response is highly variable between individuals, but everyone's ability to hear higher frequencies deteriorates as we get older. For musical instruments, that isn't such a big deal; the 88 keys of a piano have fundamental frequencies from 27.5 Hz to 4186 Hz, even the third harmonic of the C8 key is only 12.6kHz. Most people over the age of 20-22 can't hear a damn thing over 16kHz and once you hit 40 that drops to about 10kHz. I won't bother getting into all the compression and normalizing that takes place in the recording mastering stage of virtually everything put out these days, hopefully you get the idea.

[Rondec]

Just for a reference, the bitrate of CD audio is 1,411 kbit/s, so even 320 kbit/s is missing a lot of potential information. I say potential because it doesn't take 1,411,000 bits to accurately represent a second of silence. Which is the basic idea behind lossy compressed audio (and video and still images). The compression algorithm uses mathematics to approximate the sound recorded without using as many bits of information. Sampling audio at two times the frequency range (so 44.1kHZ sampling should give us 22kHz bandwidth) is based on the Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem, which states that a sine wave of a given frequency can be interpolated by taking discrete measurements of the amplitude of the wave twice during every cycle. Human hearing response is highly variable between individuals, but everyone's ability to hear higher frequencies deteriorates as we get older. For musical instruments, that isn't such a big deal; the 88 keys of a piano have fundamental frequencies from 27.5 Hz to 4186 Hz, even the third harmonic of the C8 key is only 12.6kHz. Most people over the age of 20-22 can't hear a damn thing over 16kHz and once you hit 40 that drops to about 10kHz. I won't bother getting into all the compression and normalizing that takes place in the recording mastering stage of virtually everything put out these days, hopefully you get the idea.

It probably depends a bit on how you protect your hearing. I'm 46 and I can still hear to about 14 KHz, but I wear ear protection pretty compulsively, don't play music loudly, and hate concerts other than classical ones due to the volume that music is played.

[slartibartfast01]

It probably depends a bit on how you protect your hearing. I'm 46 and I can still hear to about 14 KHz, but I wear ear protection pretty compulsively, don't play music loudly, and hate concerts other than classical ones due to the volume that music is played.

I bought some earplugs specifically designed for music which make concerts (remember them?) a much more pleasant experience.

[barondla]

Hi everyone!

I need a FREE (or very low cost) CD "ripper" software which can convert CD music to either MP3 or WAV files.
I am told that WAV files are better but bigger?

I have so many CD's (too many in fact) and I want to convert most of them so I can listen to my music in my car (no CD player in there .... seems like it's old technology nowadays )
I want that "converted" music to be just as good as the original on the CD's.
Note: those CD's are all originals.

There are some free ones out there and the one I was interested in has a 16MB RAM requirement; my laptop has only 8MB of RAM.

I have never used such software either and I have no idea how it works, how it saves the files and where it saves them.

Any suggestions ?

Edit: I don't use iTunes/Apple stuff.
Edit: My bad ... system has 8GB of RAM and NOT 8MB !

I spent 5 years ripping cd`s. I don't find it fun. Learned many things along the way.

1. As mentioned by many, memory is cheap and time is expensive. DO NOT RIP TO LOSSY FORMATS. You will regret it someday. Rip correctly once and never worry about it again. The easiest and most common lossless format is FLAC. This will preserve the cd quality you already own. If you need smaller file sizes they can always be converted from the FLAC. Rip small and there's never going back.

2. dbPoweramp is great. I also use JRiver Media and the free Musicbee. Downloads.

3. If you have a big collection of music - do a few discs at a time. It is easy to get overwhelmed.

I have a 256gb thumdrive full of music to play in the Mazda 3 (no cd player, unfortunately). It handles WAV files up to 24/88. It isn't all my music, just the stuff that works well in a car environment. At home I have multiple hardrives of FLAC and WAV music up to 24/382 resolution.

By the way the inventers of MP3 killed off its licensing. Aren't you glad you didn't fall into that trap?
https://www.techtimes.com/articles/207213/20170513/the-mp3-is-dead-heres-a-b...ory-of-mp3.htm
Good luck,
barondla

[ThorSanchez]

The elephant in the room no one has discussed is that ripping music from physical media to some kind of digital file is something us old people talk about. People who lived in the eras of CD and tape clubs and collections of stuff. When I was a teenager I'd started collecting tapes and little vinyl, by college I was amassing large quantities of CDs. My kids are teenagers and it doesn't occur to them to have music on physical things, and if they want to listen it's mostly streaming. The only non-streaming music they listen to is either the XM in the car, or Dad's music on his phone or the hard drive in the car.

[Bob 256]

Try CDex which is a free open source converter. I've used it for years and it's simple and easy to use. It also handles several other formats besides mp3.

CDex | Free CD to MP3 converter, ripper, FLAC, M4A, WMA, OGG, CD extractor

[Not a Number]

I've used CDex for years. It has a reputation as Malware because at on time the installer would install other software without giving the choice to opt-out. Many of the virus scanners will complain about the installer. Current versions install only the CDex programs and can clean except by Malawarebytes.

It isn't really opensource since the current developer doesn't release the source code.

Also the FDDB (Free Disc Database) servers are offline so you can't download track title and Album information any longer. Interface to Musicbrainz seems not to work.