[Rob Babcock]

I've never in my life every downloaded any music from Napster, etc.  While I have heard many (universally dreadful) MP3s, I'm aware that there are CODECs that are much better.  But I really don't know the first thing about them.

To anyone with a lot of experience using ripping songs, what are the best sounding ones (and most transparent to the source) that you are aware of?  And what bit rate is necessary to acheive decent sound?  Lastly, is the best sounding one widely supported, that is, will any DVD/CD/car players decode them?

What are the best three, in descending order of quality?

Any input would be appreciated.

[Rob Babcock]

C'mon!  Somebody must be willing to admit they rip stuff!  I know there's a lot of computer knowledge on this site...

[mgalusha]

Rob,

I will admit to ripping a ton of my CD's for use at work. I use the Lame MP3 encoder at 256 or 320kbs in stereo (opposed to "joint stereo") with everything set to it's highest quality setting. The quality is reasonably good and much better than what most people think of when discussing MP3's. Of course file size is double or triple that of a 'normal' MP3 (128kb or worse), but I don't see that as a problem given the cost of disk space and the fact that I have just over 19,000 songs on my disk and don't have to drag CD's to the office.

Given your desire to play in them in a car/portable/dvd player, you don't really have much option other than MP3. The key (IMO) is using a good encoder (LAME works very well) and the highest bit rate you are willing to give up space for. I use Easy CDDA Extractor or EAC, both work well but Easy CDDA is easier to use.

HTH,

Mike

[DrDave]

I too use EZCD Extractor which uses the Lame encoder.    Much is from my own CD's but some is downloaded.  Some downloads are legal and some are not.

Like mgalusha, one big incentive is travel (car, plane and hotel room).  Any bit rate above 128 is acceptable but obviously, higher bit rates are better.  Usually I use variable bit rate 190-256.

I think those putting down MP3 and other forms of compression are missing the point.  What is surprising is how good the quality is considering that most of the information is thrown away.  And for me, having the music where I am far outways the quality loss.

[JoshK]

I agree that MP3's are great for portability.  I have a 75 gig HD full of my own mp3s (from my CDs).  I use these for putting on my portable which is much better than carrying a CD player and all those CDs, imo.  

I use to be a ripper, way back in the day for efnet.  We used some high quality standards and had tested many standards to come up with what was thought to be the best settings in terms of size of file vs. quality of tracks.  It was usually agreed upon that rates of 192-256 were best, stereo as opposed to joint stereo, a few other esoteric settings which I would have to look up, and typically fixed bit rate--unless the music was fairly dynamic as in classical, in which case variable bit rate was preferred--were the best settings.  LAME is a very good codec, I think the second revision of the unpronounceable german named codec (you'll know it when you see it) is the best, but this is my own experience. Not all encoders are equal as the more veteran rippers are aware! Stick to either of those for the better encodings.  I would like to experiment more on whether VBR or CBR is preferred on better recordings.  I know the typical off-the-shelf major record release with limited dynamics typically sounds better with CBR but I can see the case for VBR on less dynamically limited recordings.

Another less conventional codec which I find to offer get size/performance is the mp3 rev 2 codecs that are out there.  You need to update the players with the appropriate decoders to realize the gain though. MP3ver2's sound awful with the standard winamp but far superior to their reg mp3 versions with the right decoders.