PLEASE HELP quality question

[Mark S]

Hello everybody,

I'm sorry to bother you with such a basic question, but I've spent a lot of time searching on the internet for the answer - and I think I have it - but theres so much technical information that I dont understand that I'm not sure ...... so I finally found this forum.

The question: I've been using the dbpoweramp (great product, by the way, so easy to use) to convert my entire collection of CDs into mp3s. The question is, what settings should I use to get the absolute best sound quality? The closest to the actual CD quality? I don't care at all about file size, I want the best quality.

I've been using a bitrate of 320 (which I think is the highest?) and I've been using stereo, not "joint stereo" or "dual channel". Is that right? Is there anything else I should know???? Do you think this will give m,e about the same quality as the original CD?

Also, sometimes, maybe every 7th CD I convert, there's a track or 2 which can't be copied ...... but I'm assuming thats because of scratches on the CD, not because I'm doing anything wrong ...... does that seem right?

THANK YOU SO MUCH for any advice you can give,
Mark

[rij73]

Re: PLEASE HELP quality question

In my tests, I can't tell the difference between 320 and the CD when using the latest LAME encoder on rock music. Sometimes in classical orchestral music, there are little problems, but that's why I never rip classical cd's to a lossy format like mp3 anyway. Everything you say sounds right to me, but I'm not one of the experts here, just an audio enthsiast! Good luck...

[MARK S]

Re: PLEASE HELP quality question

Thank you for the reply!!

So, 320 is the best, thanks. Am i right to use "stereo", rather than "dual channel" or "joint stereo"?

And here, I'll really show my ignorance. I'm not sure what "lossy" means ....... anyway, I'm interested in getting the highest quality ripping ..... I also listen to some classical music ...... so what way of ripping would be recommended then, if not MP3 ("lossy")? To get the highest quality? Can I do it with dbpoweramp, or ?? Where/how??

Thank you again and sorry for the questions.....
Mark

[ChristinaS]

Re: PLEASE HELP quality question

A quick Google search has revealed this page that summarizes the various kinds: http://www.angelfire.com/rock/motar/sounds/lossless.htm

[Mark S]

Re: PLEASE HELP quality question

Thanks!!
theres nothing on that page though (;

[Unregistered]

Re: PLEASE HELP quality question

ok, so i too searched google, and found this:

http://mp3.radified.com/

you think THIS is the way to go? any advice would be appreciated. if i can get "lossless" ripping from dbpoweramp, id rather use that.... but if not, does anyone out there have a program to recommend?

[Mark S]

Re: PLEASE HELP quality question

by the way, i wrote that last post .... i forgot to type my name in the box

[xoas]

Re: PLEASE HELP quality question

dBpowerAMP offers a variety of lossless formats, the most popular of which seem to be Monkey's Audio and FLAC. To use either of these or other codecs, you will need to download the codec for the format(s) you want to use. You can find these at Codec Central (you will find a link towards the top of the page).
Best wishes,
Bill Mikkelsen

[ChristinaS]

Re: PLEASE HELP quality question

Thanks!!
theres nothing on that page though (;

OOPS! I guess you're right, I dropped the "l" at the end of the URL! Sorry about that.

http://www.angelfire.com/rock/motar/sounds/lossless.html

[Spoons]

Re: PLEASE HELP quality question

and each to their own too. you want the best quality? then you have to rip to lossless like monkeys or flac. you will need lot's of hardrive space though. but with cheap hardrives that's not such a big issue these days.

when i want the best lossy compression quality i go for ogg at 192.

[MARK S]

Re: PLEASE HELP quality question

thank you!!
for lossless: of monkeys or flac, or any others, which would you recommend? (as far as quality, number of audio players theyre compatible with ..... and also likelihood that in the future it'll continue to be compatible with players (i dont want to convert all my cds to a file type that in a year will be extinct) goes)
?? which is the most popular file type of lossless?? sorry im really new to this

[Spoons]

Re: PLEASE HELP quality question

well thats the best thing about lossles. you can rip to monkey and find you want a mp3 player but it only supports flac. so no problem you just convert your ape to flac. no quality loss at all. you can convert from lossless to lossles sall day long without any probs.

i think both flac and monkey is being supported in a lot of mp3 players these days?

i'm not sure.

keep in mind lossless is just like a zip file. that's all it does. it doesn't remove any audio it just compresses it.

[ChristinaS]

Re: PLEASE HELP quality question

That's all very good, but for internet streaming I think there are only a few formats that are generally supported: mp3, wma and real audio. By necessity these have to be compressed to a higher extent, even for high-speed connections. Thus I personally prefer wma @ 128 kbps over mp3 @ 128 kbps which results in identical size files, as the wma quality is roughly that of an mp3 @ 256 kbps, and which will be played by WMP without any additional downloads of software. Yes it is lossy, but I am not aware of any other choices for this purpose.

[Spoons]

Re: PLEASE HELP quality question

i don't think he is interested in using his collection for streaming?

[RossRoy]

Re: PLEASE HELP quality question

I had my whole collection to lossless before, but I ended thinking "What the !?!?!? Why take up an entire 200Gb hard drive just for music, when I have the CDs on hand?" Sure, I LOVE not having to look through 200+ CDs just to find a specific song, but it can be done just as good with a lossy codec with, to my ears, no difference at all between the CD itself and the lossy (I use OGG at q.7 or 224kbps) but uses up what? not even half of what it did with APE and/or FLAC?

And when transcoding to MP3 for my portable, even then, I can not much tell a difference between the transcoded MP3 from the OGG.

Honestly? Even classical, with OGG at q.7, sounds great, even when cranked up on my sound system, so why waste 200Gb just to "know" you have lossless when in fact it doesn't change what I actually hear? And to be fully honest? It must be my mind playing tricks or the decoder or something, but OGG seems to pack more "ooomph" than APE or FLAC.. kind of if the sound kept better channel seperation and low end frequencies.. Weird I know, I must be crazy but eh! that's me!