MP3 newbie here. I've downloaded a few rippers. What I was looking for is one that not only rips to WAV but does WAV->MP3 conversion from the hd. Thus, I can have a back-up copy of the original, and burn MP3s to CD-Rs, without having to rip to MP3 from the CD. Is it even worthit if MP3 is set to highest quality? Am confused about a few things. A) what is a VBR header? Why is 0 highest quality? The VBR bitrate should be 0 as well or 320? should I use ABR, MTRH instead? B)Sample rate is set at 44100(CD quality), but isnt 48000 even better? If not, why is it there? bitrate is set to 320kbit as I want highest quality; MP3 file size is small enough for me. C)what is CRC-checksum?
I think VBR Header is for the length of the song. VBR is Variable Bite Rate CBR is Constant Bite Rate ABR is Average Bite Rate I use CBR @ 320 when I convert to MP3 Humans can only hear 20000 it's set to 44100 to remove imperfections. There's not much difference between 44100 and 48000. CRC checks for errors during the rip.
chubbyInc pretty much answered your questions but I will put in my 2 cents. 0 setting for LAME VBRs is only a setting. Different encoders have different settings. I suspect 0 stands for 0 hearable loss. This setting is the equivelant of a 320 CBR mp3 file. Both ignore tones above 20 kHz which no human can hear. You start to lose the ability to hear 20 kHz in your teens. By you 20s you can't tone even close to that. In reality a good ear can't appreciate anything better than a 190 CBR. The rest is over kill. I don't think there is anything wrong with some over kill. Excessive overkill is stupid. A 320 CBR mp3 is a good a quality as you can get. The reason to go to a different format is to save disk space. VBRs use 20-25% less disk space than the CBRs with no audio quality difference. VBRs use a difficult to code compression technique that throws away tones your ear will hear but your brain will not process. That is how you get a size savings without a hearable difference. Because the coding is tricky stick to LAME if you are going to use VBR. There is also AAC formats. These use the same kinds of compression that VBRs use but combine them differently. Instead of a variable bit rate they have variable quality. Who would want to listen to variable quality music? The is no audio quality reason to use ABR (Average Bit Rate). It is between AAC and VBR in concept. Better than AAC worse than VBR because it is still a variable quality format. I like to set the quality not have the computer fudge the number. That is what AAC and ABR does. Sample rates need to be double what your highest tone you are keeping. Those high sample rates are not important for listening pleasure. They have meaning in other areas. CDs hold infinitly more data than your brain an process. They are a big step down from vinyl LPs but who cares, your ears can't hear and your brain can't process most of the data on a DC. My case in point is a VBR mp3 CD will hold between 10 and 20 CDs with no hearable quality difference. Many audiophyles do not care about science. They, like all of us choose what to believe. That is why many listen to lossless music and even vinyl. They are starting to make vinyl. They could care less that a tiny VBR mp3 is more likely to produce better sound quality than either a CD or vinyl. Both media are far more likely to produce play back errors than something played from your hard disk. I only know of two rippers that will account for read errors and that is why I reccomend them. My suggestion is to only use EAC (free) or dbPowerAmp (not free) and rip to V0 with LAME VBR. Use the Accurip option both have that feature.
Thanks for the replies. You are right, there is no real difference between a VBR MP3 and the original file, but the saved space is a lot. I am using CDex now.
Does CDex use Accurip and does it use a secure rip? Without those features you will not have a perfect copy everytime. Even with those you do not always get a perfect copy but you are warned. That way you can clean/resurface the disk and re-rip.
I know CDEx will show you the error count, and does do some error correction. I've never had to set anything to get these features working. I have re-ripped some songs because of the error count.
How does it recognize an error? It is hard to recognize that you did not read a block correctly without knowing what it should have been. The other 2 use a web based DB that most likly maintains check sums for the tunes. It lets you know if you are the first and the process does not have a display. I guess if the read is inconsistant it can guess. Most CD reads are flawed extreamly picky and educated listeners avoid listening to CDs for that reason. Truthfully, most of the time I can't tell the difference from a failed tune and a good one. I nomally do the best job I can cleaning the disk then redo the bad ones. If they still fail that is when I listen to them. If I can hear the difference I resurface the disk until I get a good read. You are more adventuresome than I. I am a problem avoider. I try to find the most relyable tool I can and stick with it unless I actually see a problem. I have no patience for problems. In fact my goal is to do as little as possible and be able to enjoy my music. The problem is although I am fairly hard of hearing, I am a very careful listener. I savor the nuances of HiFi. While my 19 yr old son can still hear mosquito tones but can't tell the difference between LoFi and HiFi.
