Question about rip/burn Cd's

[E-Stat]

Just use Nero or EAC and make an exact copy of the CD. Forget about all the other formats if your not gonna put it on a pod or are worried about space.

Most importantly, most car CD players only play CDs and not other codec flavors.

rw

[recoveryone]

I hope we have helped or seriously confused Blackraven more ...lol (J/K) I was just showing an option that render very good quality and use little less disk space for future rippping.

[recoveryone]

Most importantly, most car CD players only play CDs and not other codec flavors.

rw

E ??? how old is the head unit in your car? most CD head units (post 03) can read MP3/WMA/ACC formats And if you brought one within that last couple of years (aftermarket) it should be able to control Ipod or USB devices if not read a USB storage drive with MP3/WMA/ACC formats.

[Hyfi]

E ??? how old is the head unit in your car? most CD head units (post 03) can read MP3/WMA/ACC formats And if you brought one within that last couple of years (aftermarket) it should be able to control Ipod or USB devices if not read a USB storage drive with MP3/WMA/ACC formats.

My 03 Impala will only play CDs.
My 07 Rav4 will play CDs and MP3s......I played MP3s in it one time since I have owned it.

[E-Stat]

E ??? how old is the head unit in your car? most CD head units (post 03) can read MP3/WMA/ACC formats

While the Alpine unit in my '04 Acura can play multi-channel DVD-A and DTS, it does not understand file based music.

And if you brought one within that last couple of years (aftermarket) it should be able to control Ipod or USB devices if not read a USB storage drive with MP3/WMA/ACC formats.

Then why would you want to burn a CD?

rw

[recoveryone]

While the Alpine unit in my '04 Acura can play multi-channel DVD-A and DTS, it does not understand file based music.


Then why would you want to burn a CD?

rw

I haven"t burn (car use) CD's since around 03

I use a 2gig USB thumb drive (cheap Dual X7714 HD)






and my wife has a 4gig USB thumb drive (Pioneer DEH 7100BT) for hers

[recoveryone]

My 03 Impala will only play CDs.
My 07 Rav4 will play CDs and MP3s......I played MP3s in it one time since I have owned it.

"Most"

[Bluey]

if you just want to have a copy of your cd's then just use Nero or similar and just 'copy cd' as many times as you want.
The copy should be the same quality no matter which format its in .... for using with iPods etc, then maybe use a compression

[Hyfi]

"Most"

And the other problem is that many factory radio units are also the control for the anti theft and other things so you can't just swap the head unit out for an MP3 playing unit.

Maybe "Most" cheaper cars are like that but both of mine are setup the way I just described.

To get back on track, the original poster asked the best way to make copies of CDs to play in secondary systems without having to carry the disks from room to room.

Nero or EAC is one of the best answers to his question, not a huge blown out debate on other formats and bit rates.

[E-Stat]

I use a ...

That's all fine and good but doesn't address the OP's question.

rw

[blackraven]

Didn't you say you built computers?

I know a fair amount about the software needed to get computers up and running as well as keeping it clean and tidy, but I don't really use my computer for much of anything anymore except for Email and browsing. So I'm not that familiar with certain computer app's. I used to be into gaming when Mech Warrior 2-4 was big. I customized quite a few computers.

[noddin0ff]

That's all fine and good but doesn't address the OP's question.

rw

This question you mean?

What format and bit rate do I use for the ripping.

It's been answered. EAC will give an 'Exact Audio Copy". Red book to Red book. Lossless.

alternatively, the answer is 'depends' in which case a discussion of formats and bit rates is helpful.

[E-Stat]

This question you mean?

No, I refer to the clarification of his specific needs:

There are some CD's that I want to have copies of for my second and third systems in my bedroom and basement as well as my car.

Apparently, he was unaware that copies of CDs usable on a wide range of players do not involve selection of bit rate. There is only one answer - 1440k. I use EAC myself.

rw

[recoveryone]

Just spent 8 hours ripping most of my collection, putting the cd's in storage so I can make more room on the display rack for DVD's and Blu Ray disk. Ran across some cd's I have forgot that I even had, I guess that's the curse of using my squeezebox now days for my listening pleasure.

[Feanor]

Just spent 8 hours ripping most of my collection, putting the cd's in storage so I can make more room on the display rack for DVD's and Blu Ray disk. Ran across some cd's I have forgot that I even had, I guess that's the curse of using my squeezebox now days for my listening pleasure.

Congrats, R1.

You'll notice it's great to have your whole music collection just a few clicks away.

However for my part I've spent several hundred hours ripping the close to a thousand albums we have around home. I have a lot of classical music and in these cases it is almost always necessary to modify the tags are provided by the online services; this adds a lot to the effort.

[El_descnocido]

I think the response to the original question should be a simply: There is no reason to ripping the CD into your hard disk and burnning CDs then, just copy, chose the CD copy option on any CDs burnner and that´s it, you can select several copies so information as is will be storage in the computer and burnned into a several CDs as required. It is hugh dierence if you ripped and burnned then. Whoever that can not diferenciate quality audio between LPs, CDs, Loosless files, Lossey files (MP3, WMA, etc) doesn´t deserve to write any post in here. Man you have to go to a doctor for EARs checking or improve your audio siystem.

[audio amateur]

I think the response to the original question should be a simply: There is no reason to ripping the CD into your hard disk and burnning CDs then, just copy, chose the CD copy option on any CDs burnner and that´s it, you can select several copies so information as is will be storage in the computer and burnned into a several CDs as required. It is hugh dierence if you ripped and burnned then. Whoever that can not diferenciate quality audio between LPs, CDs, Loosless files, Lossey files (MP3, WMA, etc) doesn´t deserve to write any post in here. Man you have to go to a doctor for EARs checking or improve your audio siystem.

I'd be willing to bet you a large sum of money that you can't discern between wav and lossless, and even possibly high quality lossy.

[Feanor]

I'd be willing to bet you a large some of money that you can't discern between wav and lossless, and even possibly high quality lossy.

I am certain that I could not infalibly distinguish between, say, WAV, and 320 kbps. At the very least it would depend on the quality of the recording and the type of music. I've made the point before that mainly extremely complex musical sounds, e.g. cymbals struck with a steele brush, make good candidates for distinction.

Then again, lots of people will insist that they can distinguish any change in the reproduction chain or, indeed, a jar of Brilliant Pebbles in the room ...

[recoveryone]

ditto Feanor

[El_descnocido]

I´m not that guy that argue something without data, first of all wav is considered lossless in CD audio format so i´m agree it is almost impossible to diferenciate in between, but 320Kbs lossey format wich is the higher quality of course i do diferenciate, even on 320Kbs bass looks like be more or deeper, highs and mids are muddy, actually those deficiencies on loosey formats increase while audio is driven tru a DSP while the signal is modified or digitilized several times its been more distorntioned and far away of its original source, tone and sound. There are several ways to maximize or improve digital lossey to being near to the original source, so im refering to direct sound comparisson without sound processing at any kind. Again you won´t be able if you still using that sony, panasonic and other low end piece of garbage. I worked for about 4 years in a radio station driving, digitalizing and processing audio in TX room and recording room, so i´m not that expert or Prodigious EAR neither but a guy that worked with sounds came from a single guitar or an entire orchestra and can diferenciate lossless from a lossey audio recording. saludos!

[E-Stat]

I'd be willing to bet you a large sum of money that you can't discern between wav and lossless...

I don't disagree fundamentally with your bet, there can be implementation details that get in the way. As a new Squeezebox Touch user, I have experimented with different formats and options. The default setting is for the server software to send the native format (FLAC in my case) to the Touch where the onboard processor performs the transcoding and playback. Initially, I thought this was great because it reduced the bandwidth requirement for the Wi-Fi transmission. The office server lives a hundred feet away from the Touch located in the garage. Initially, I had experienced some dropouts requiring rebuffering but solved that by moving a large Metropolitan rolling metal rack out of the pathway and getting larger antennae for the Linksys access point.

It was suggested by a long term user over at AA that I try using the option where the transcoding occurs at the server instead to reduce the computational burden on the Touch. While its 500 mhz ARM processor is more powerful than found in previous SB units, it is significantly less powerful than the 2.8 ghz quad core I7 in the office. On some content, I can hear a reduction of non-musical click-like artifacts. Similarly, I can hear the difference when I replaced the wall wart switching PS with a high quality linear unit which is measurably quieter. The overall sound is less bright and smoother. I think the Touch is a great deal at $300, but it has its limitations. Fortunately, they can be addressed. The aftermarket power supply was another $200.

Lossless can be great, but the playback device must be well implemented.

rw

[JoeE SP9]

Who cares about lossy or lossless? When making a copy of a CD just use EAC as already recommended. The question of bit rates, FLAC or whatever is only germane when copying to a HDD.

[audio amateur]

E-Stat
I'm not a 100% briefed on to the workings of wireless streaming with logitech touches etc., but I get the idea. Do you use it with the main system or with garage only? I bet any differences would be more noticeable in the main system.

I don't disagree fundamentally with your bet

Would you disagree fundamentally if we included 320kbps lossy?

[noddin0ff]

I don't disagree fundamentally with your bet, there can be implementation details that get in the way. As a new Squeezebox Touch user, I have experimented with different formats and options. The default setting is for the server software to send the native format (FLAC in my case) to the Touch where the onboard processor performs the transcoding and playback....[etc. etc.]
rw

I dunno. I think it's this kind of rhetoric that continues to confuse and mislead people looking for answers on resolutions and bitrates and codecs etc. If I parse what you're saying correctly, then your post is not at all about the fidelity of the codec or bit rate, but about the robustness of your home internet. You contort a reasonable statement of challenge regarding whether one can distinguish WAV vs Lossless vs HQ compression and confound it by bringing in unrelated issues of wireless internet dropouts, the location of metal racks, and $200 power supplies. Sure, I get occasional dropouts too with streaming music on my wireless network--particularly when I use the microwave--but what has this to do with evaluating codecs.

I highly doubt whether processor speed has any bearing on transcoding fidelity; it isn't a processor intensive task. The SB is way more than adequate. Similarly, I don't understand what you mean by 'lossless is great, but...'. I mean...lossless is lossless; it is what it is. You don't have to 'well implement' it to get more lossless. Any difference you hear is downstream and subject to variations there.

Isn't the basic thrust of this extended thread, all things being equal, to ask what you sacrifice with various codecs? Why confound the issue by bringing in the perceived effects of wall warts versus $200 power supplies? etc. I don't think a mine's bigger argument clarifies anything.

and...what JoeE SP9 says.

[02audionoob]

I dunno. I think it's this kind of rhetoric that continues to confuse and mislead people looking for answers on resolutions and bitrates and codecs etc. If I parse what you're saying correctly, then your post is not at all about the fidelity of the codec or bit rate, but about the robustness of your home internet. You contort a reasonable statement of challenge regarding whether one can distinguish WAV vs Lossless vs HQ compression and confound it by bringing in unrelated issues of wireless internet dropouts, the location of metal racks, and $200 power supplies. Sure, I get occasional dropouts too with streaming music on my wireless network--particularly when I use the microwave--but what has this to do with evaluating codecs.

I highly doubt whether processor speed has any bearing on transcoding fidelity; it isn't a processor intensive task. The SB is way more than adequate. Similarly, I don't understand what you mean by 'lossless is great, but...'. I mean...lossless is lossless; it is what it is. You don't have to 'well implement' it to get more lossless. Any difference you hear is downstream and subject to variations there.

Isn't the basic thrust of this extended thread, all things being equal, to ask what you sacrifice with various codecs? Why confound the issue by bringing in the perceived effects of wall warts versus $200 power supplies? etc. I don't think a mine's bigger argument clarifies anything.

and...what JoeE SP9 says.

What point is there in debating what is appropriate to say in this thread when the first reply said this...

You would use WMA or other reduced bit rate formats only if you're making compressed files, such as for a portable player. Otherwise, you would want to simply copy the CD in Nero...