Ripping & Volume Leveling

[Imaohw]

Hello,

I've owned a lifetime lic of MM since early 2004, but have just recently started using it as my primary player/organizer/tagger/burner/etc. I, like many, found the MM interface to be a bit clunky, thereby discouraging further 'exploration'. But, also like many, once I started using it, I happily found that MM is the most complete mp3 utility out there. It's all I use now. iTunes is gone! WMP (which I had been using for years to rip and sync my ipod) is gone (mostly)! I love it!

OK, to the question(s):

I've used mp3Gain for years with the V level set at 98, Track Analyzing.

1) Does using this VL result in audio quality loss?
2) What are the best settings to maintain the highest quality?
3) Do most recommend allowing MM to VL, and if so, which settings? Replay gain, mp3 gain, adjustment level, etc?
4) If my settings have resulted in quality loss (and given that the VL is just written to the tags), what would be the best method & program for correction?

Also, although I initially started encoding at 128bit cbr, I now encode at 192cbr. With the exception of about 30 files downloaded from Amazon (which are encoded at 256 bit...good bit rate?), I have all the CD's for my music collection (about 300 CD's), so I could re-rip them (one day...heh!), but from this point forward, I'd like to rip decent quality. I haven't explored formats beyond mp3 (although I would consider it). My portable player is an older 30GB ipod Photo. If I were to need a new player tomorrow, it would likely be an ipod (other suggestions welcome, though). I mention this in case compatibility is an issue.

So, these are pretty basic questions. I am very computer literate, so most suggestions will not be beyond me (and I'll ask questions if they are). Any other suggestions for receiving the best AQ are welcome.

I don't have the time to do back flips to get there, but I'm hoping for suggestions that will balance high quality rips with a reasonable amount of time and effort.

Thanks for any suggestions.

[Imaohw]

No Takers? Too elementary? Post too convoluted?

[edd foster]

HI
I'M ABOUT TO START FRESH W/320 BITS
I'D LIKE TO LOSE THE AUTOMATIC CONNECTION TO AMAZON
ANY SUGGESTIONS ?

[Lowlander]

What automatic connection to Amazon?

Perhaps Tools > Options > Appearance and disable Show Links in Tracklist?

[Heddy]

The answer to your quality question really depends on what you are going to do with the files. If you have all the CDs at home, you can use those for a quality listening experience, right? So if you use MM to load the music on your iPod and listen to it on standard or cheap headphones in the bus or in the public, you might just as well stick to 128. Not sure you would be able to tell the difference between a 196 high quality file and a standard 128 file in an environment with lots of noise and other sounds.
On the other hand, you can always resample the bitrate when you transfer the music to your player - that's what I do when I want my 1 GB player full of music, and not just two or three albums. However, with a 40 GB iPod, storage space is not that important, I realize that.
If you want to look at non-Apple players, my recommendation is to check out Creative.

[Imaohw]

The answer to your quality question really depends on what you are going to do with the files. If you have all the CDs at home, you can use those for a quality listening experience, right?

Well, no. I don't listen to the CDs. I use my computers and quality sound speakers for my music library. The CDs are merely my 'Masters' for the purposes of re-ripping if necessary and to avoid DRM.

So if you use MM to load the music on your iPod and listen to it on standard or cheap headphones in the bus or in the public, you might just as well stick to 128. Not sure you would be able to tell the difference between a 196 high quality file and a standard 128 file in an environment with lots of noise and other sounds.
On the other hand, you can always resample the bitrate when you transfer the music to your player - that's what I do when I want my 1 GB player full of music, and not just two or three albums. However, with a 40 GB iPod, storage space is not that important, I realize that.

My standard bitrate as of now is 192. And, as you state, with a 30gb iPod, space is not really an issue, and if it were, as you say, I can simply down-sample when syncing. My primary concern is achieving the best sound quality when playing at home on a computer and the ability to sync to ipod without jumping through hoops or taking a lot of time.


Thanks for your comments.

[WWIVHobbit]

If space isn't a concern and quality is what you're after, why not just rip at 320 and get the "best" mp3 offers? As you say, you can always downgrade when loading the ipod

[nohitter151]

If space isn't a concern and quality is what you're after, why not just rip at 320 and get the "best" mp3 offers? As you say, you can always downgrade when loading the ipod

You're better off ripping to a lossless format like FLAC or WAV if space is not a concern.

[Imaohw]

Hi Hobbit and nohitter, thanks for your responses. I suppose both suggestions are viable, especially since MM seems to be able to convert format on the fly when syncing to devices.

Nohitter:
The FLAC format sounds interesting, and according to MM, compresses to about 58%. After I read your response, I ripped a track to FLAC. Unfortuantely, right now, I have a temporary speaker setup (just moved my office inot a temporary location while renovating a new space), so I'm not sure if I can tell the sound quality difference between the FLAC (at comp level 6) and the mp3 (at 192 bitrate). The tagging seems about the same within MM, but doesn't seem to write the tag to the file? At least, I can't see the tags in Windows Explorer (win7u 64bit). That could be a problem if the tag is not written to a file. I'd hate to be chained to one program. Are there any disadvantages to FLAC? Even with an old 2 channel speaker setup (although a good one...altec lansing with a sub-wolfer...about 12 yrs. old), should I be able to hear a difference in the quality?

Thanks for any info!

PS - can one really only access the MM ripping options when a CD is in the drive?

[nohitter151]

MM does write info to FLAC files (vorbis comments), the reason you can't see them in Windows explorer is because win explorer doesn't read vorbis comments from flac files.

Also see here: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/lof ... 28829.html

[GRW]

Another thing to consider is longevity - how long do you propose having these tracks for? If, like me, they are meant as pretty much permanent and space is no issue, then I would seriously consider 320kbps MP3s. That way the tracks are waiting for any situation should it arise. MP3s will always be more versatile than other formats and can be played in cars or for discos on laptops etc where quality really is the major factor.

Many doubt the realistic quality of high value MP3s but having experimented with many and used them in my car/discos etc I would never use any other than the above. I can hear a significant difference on 320kbps so much so that when I test using the CD the track came off of, the MP3 sounds better!!!! If you have a very good quality sound set-up, try it!!! The nearest explanation I have found is that some of the "loss" created in the MP3 conversion is data in-audable to the human ear yet the speaker still tries to reproduce it. The more a speaker tries to reproduce a bass sound the more it struggles with more normal mid-range notes.

[nohitter151]

Another thing to consider is longevity - how long do you propose having these tracks for? If, like me, they are meant as pretty much permanent and space is no issue, then I would seriously consider 320kbps MP3s. That way the tracks are waiting for any situation should it arise. MP3s will always be more versatile than other formats and can be played in cars or for discos on laptops etc where quality really is the major factor.

Many doubt the realistic quality of high value MP3s but having experimented with many and used them in my car/discos etc I would never use any other than the above. I can hear a significant difference on 320kbps so much so that when I test using the CD the track came off of, the MP3 sounds better!!!! If you have a very good quality sound set-up, try it!!! The nearest explanation I have found is that some of the "loss" created in the MP3 conversion is data in-audable to the human ear yet the speaker still tries to reproduce it. The more a speaker tries to reproduce a bass sound the more it struggles with more normal mid-range notes.

That's really the wrong answer though. If you plan on having these tracks forever, as basically an "archive" of your music collection, you're much much better off having an identical copy of the CD on your hard drive. mp3 format is lossy, which means it will never match the original CD in terms of quality. And you can always convert the tracks from FLAC > mp3 later on. To quote the hydrogenaudio wiki ( http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php ... chiving.22 )

However, 'archiving' music using a lossy format like MP3 is never recommended – no matter how transparent the resulting files might sound. The alternative is to use Lossless formats like WavPack, FLAC etc. that allow true archiving, bit for bit like on the original CD.

[GRW]

Yeah sorry, what I meant was if they are planned to be kept and used in a variety of ways - the convenience of just having them ready to go is huge. If they don't intend to be used and just backed up then fine. But if they are going to be accessed in a variety of ways then its ready to go. For example, if I fancy a new disc for the car, I just select the tracks and burn them. I don't have to worry about converting them and I also don't have to worry about anything other than MM not playing them.

As for poorer quality I dissagree. I spent 3 hours one afternoon playing the MP3s against the original CDs and the data disc DID sound better on a very HQ Kenwood car sound system - even the bass sounded tighter at high volume. I know it shouldn't but it did. Any many others did too, some of whom were lobbying Amazon to start 320 downloads because they "felt" there were "un-necessary". 320kbps MP3 is now the download of choice. As for other formats, the sheer convenience of MP3 is huge and at 320 you wont notice anything else sounding better I fear. But for purely archive nohitters suggestion is better.

[nohitter151]

Well the word "better" is very subjective. But if you want the tracks to sound as close to the original CD as possible, then lossless (wav, flac, wavpack) is the way to go, not lossy (mp3, wma, m4a, ogg).

[Imaohw]

SInce I have the CDs for 99.9% of my music, archiving is really not an issue, but rather quality for listening and occasional burning. At the moment, I don't have the time to re-rip, tag and (worse) rate all my music (I wish there was a way to apply the tags/ratings from the existing library...). However, I am trying to make a decision as to how to rip from this point forward. 320 mp3s might be the simplest, but of course, lossy. Flac, not being 'mainstream' does have its drawbacks (i.e., not widely supported by players, ratings and tags not readable in W.E.).

I guess I'll have to give this some thought, but in the meantime, will start ripping at 320 bitrate. Since I will have to re-rip the entire collection anyway, 10 or 20 more CDs will not be a significant increase in work should I decide to go with flac.

Thank you all for your contributions to the thread. You've given me good info to ponder until I get time to re-rip (hopefully within a year...)

Thanks again.