Ripping CD collection

[Kijanki]

As I remember CD and CD-R both use exactly the same Reed-Solomon coding, that allows to error correct scratches along the track up to about 4mm, to interpolate between 4-8mm and to lose info above it (pops and clicks). Most of CD players have disadvantage of reading each sector only once (playing in real time), while CD rippers can go multiple times until proper checksum is obtained. I set my XLD ripper to 200 attempts. Every time I rip new CD it goes quickly without errors, but I had some really scratched CDs that ripping took hours (In-fact renewing CD). Convenience or quick ability of finding CDs on computer is secondary issue to me (speed is necessary only when you catch fleas), but limited longevity of CD is important. I feel safer when exact copy is backed up on two SSD and one of them is in the bank vault, in case of fire, theft etc. One extra copy is precaution in case something goes wrong during updating destroying both source and destination. Chances of this happening are almost zero, but I don't want to rip >1500 CDs again. I refresh them every so often, (interleaving) after adding few CDs to my collection. I like to keep physical copy, and also it is required by RIAA rules (need to have one copy that paid artist royalties). In spite of playing from the server sometimes I reach for physical "Jewel Box" to read booklet. My collection, in order of >1500 CD strored in ALAC, was created by ripping at first only CDs I listen most often to. Instead of placing CD to listen I started ripping and listen. You can start listening just after first track is ripped. That way ripping is not a big burden.

 

[bkdc]

When I first started ripping my CD's two decades ago using EAC, tag management and music database management was crude. It would be a Herculean task to address all the tagging accurately so I just let it go and I know where to find my music. And I use Roon. I have a gargantuan stack of used CD's stuffed away in boxes and boxes. Only my most favorite CD's and SACD's are stored with care. My SACD's are ripped using an old Oppo-103 unit SACD rips just take up too much library space and often stereo is just a satisfying.

 

[freemansteve]

Storage is cheap enough though....

I have all my faves stored as FLACs.

I just bought another HDD for 3rd-level back up of my NAS/RAID, which arrived today. A (known) good 6TB disk for just £124, or in the USA, probably $4.57

BTW the NAS/RAID is for all our data - books, films, photos, TV, music, programs and PC boot-drive-image files, not just music. It'd be overkill otherwise!

 

[deweydm]

Why do my CD rips sound like crap?

$file Fakebook/* |head -1 Fakebook/01 Can't Forget.mp3: Audio file with ID3 version 2.2.0, contains:MPEG ADTS, layer III, v1, 128 kbps, 44.1 kHz, JntStereo $

Oh. I ripped them to 128kbps MP3 to save disk space. <shakes head>

Very slowly going back and re ripping them, hopefully for the last time. But I'm pretty lazy about it, so often still just play the physical CDs. Plus, lossless streaming, though I still pick up specific, usually older, CD releases with mastering I prefer if the mastering of the streaming version is too brick walled.

 

[somebodyelse]

Oh. I ripped them to 128kbps MP3 to save disk space. <shakes head>

I'm guessing that was back when space was more of a factor than it is now, like when my portable player had a 6GB 2.5" HDD and loading music took ages because USB 1.1 was slow. I think I used lame's alt-preset standard which was vbr and a bit bigger than 128kbps but it was a compromise. Now we've got 128GB cheaply available in something the size of a fingernail it seems an odd choice, but it was perfectly sensible at the time.

 

[Gorgonzola]

Why do my CD rips sound like crap?

$file Fakebook/* |head -1 Fakebook/01 Can't Forget.mp3: Audio file with ID3 version 2.2.0, contains:MPEG ADTS, layer III, v1, 128 kbps, 44.1 kHz, JntStereo $

Oh. I ripped them to 128kbps MP3 to save disk space. <shakes head>

Very slowly going back and re ripping them, hopefully for the last time. But I'm pretty lazy about it, so often still just play the physical CDs. Plus, lossless streaming, though I still pick up specific, usually older, CD releases with mastering I prefer if the mastering of the streaming version is too brick walled.

I deem it foolish to rip to anything less than lossless format. If you need to compress to get music on a portable device it is always possible to make compressed copies for that purpose. If I'm not mistaken, some portable devices have their own utilities for that purpose.

Personally I ripped to FLAC exclusively these days; I have in the passed ripped to ALAC, Apple's lossless, which is fine and which I haven't bothered to convert to FLAC. I'm no longer sure of the size of my library, but I think it's equivalent to at least 3000 discs; it's all lossless but occupies less than 1 TB of disc space. FWIW, all my music is backed up to at least three separate drives.

 

[deweydm]

I'm guessing that was back when space was more of a factor than it is now, like when my portable player had a 6GB 2.5" HDD and loading music took ages because USB 1.1 was slow. I think I used lame's alt-preset standard which was vbr and a bit bigger than 128kbps but it was a compromise. Now we've got 128GB cheaply available in something the size of a fingernail it seems an odd choice, but it was perfectly sensible at the time.

Yeah. At least half ripped before I switched to MacOS and started using Apple's encoder from iTunes. Still no hurry to re rip though, considering the only time I still actually listen to a local digital copy is from an iPod classic when I don't have wifi or cellular coverage while traveling, to very rural areas. And I don't need lossless quality in the car or with a portable speaker.

Though with the way I handle my CDs (poorly), I really should re rip everything worth saving to ALAC eventually, in case I ever ditch my streaming and cloud subscription.

 

[deweydm]

I deem it foolish to rip to anything less than lossless format. If you need to compress to get music on a portable device it is always possible to make compressed copies for that purpose. If I'm not mistaken, some portable devices have their own utilities for that purpose.

Personally I ripped to FLAC exclusively these days; I have in the passed ripped to ALAC, Apple's lossless, which is fine and which I haven't bothered to convert to FLAC. I'm no longer sure of the size of my library, but I think it's equivalent to at least 3000 discs; it's all lossless but occupies less than 1 TB of disc space. FWIW, all my music is backed up to at least three separate drives.

Sure. Now I rip my CDs to lossless.

$ls -ld Walking* drwxr-xr-x@ 14 xxxx xxxxx 448 Mar 28 18:01 Walking Into Clarksdale $file Walking*/* |head -1 Walking Into Clarksdale/01 Shining In The Light.m4a: ISO Media, Apple iTunes ALAC/AAC-LC (.M4A) Audio $

And yep, I can convert to 256kbps AAC on the fly as needed when syncing to my iPod if/when I re rip everything to ALAC. But some of us are nearly decades in, started ripping CDs when disk space was dear, so....

 

[A Surfer]

With the exception of very rare CDs not available on any streaming services, ripping a CD is a total waste of time. Just download a lossless digital copy (many streaming services allow it via unofficial 3rd party apps, usually found on GitHub).

What if you want to stop paying for the subscription? That wouldn't at all make sense for somebody who owns the physical media to rely on a third party source that they have zero control over. If somebody owns the physical media it makes total sense to make their own digital library, unless I am misunderstanding something.

 

[krabapple]

With the exception of very rare CDs not available on any streaming services, ripping a CD is a total waste of time. Just download a lossless digital copy (many streaming services allow it via unofficial 3rd party apps, usually found on GitHub).

The same CD may have several masterings. Some better than others. You can't be sure the one you like is the one that's available for download. But for new stuff, sure, download away.

 

[Bsmooth]

I've heard some of the older recordings and a lossless copy is still a copy of a lousy recording. Different CD masterings may sound better or sometime worse, just louder. Its nice now to be able to listen to FLAC renderings on Amazon that aren't very good and then compare them to my MP3 remastered versions, which I have to say are just better

 

[JanesJr1]

It's pretty subjective, situational. I've got hundreds of LP and CD recordings going back to 1960. I now use Amazon for general interest music and Idagio (classical streaming). I actually find quite a bit missing from the current streaming catalog, but other than that, I find Amazon to have lots of very good remasters, and very little compression on the titles I listen to, which are mostly pre-2000, and which involve a mix of genres, but with a big chunk of classical.

If you look at actual measured dynamic range of current issues, almost all the compression is post-2000 music. I also have countless examples of Amazon lossless remasters that are far, far superior to the LP originals, particularly the re-pressings, but also many original pressings, particularly on non-classical labels. Not everything, obviously, but a lot. I also know that the CD's and LP's I own but that are missing from the current streaming catalog are a lot more numerous than "rare", and maybe I'll get around to ripping them. But the volume of missing recordings may be because classical is at least a large portion of my own catalog, and that genre has so many different performances of any given piece. (That's why I also use Idagio.)

I'm not arguing with your experience! I'm just saying that each person's mileage may vary, and that there is a lot of very good and uncompressed streaming content in the mix, depending on your taste, and I wish there were more.

 

[TimA]

Of course. Why use up more plastic.

I wonder if anyone has done an environment assessment of streaming vs CDs. I have read such assessments of DVDs vs streaming from Netflix etc and they suggest that if you watch a few times the DVD is more environmentally friendly - streaming has computers churning somewhere. Of course audio has a lot less bandwidth, but still, we are likely to listen many times ...

Of course. Why use up more plastic.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I wonder if anyone has done an environment assessment of streaming vs CDs. I have read such assessments of DVDs vs streaming from Netflix etc and they suggest that if you watch a few times the DVD is more environmentally friendly - streaming has computers churning somewhere. Of course audio has a lot less bandwidth, but still, we are likely to listen many times ...

Actually, I am not a strong proponent of streaming as the best alternative to CDs. My preference is for playback of locally-stored music files derived from a single download or the ripping of a plastic disc.

 

[Robin L]

Actually, I am not a strong proponent of streaming as the best alternative to CDs. My preference is for playback of locally-stored music files derived from a single download or the ripping of a plastic disc.

Somehow I have greater confidence in my ripped files than anything I stream. That said, I'm listening to a lot of YouTube, often surprised at how good it can get.

 

[Bsmooth]

Quite a bit of the Stream content is good. Some on the other hand are not much better than nothing at all.

 

[Waxx]

I rip cd with this very good freeware: Exact Audio Copy to Wav (16bit 44.1kHz the format on the cd) and store it on a NAS server. I play it with JRiver over LAN from there. (but there are more software who can do it).

Ripping cd's guarantees the quality while streaming services are not always hi quality. And often they don't have the music i listen to. Also they may dissappear, while my NAS are always there as long as i maintain it.

 

[TheBatsEar]

I rip cd with this very good freeware: Exact Audio Copy to Wav (16bit 44.1kHz the format on the cd) and store it on a NAS server. I play it with JRiver over LAN from there. (but there are more software who can do it).

The best option out there, even the Linux guys don't have anything better.
But why Wav? You could compress it to Flac and save about half or more of the disk space.

Flac also is able to store meta data, year, tracknumber, coverart, composer, artist, title and lots and lots of more.

Ripping cd's guarantees the quality while streaming services are not always hi quality. And often they don't have the music i listen to. Also they may dissappear, while my NAS are always there as long as i maintain it.

Right. I think that is what makes Roon so attractive, it combines different streaming and local stuff into one "view".
It's high on my list to try out.

 

[001]

For the last few years when using a win10 box, I've ripped them with Freac to mp3 @320kbps, I tried FLAC a few times and thought I could hear a difference but my hearing's getting long in the tooth, so 320kbps is good enough for my ears. As for tagging, well that's always a little more fun: I use mp3tag successfully and it's sorted out most of my collection. As long as I remember to put 'Various Artists' in the 'Album artist' tag then a compilation rip works fine for me.

 

[TheBatsEar]

For the last few years when using a win10 box, I've ripped them with Freac to mp3 @320kbps, I tried FLAC a few times and thought I could hear a difference but my hearing's getting long in the tooth, so 320kbps is good enough for my ears.

I did that but then decided to rerip it all in 2010 or so. For me it's a question of archive quality.

As for tagging, well that's always a little more fun: I use mp3tag successfully and it's sorted out most of my collection. As long as I remember to put 'Various Artists' in the 'Album artist' tag then a compilation rip works fine for me.

Same here.
This is my "rename" string: