Oh, and I gave away all my CDs on freecycle.

Naught naughty BigDummy… 😉

Actually a couple of years ago I did rip most of my CD collection to MP3, 320kbps. In my own not very scientific tests, the CDs sound just a bit better than the MP3s. Like I said though it's not very scientific.

I was thinking though, with the massive capacity hard drives available today, is there anything wrong with ripping them as straight AIF files? Will I lose any quality? 320kbps files are fine for my MP3 player. I was just wondering if ripping the whole lot again would be worth it, or if I'd still suffer a loss in sound quality no matter what.

Got rid of all th CD's years ago. Encoded them all as FLAC files, got a personal player that plays FLACs and a serious dac, amp and speakers.

It is half kit and half ears but anyone who thinks iTunes is satisfactory should be very pleased as you will save yourself a fortune on hi fi kit.

That's a different issue. You were making silly sweeping statements about all MP3s sounding rubbish when what you mean is that low bitrate MP3s sound rubbish.

Well apologies for the massive error but I think you'll find that, seeing as almost all mp3s are recorded at the lower bitrate, I allowed myself the luxury of a sweeping statement. I have also made it clear several times that high bitrate mp3s are available but rarely used by your average music listener.

It's all about boasting you have 51511544 albums rather than appreciating the music you actually have – be that on CD or vinyl. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the mp3s you have are 196kbps anyway.

I wince when I see fairly decent kit with all the music coming from a cack quality mp3/i-player or even laptop. All too common.

I buy CD's online (cheaper than itunes) and rip to PC at 128K AAC which apparently gives effectively the same quality as 256K MP3 because of the better algorithm.

Can anyone in the know confirm this or shoot it down?

IMO most people would be pushed to tell the difference between a CD and a 256K encoded MP3

Well apologies for the massive error but I think you'll find that, seeing as almost all mp3s are recorded at the lower bitrate, I allowed myself the luxury of a sweeping statement. I have also made it clear several times that high bitrate mp3s are available but rarely used by your average music listener.

That's like saying that because the vast majority of people buy crappy Asda full suspension bikes, therefore mountain bikes are crap. 😉

I buy CD's online (cheaper than itunes) and rip to PC at 128K AAC which apparently gives effectively the same quality as 256K MP3 because of the better algorithm.

I've never used AAC compression but that sounds like bollox to me. Imo the best compromise between quality and file size is something like 224 VBR.

OH AND THERE'S NO APOSTROPHE IN CDs!!!!!!!!!! ARGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! 😡

Give it 5 years and I'm sure we'll have so much storage that we'll rip WAVs.

In the meantime plenty of 320kbs, DRM free, to buy here, or FLAC if you really need it

http://www.boomkat.com
http://www.bleep.com

I archive mine to FLAC using EAC. Then I move the FLACs onto a DVD for archiving and encode them into AAC using Nero AAC codec & Foobar.

Rather time consuming, but it means that I have a lossless digital copy in FLAC should I ever wish to encode to a different format in the future, and I have a copy in AAC (which is transparent from the original to my ears but uses only 100MB per album) so I can fit a shed loads of albums on my iPod.

To those giving it the biggun' about mp3/aac quality loss: have you actually done a proper ABX test using Foobar? You may find yourself eating humble pie.

Well i like to sit in my comfy chair with a good pair of headphones on when the wife and kids have gone to bed and have a shifty through my old CD collection. I enjoy the tactile interaction of this, and often frustration and annoyance that a CD has been misplaced.

I don't like spinning my thumb round a widget scanning through a thousand albums – it kind of removes the magic for me. Good for in the car, but not what it's not the whole of the human/music interaction, for me anyway. 8)

I like a good tune. I don't really care that it comes out of a couple of small Bose computer speakers and plays through itunes, really i couldn't give a stuff, other than that, I've normally got headphones in on a bike or walking, so again, all this is pretty academic.

Spend less time worrying about this shit guys, it's really really really not that important…

Yes and you can tackle the best rides in the World in an £80 Halfords special too but would you want to?

Listen to good music on a decent system and get that proper "hairs on the back of your neck raising" feeling.

Listen to it on a cr4p system and the emotional connection is zero.

Mine are all ripped but I don't see the point of getting rid of them and having my collection a hostage to a failed hard drive or Spotify-type service that may or may not be around next year. I can't really see that the space taken up by a few hundred CDs is seriously a problem for anyone?
On top of that I'm kind of like cinammon-girl and shoefiti- there's more to it than just having access to the files.

Oh, and just to weigh in on the quality debate I think I can tell a difference although I appreciate there are a lot of variables and I might be deluding myself. 🙂

I went through all the emotions this year. I have had to sell most of my vinyl and CDs. It's funny to hear some of you using the same arguments about why you should keep CDs as "we" did when the change from Vinyl to CD occurred. In the end though I need the even pitiful amount that you can get for Vinyl and CD, I have access to the music so why worry. I probably play 10% of the hundreds of albums I have anyway. Some I have never played. I haven't sat reading a Vinyl sleeve for probably 20 years if not longer and have never really done it with CD as the text is too small.

In the end they do just take up room. I never thought I'd feel like this. It's amazing what dept and (relative) poverty can do to open ones eyes.

Listen to it on a cr4p system and the emotional connection is zero.

Utter & complete bollocks!
Did all those swinging hipsters in the 60s have no connection to the latest fab sounds, coming through on their new, crazy transistor radios?!

Listen to crap music on a decent system and get that proper "wow this is really crap" feeling!"

edited that for ya 😮

Was not aware of the quality loss – figured it was all digital.
Changes things a bit.

Meh – if you didn't already know about the difference, it means you're not an audio buff, in which case you're probably like the rest of us that won't notice the difference.

There are companies that will burn your CDs for you but they won't buy your CDs off you for the reason stated above (and because used CDs are worth little anyway).

seeing as almost all mp3s are recorded at the lower bitrate, I allowed myself the luxury of a sweeping statement. I have also made it clear several times that high bitrate mp3s are available but rarely used by your average music listener.

Blimey that is sweeping! So all the high bitrate stuff purchased from Bleep.com, juno.com etc doesn't count and all the stuff ripped at high bitrate by the "user" doesn't count?! Where the hell do you get "almost all" from?
I get my pleasure from the musical content, not some anal study of the specifics of sound quality. Maybe if I had a "listening room", which I presume the self-confessed audio-philes have.
I just have my front room, MP3s or minidiscs on headphones in the office and my car stereo (usually a minidisc played through the aux port).

If I was hung-up about sound quality surely I wouldn't enjoy listening to music in those environments??

Meh – if you didn't already know about the difference, it means you're not an audio buff, in which case you're probably like the rest of us that won't notice the difference.

Interestingly, the "non audio-buff" friend I mentioned before, says that although she CAN hear the difference a reference-level HiFi system (mine) makes, she doesn't understand why that's neccessary…

Having said that, she does seem to be wired for visual (home cinema), rather than audio, input.

Why what is necessary?

I'm sure I could hear the difference, I just don't think I need it.

DezB – Member
Why what is necessary?

Er, to have a reference-level HiFi reproduction of music rather than, say, an MP3 player.

Sorry I didn't make that clear but I thought it was implicit in the statement.

I'm sure I could hear the difference, I just don't think I need it.

Yes, that's what I meant. I, on the other hand, wouldn't be without it.

reference-level

😆

http://www.referencehifi.net/about.php

(but they can't proof read a webpage)

I worked for an electronics company once, that was a little bit dodgy, they used to build/install bespoke sound systems amongst other things. They would wire up speakers using thin electrical flex, but claim to have used low oxygen high gold content cables etc. Not one person could ever tell the difference, but most would comment that they could really notice the quality and paying the extra was well worth it.

iirc then its only 1 person in 10,000 that has hearing that extends slightly beyong the normal fequency range for an adult, children can hear higher frequencies than adults, but this diminishes at around the age of 18 (hence why mosquito devices work)if you . And women tend to have better hearing than men, yet are far less likely to be obsessed with hifi equipment.

I still want an answer to this!

I just have my front room, MP3s or minidiscs on headphones in the office and my car stereo (usually a minidisc played through the aux port).

If I was hung-up about sound quality surely I wouldn't enjoy listening to music in those environments??

Can those with "reference level hi-fis" only really enjoy music played on their expensive system, in the correct environment, played on vinyl or CD?

OH AND THERE'S NO APOSTROPHE IN CDs!!!!!!!!!! ARGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

It's acceptable in acronyms if it improves readability, actually. </grammarnazi>

To everyone ripping their CDs; you're backing them all up too, right? Losing your entire music collection when the hard disk goes pop is … not good.

cds are crap.

mp3s are pony too but necessary.

vinyl is for winners.

our cds/records take pride of place and allow any visitor to my house a good laugh at my thoroughly bad taste.

i resent paying lots of money for an mp3. you dont get artwork, lyrics, random musings, limited editions, etc etc. if you like it buy the cd/record rip it if necessary, put it somewhere you can look at it and be happy.

Can those with "reference level hi-fis" only really enjoy music played on their expensive system,

No, I often enjoy listening to: http://www.facebook.com/#!/sudup.recordings

When they're on:
http://radio.myhouse-yourhouse.net/

or:
http://www.housefm.net/update.htm

through my PC speakers as it's PC-internet based.

I do have some of their stuff burned onto CD for me by one of the DJ's that I listen to on my HiFi. It sounds much better.

grum – Member

reference-level is funny, why?

A-ha! 🙂

Great band 🙂

All my CDs (inc the A-Ha ones) are in the attic having been ripped to the computers.

is funny, why?

Just because it's a ridiculous term for a massively overpriced hi-fi system. It's the equivalent of XXXC. 😉

What would actually be 'reference-level' audio would surely be a decent pair of studio monitors with a flat frequency response (in a room with acoustic treatment).

What, no gravity levellers or electro-resonance dampers?

I bet the OP didn't expect this!

What would actually be 'reference-level' audio would surely be

As I understand it (at the risk of reawakening a long-dormant thread on exactly the same subject and going round the carousel once again), "reference level" in HiFi terms means a system that is capable of relaying all the information contained in or on the source medium, to the listener's ear with critically minimal loss.

That it also presents it with soundstaging, clarity, musicality and presence (the best systems convey the experience of sounding as if the performer is in the room with you) is a plus, and part of what makes such a system preferable to "non HiFi" as an entertainment medium.

reference-level

is funny, why?

because it's a marketing term with no basis in science?

See above.

I only have cds and dont own an mp3 or an ipod and don't know how to download music and can't be bothered to find out either.It's easy to chuck the free Mail on Sunday cd in the van player

I use Kef reference 104/2 speakers…. 😉

re: reference level

I'm all for spending money on hifi and enjoying it but believe it to be a subjective, not objective, experience.

As far as I am aware there is no commonly agreed criteria for what is 'reference level' and what isn't. It is not a specification that an item of hifi can be judged against. It is a badge put on hifi that means the manufacturer is particularly proud of this or that bit of kit.

It is possible (as I'm sure you know) to spend a lot of money on two systems which both sound stunning but quite different. Which one is the 'reference'? Or which one is closer to the 'reference'?

Listen to it, buy it and enjoy it but let's not get back to the bad old days of hifi mags having photos of oscilloscope traces.

capable of relaying all the information contained in or on the source medium, to the listener's ear with critically minimal loss

My system is called a "Reference" system but wasn't very expensive at all…