Compression

[Shez]

Now, if I remember correctly, CD's are recorded at 128k bit rate and at a sample rate of 44.1khz.

44.1kHz: yes. 128k: nope. 128k is the typical data rate for horrible sounding MP3s (note that we're talking kilo BITs here). The data rate that CDs operate at is ~172 kilo BYTES per second - that's about ten times higher.

 

What advantage, if any, can you get from ripping a CD at a higher sample and bit rate than it was originally recorded?

Generally, none. Rip them at 44k1, 16 bit, stereo, uncompressed.

[Modge]

Rip them at 44k1, 16 bit, stereo, uncompressed.

What's wrong with FLAC? Compressed but lossless.

 

(Actually as a lampie I'm happy with high bit rate (At least 192kbs, (variable)) MP3's or OGG's but I realise this isn't perfect).

I have to agree though even I can hear a really quite significant loss of quality bellow 192kbs.

[Bobbsy]

FLAC is indeed lossless and, if storage space is an issue, a good option.

 

However, with storage as cheap as it is nowadays I just don't see the point of using bit rate reduction techniques at all. If you stick to 44.1/16 bit stereo you can burn CD that can be played anywhere and never lose any quality through sample rate conversions etc.

 

Down here, a 500GB external drive can be had for just over $100 (say about £40). At those prices, why compromise even slightly on quality or flexibility?

 

Obviously this only works for computers...if you insist on using some kind of portable device you may be stuck with BRR/compression...but that's another reason not to use amateur portables in a professional situation.

 

Bob

[Shez]

What's wrong with FLAC? Compressed but lossless.

 

Wavs will open on any platform / any operating system / any software. You need to install the codec for FLACs to work. Plus there's a processing overhead when playing them back, which although not an issue for modern computers may cause a hiccup on an older system.