Which ripping method is the best one??

[weierstrass]

Which ripping method provides the best quality??... The constant bitrating at for example 192kb or the VBR whit an also 192kb averge bitrating...

Whit VBR we can get more compression... but don't we lost quality???

[malbolgia]

by ripping you mean encoding right

VBR gives less bitrate to a part of a song that doesn't need such a high bitrate making the file size much smaller and with over all better quality

and also it depends on the encoder you use

[weierstrass]

yes... I mean encoding.... i use the Lame .... I don't know if it's the better one but I think so....

[variysky]

VBR is kind of encoding, and a secondary process of ripping.
The more important question referring the quality is, I thing, which ripper to use,because the difference in quality is general in the method of ripping - this is the converting from CD tracks to WAV, after then we go to VBR or to constant , Frauenhofer or Lame...
The paradox is that every program for ripping (converting from CD tracks to WAV) has à different sound quality - for instance I`ll
give my experience with the Audiograbber progs.
After many tests I determine, that the old version 1.50 has the best HI-FI quality and when I burn the tracks they are 99 %
of the original ( believe me- there is not 100% possible )
EAC is also good, but Audiograbber 1.5 is the best !
I`m working as acoustic engineer.

[zver]

Well,you can be acoustic enginer as much as you want,but audiograbber is not even close to ALLMIGHTY EAC

[variysky]

I can understand you zver - EAC was my favourite too, but when we are talking only for "ripping" not for encoding the Audiograbber 1.5 is damn strange good - I dont know why...
I`m only listen to...
If you have interest to try it - mail me.

[BVV]

I found a free (=incomplete ) version of Audiograbber 1.50.
You're right. It sounds great, better than eac.
Does anyone know where I can get a full version?

[dx]

Originally posted by BVV
....It sounds great, better than eac.

Audiograbber is NOT better than EAC. It is easier to use and setup (EAC is working on this though).

It is well established that EAC uses much better protocols to extract audio than Audiograbber. EAC takes a little longer, but it verifies that the audio data is correct. Audiograbber does not.

If you have ever picked up an mp3 on Napster, Morpheus, etc. and have been annoyed by a pop or tick in the music, you will realize that the audio data was not verified before it was encoded. You will not get any unwanted pops in EAC unless the disc is messed up.

EAC is free and Audiograbber is $20.00 USD. Want a warez copy of Audiograbber??? Don't bother as it's well protected. It checks your key online whenever you connect to Freedb to get the CD's information. Next time you use the proggie....suprise, your key is banned. There are ways around this, but the cracks are not consistant and are often just a big pain in the arse!

Trust an EAC convert (from Audiograbber), its worth learning how to use it.

[zver]

That was funny.Btw i checked all encoders 2 years ago with cooleditpro and hing was worst--i dont know now-though,couse i alwaus using lame

[zver]

Hey guys,did you check ogg and maudio.For me lame worked better then ogg,monkey is good but filesize is bigger then lame(i always using bitr of 224 cutted above 17 khz),im testing mp3pro now,look allright so far on smaller bitrates--have more to test(higher bitr-128+)something is weird there..

[BVV]

>It certainly sounds better than EAC or even master tape, if you rip >something like the latest Britney Spears hit- artifacts dont destroy >at all "music" like that, rather the opposite...
>Xing is full of artifacts and has virtually no output at all above >15,400 Hz, but its quite possible that your ear aint that subtle. >Being a soung engineer means nothing at all: Beethoven was >totally DEAF when he composed the ninth symphony... I am pretty >sure he would also find Audiograbber 1.50 exchellent if he was >still alive.

Thanks for that constructive criticism, very useful.
1. I was not talking about mp3.
2. My musical taste is a bit more serious than BS.
3.Obviously you're not deaf. I take it that you have done some testing yourself before writing your comments?

>Audiograbber is NOT better than EAC. It is easier to use and setup.
>its worth learning how to use it.

I know how to set up eac and I accept that it is the best ripper as far as accuracy is concerned. But I was talking about the sound quality. EAC is closer to real hifi than most rippers except for 1 thing, the loss of brightness. Playing the cd's on a good hifi set is, at least for me, not enjoyable. It sounds like the speakers are standing behind curtains (exaggerated, but you know what I mean). Change whatever you like in eac (should not be necessary), use different cd's, computers, burners and the problem won't go away. I have done a lot of testing and from that I know that all rippers have their own "sound". Until someone can tell me otherwise I assume that this just is what eac sounds like. And until that moment I'm glad I read this post. Finally I can start copying cd's again.

[Fox Mulder]

You must be kidding BVV. The copy is digital so the information is always the same. Just compare the wavs of EAC and AudioGrabber with the tool of AudioGrabber, or better yet, post your opinion of different rippers sounding more or less bright at Hydrogen Audio forum: http://hydrogenaudio.org
You will find there, that you are wrong in more than one concept perhaps. I learned a lot from there.