How do I get rid of my CDs? - Page 5

Even though this is an about About.com publication (doesn't speak for it's credibility), there you go. At 128kbs, AAC scores a 4.8, mp3 a 4.7. Those numbers are indistinguishable, given that the size of the sample set is only 30 people, the lack of other statistical data, and the lack of other information about the methodology. And at 256, MP3 got a 4.9. Certainly suggests that a large number of people can't tell the difference between those formats and lossless when it comes to high bit rate AACs and MP3s. And no way to know if AAC "might have scored a 5" since there's no guarantee that additional less compression equals less perceived difference; to even state that the extrapolation might be possible, but conjecture, is spinning the data.

Most people don't listen to 55 minute music files unless they are collecting shows. So certainly not a relevant concern for most of us. If it doesn't work for you, that's a fine reason to choose AAC. But it's a red herring regarding which high bit rate format is better sonically.

Now who's spinning the data?

Again...Now who's spinning the data? Pretty funny, actually. Thanks for the grin.

Um...so...you don't think that even though AAC was ahead at 128, that it wouldn't be better at 256? Perhaps even...dare I say it...equal to mp3? Or that, since I suggested 320, that wouldn't at least nudge a 5? Ok, that's interesting. I agree the sample was a bit low, but not so low as to be invalid. So, do you think that sampling 130 rather than 30 would reverse the standings? I wouldn't put my money on that one.

I see you didn't comment on the Wiki article...Of course, we all know Wiki spins everything too, right? Doesn't seem to matter that it's not an Apple product at all. Doesn't seem to matter that it AAC was designed as an improvement on .mp3.
And there it is..."Most People"...my own argument coming back at me. Who's "most people"? Got a test? Got any stats? Oh that's right, you'll want ME to come up with that. You are still accusing me of "spinning", even though I think I've made it quite clear that I don't specifically and single support Apple. Spinning implies a dishonest second-agenda to coerce people into adopting a viewpoint.

Let me make this clear to you: I DON'T CARE what you or anyone else chooses as a codec or bit rate! Go do FLAC at 192/24. Go do 24Kbps mp3. I don't care. I've stated my choice and why.

And you're still fighting.

OK, let's try this again, though it didn't stick last time:

You're right.

You win.

(now awaiting the inevitable return volley)
Edited by has7738 - 10/18/12 at 9:19am

I am not a fan of itunes either, i use windows media player

It's not "spinning data" to note that the differences between two results are statistically indistinguishable. That's a standard part of evaluating quantitative research and the methodology. If you are not familiar with quantitative research methodology design, then go consult someone who is. If you look at the other table of results, 69% couldn't tell the difference between 128K MP3 and lossless, and 70% on the ACC. That 1% is also not statistically definitive with only 30 people tested.

And it's not "spinning the data" to "suggest that a large number of people can't tell the difference between those formats and lossless when it comes to high bit rate AACs and MP3s." This was also the conclusion of the piece that you are quoting, "Judging from our tests, we think most people will find music compressed at higher bit rates indistinguishable from the original versions." Assuming that their data is valid, the numbers do reflect that possibility, for 73% of those tested were unable to tell the difference between a 256K mp3 and lossless. Well, I guess my assertion could be wrong if you don't think that AAC would perform as well as MP3s at higher bitrates

Now you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. If you honestly believe that most people are ripping their CDs into one big file and not individual ones--ripping CDs is a focus of this thread--then you are seriously out of touch.

I've read a lot of interesting ideas here but i'm afraid many are missing the point.

The OP wants an easy way to digitalise his music collection and be able to play it on several different devices, now and in the future.

Here's my 2 cents:

1) NEVER EVER get rid of the original CD's!!!
For one, the originals have the highest quality sound. For two: if your HD drive dies, you still have the original. And third: the CD's are proof you actually own the music! (I'll get back to this later)

2) Choose the most universal digital music format there is. MP3's format will play on just about every soft and hardware device around without having to convert it to other formats.
Personally i'd go with MP3 VBR 192kbps. The file-size is small enough so you can stream it over the internet when on holidays, and it is still high quality (unless you're an audiophile and/or your speakers cost a grant each you won't notice the difference with the original )
In the the past I've allways used CDEX to rip cd's to computer. It's a tiny freeware, open source program, quick and pretty easy to use, but maybe there's newer and more user-friendly around...

3) After spending hours and hours ripping and organising your music collection: Make a backup! They don't make HDD's like they used to and about 5% die within 3 years. Store that backup HDD (together with your photo's and important home-video's) in a cool, dry place (preferably offsite --> in case of flood or fire )

4) Choose a decent NAS and/or a decent Mediaplayer. The NAS will allow you to stream or upload your music collection to just about any device. (Personaly I have a Synology DS212 at home that allows me to listen to any of my songs anywhere in the world, on any pc, smartphone, tablet ... it did take me a while to set it up but it hasn't let me down )
The Mediaplayer (Dune HD/Popcorn Hour/PS3/...) connected to your TV/Stereo/Surround can also double as a game- and videostation
There's many, many alternatives out there these days, but choose wisely!


And just to be complete: I started out years ago ripping my (huge) cd-collection to the computer but gave up after a while. There's an alternative way of getting music onto your computer and as long as you own the original cd's it is 100% legal. I'll just give you 2 words: "utorrent" and "discography". Just google the rest

Good luck!

It's actually $28.00 annually (probably plus tax) to subscribe to Match.

It DOES seem like it would be a worthwhile "solution", though.

Presumably having all members of one family share ONE account would make the most sense (logistically as well as financially)......assuming the whole gang doesn't exceed the 10 device limit which is part of the program.

What I'm wondering about (haven't googled it yet) is what the ramifications of "source" might be. i.e. Is there any chance Apple will ever ask me, "Hey, where'd you get this file?" I'm not an expert at digital rights management, but I DO know that not every song I "own" came from a CD I bought or was downloaded from the Apple Store. Do they care??

There I guess there are all the other usual caveats: who owns the library when you split with your wife.......or Johnny goes off to college and/or to start a new family unit of his own. How do you split up the library between two or more "additional" accounts if or when the time comes?

Always questions, eh?

This is soooo cool. The originator has left the blog already but the "advisors" stay and argue about who gives best advise, sweet
Many ways, many tools, many opinions. I hope #1 received what he she was looking for.
One beautiful thing I get out of this is: music is emotion. But please...stop taking yourselves too seriously and spend some more time listening to what you argue about
TD

Any links to those studies ? Thx

I started this process a couple years ago but never finished. I like the idea of getting rid of the jewel cases. Does anyone have some pics or links to sleeves or albums they use to store the cds?

I've had itunes match since launch, and haven't heard of a single case of any user being questioned about the source of his media. When you sign up, itunes scans your library and each track falls into one of three categories: "Matched" means the track is mapped to a track on the itunes store, and you have the right to download that track to other devices. "Uploaded" means that the track is transmitted and stored on icloud, and can also be downloaded to other devices. "Ineligible" means that it's an incompatible and won't be available. The thing is that Apple and the labels don't seem to care much about the source file. Since the original matched files are not stored at apple, there's a limited amount of data to examine. Uploaded files are just transmitted as is (or downconverted to 256kbps AAC and then transmitted), so Apple is just acting as a file sharing server. Either way, they don't seem concerned with the source, and the labels have said they're just happy to recoup some of the cost of piracy through the subscriptions to Match. They may change their tune, but they seem to be being reasonable about it thus far, and for the most part, don't seem to care.

Splitting up an itunes music account is reasonably easy, since the music is not DRM'ed. There's the issue of legal ownership, of course, which is going to be hashed out in the courts over time, but at least there's no practical impediment to physically divying up the library.

As for the service itself, I find it really good for "cleaning up" my old library of mp3s, but I don't like it for managing my CD-quality music. The big thing to remember is that matched songs are re-downloaded as 256kbps aac files regardless of the source, and uploaded songs are capped at 320kpbs mp3 or aac. So if your only copy of a particular album or song is a crappy 96 kbps mp3, you will get a 256kbps AAC upgrade with no DRM on your other devices (and if you're careful, you can delete the original crappy file and redownload the AAC version on your master device). The 256 kbps version is obviously not cd quality, but it's really close, and once you factor in the one time cost of $25-30 vs. buying CD versions of all your songs, it's a no brainer. On the other hand, if you have a lot of lossless CD rips already, itunes match will match them or convert them to 256k aac before uploading them to apple, so your other devices will not get those lossless versions. The lossless version will stay on your original device, as long as you don't delete it, but to propagate the lossless version across devices, you need to use home sharing between PCs and manually sync your IOS devices, which defeats main point of itunes match, which is convenience.

So itunes match is a mixed bag. If you have a lot of music that is less than 256kbps, it's definitely worth the $25-30 to get as many matched copies as you can, since you can keep the matched copies even if you let the service expire. But if your collection is already CD quality and you want lossless audio on your portable devices, it's not going to work very well.

I ended up doing both, kept all CD's ripped them all into Apple LossLess, have my iTunes lib (1.2TB) backed up on three different HD.

Now I can stream any track to any room with Apple TV's and AirPort Expresses

But I would not get rid of the CD's it took me 8 months to rip them all.

Just on my iPod touch, nano and iPad. I just load up the song i want to listen to. Apart from my nano I'm using 32GB models so I can get around 100-120 tracks.

On my iPad I'm using the camera kit that lets me access USB audio out feature (not documented) the I feed this to an external Fiio E7 over USB to use the Fiio as my DAC, before using my Senns HD650