Print Page | Close Window

converting songs to mp3

Printed From: the12volt.com
Forum Name: Music, Favorite Songs, Movies, Videos, Test CD's
Forum Discription: Demo Songs, Bass Songs, Favorites, New Tunes, Old Tunes, Reviews, Tuning CDs, etc.
URL: https://www.the12volt.com/installbay/forum_posts.asp?tid=41524
Printed Date: March 29, 2024 at 12:55 AM


Topic: converting songs to mp3

Posted By: cache
Subject: converting songs to mp3
Date Posted: October 23, 2004 at 10:13 PM

Is there a way to rip your cd's to the computer and then convert them to mp3, and burn them back on to a cd-r. (To use them in a CD/MP3/WMA deck.) What program and stuff?



Replies:

Posted By: kfr01
Date Posted: October 23, 2004 at 10:15 PM

If you must use mp3 follow the ubernet.org standard.  They have tutorials.  https://www.ubernet.org



-------------
New Project: 2003 Pathfinder




Posted By: pimpincavy
Date Posted: October 24, 2004 at 3:29 PM
I use dBpower AMP music converter to convert from WAV to MP3. Then you can use Nero, Roxio or any other number of cd burning programs to burn the cds, there should be a MP3 or WMA option. With dBpower AMP you can choose to convert anywhere from 32Kps (low quality) all the way up to 320Kps (high quality) I usually convert at 192Kps or 224Kps. I personally cant tell the differance between MP3 and WAV, as long as the MP3 is fairly high quality, I will look into that ubernet thing though.

-------------




Posted By: cache
Date Posted: October 24, 2004 at 4:00 PM
how many normal cd's do you usually get on an mp3 cd. (I've heard 10, is this true?)




Posted By: /R7
Date Posted: October 24, 2004 at 4:30 PM
i get over 8albums, i burned the entire SLAYER discovery on 2 CD's, thats alot of albums i can tell you that much.

BTW, so long as you rip with a 256 bitrate, you should have equal sounding quality to your ears.

I find nero to the the better choice for burning mp3's to cd, windowsXP can doit, but neros has had better overall burning success, without any hiccups in the actual music.

be warned if you have an older PC it would be wise to not touch the computer or have too many background programs running, it can affect the burn.




Posted By: cache
Date Posted: October 24, 2004 at 5:13 PM
i used the dbpower amp music converter, an then went to burn them on to a cd using NERO, and it said i was going to use up the entire cd (for only one cd that I converted in to mp3) (it did say they were all in mp3 form too) why is this?




Posted By: kfr01
Date Posted: October 24, 2004 at 5:42 PM

Seriously look into the ubernet.org guide.  Once you set it up it will name mp3s for you, make the tags the same way, verify the rip, etc.  I haven't touched my setup in years and get perfect rips, period.  It is a bigger pain to setup in the beginning, but the rips are consistent down the road. 

... and you'll be taken seriously if you ever decide to trade w/ anyone in the know. 



-------------
New Project: 2003 Pathfinder




Posted By: pimpincavy
Date Posted: October 24, 2004 at 8:49 PM
Did you go to MP3 disc in the nero menu, or just music cd. make sure you are telling it to burn a MP3 disc. It should be right on the main menu, I have nero express though, you might have something else.

-------------




Posted By: cache
Date Posted: October 24, 2004 at 11:29 PM
kfr01, i suppose you have the paid for versions right? what all programs do i need.




Posted By: kfr01
Date Posted: October 24, 2004 at 11:54 PM
The software on ubernet.org is free.  The Downloads page on that site has a link to everything you need.

-------------
New Project: 2003 Pathfinder




Posted By: Audiobahn1500
Date Posted: October 25, 2004 at 12:16 AM

I'm with pimpincavy i use both of the programs he metioned dbpoweramp and roxio and it works great for me i havent had any real problems with it at all yet'

Chad





Posted By: tnelsonx2x
Date Posted: October 25, 2004 at 4:22 AM
So far..i've been using nero. All of my music is in mp3 format. What I have in m4a format ( mac itunes) I convert to mp3 format and use nero. my 2 cents



-------------




Posted By: tomos
Date Posted: October 25, 2004 at 6:50 AM
Slightly off topic. I used to burn all my mp3's to cd for my old head unit. But my new Nakamichi cd-400 (what I would consider a high end deck) doesn't play Mp3's, but does have an aux in. I experimented with burning mp3's in uncompressed wav/cda format (Regular cd format) to a disc for the Nak deck or simply plugging my Creative Nomad Zen xtra mp3 player into the aux. Maybe it comes down to personal choice with the Zen/Nak DAC or what burning mp3s to a cd does (although uncompressing an mp3 shouldn't result in any more loss). But in this instance discs created from what were high quality (190/256kbps) mp3's sounds completely different to my Zen. I don't actually use Cd's anymore, a bit of a waste for such a nice cd player but the Zen sounds so much better and also plays uncompressed Cd's.

-------------
What's that flippie??




Posted By: cache
Date Posted: October 25, 2004 at 10:56 PM
kfr01, i got everting installed an working except for the freedb thing, it still doesnt work even after i did the fix. and also does it really take that long to convert the songs ( it was going to take 2 hours at that rate, for one cd)




Posted By: kfr01
Date Posted: October 25, 2004 at 11:09 PM

Hmm..  What is taking a long time, the ripping from the cdrom drive or the compression to mp3?

freedb ... you probably have a firewall issue.



-------------
New Project: 2003 Pathfinder




Posted By: cache
Date Posted: October 26, 2004 at 4:17 PM
i think it is doing it both at the same time.




Posted By: evanc
Date Posted: October 26, 2004 at 4:27 PM
I use Creative Playcenter to rip all my CDs and convert em. It worked great, and fast. I ripped them all at 128 kbs for space issues, but they sound excellent. See if you have any friends with that software that will let you borrrow it for a while.




Posted By: kfr01
Date Posted: October 26, 2004 at 7:46 PM

128kbps is not quality sound.  On decent quality equipment you will hear a significant downgrade in quality from 256 to 128k.  If you can't hear the difference you either already killed your hearing or your equipment is not up to par.

Cache.. mine take less than 15 min on a 2.4ghz machine.  What are you using?



-------------
New Project: 2003 Pathfinder




Posted By: haemphyst
Date Posted: October 26, 2004 at 8:48 PM
If you MUST listen to mp3's (shudder) then use Easy CD-DA Extractor... 30 bux, and it'll get you LIFETIME updates, rip and convert on the fly, will rip to mp3, mp4, m4a, aac, mpc, wma ogg, flac, aiff, ape, and wav (ADPCM and standard Windows). It will also convert from any of these formats to any of the other formats, plays them all, too. I have an Opteron 2.8 with 512MB, and I can rip an entire album in about 8 minutes... (That's my laptop) My desktop machine is dual 2.4 with 2GB, and I can do it in about 5 minutes. The rip speed will depend on the quality of your CDROM, I use (ALWAYS, without exception) Lite-On or Plextor. These have proven themselves over and over in all of my machines as well in all of the reviews I have read. Another option, (although I have never been able to get it to work) would be an application called EAC or Exact Audio Copy. This will allow yu to extract all of the audio (supposedly) perfectly, even from badly scratched CDs. If anybody can make it work let me know how you did it - I have a few CDs that are out-of-print, and need to recover them somehow.

My $.02 - posted_image

-------------
It all reminds me of something that Molière once said to Guy de Maupassant at a café in Vienna: "That's nice. You should write it down."




Posted By: haemphyst
Date Posted: October 26, 2004 at 8:55 PM
1) Almost forgot - Poikosoft is where you download it.

2) In the car, I will admit that it would be tough to hear the difference between wav (Red Book Audio) and 320kbps, but I PROMISE you, (unless you have already ruined your hearing) you would never listen to mp3 again (at ANY data rate) if you heard them on a GOOD system.

3) When burning mp3 to cd for playback in the car, do not burn it as an audio CD, but do it as a data CD, the player will know the difference, and will do the reading correctly.

-------------
It all reminds me of something that Molière once said to Guy de Maupassant at a café in Vienna: "That's nice. You should write it down."




Posted By: kfr01
Date Posted: October 26, 2004 at 9:37 PM

haemphyst .. I use Exact Audio Copy.  It is the recommended ripping software in the guide I posted.  It is not perfect, but has churned through a few old and beat up cds better than any other ripping software I've seen.  

I also agree with you re: Lite-On and Plextor.  They are the reliable choices in optical computer drives. 



-------------
New Project: 2003 Pathfinder




Posted By: cache
Date Posted: October 26, 2004 at 11:53 PM
Why dont you guys like MD or MP3, is there something better that you use? Or do you just have a stack of like 200 cd's sitin in your car.




Posted By: kfr01
Date Posted: October 27, 2004 at 12:19 AM

mp3 is _fine_ if recorded at a high enough bitrate >256kbps. 

It is not, however, ideal.  Ever.  mp3 is a lossy format and quality will ALWAYS degrade from the original.  Every time.  On a good stereo you will hear the difference. 

Since it IS more convenient to use mp3 because of storage, people do.  Furthermore, since 99% of most car systems, mine included, are not that great, you probably won't tell much of a difference (if the bitrate is high >256).  Just know and remember that it is not the same as CD and is less than ideal. 

I'll hook up an mp3 player when I'm in a hurry or just want to listen to something not caring about the quality (rap/r&b/pop).

If I'm looking for the best quality, however, and I care about how it sounds, yes, I do keep the CD in the car.  (usually my jazz/classical cds). 

To sum up:

1)  If you want the best quality use the original CD. 
2)  If you need to use mp3 because of convenience at least record at 256kbps.  The higher the better!
3)  Always remember that mp3 is a degraded and compressed format.  If you want the best possible quality then keep the CD around. 



-------------
New Project: 2003 Pathfinder




Posted By: cache
Date Posted: October 27, 2004 at 12:48 AM
So do those memory things for in-car music like the "music-keg" or "omnifi" keep good sound quality? What are some other good ones?




Posted By: tbirdman74
Date Posted: October 27, 2004 at 3:58 AM
haemphyst, I have used, and still on occasion use EAC, but my machine is stone age compared to what i have seen in this thread.  I run it on a pentium 233Mhz MMX with 256K, and the extracting, depending on the disc damage will vary from 2-30 minutes, but for me the mp3 rip, is not a viable time option.  To rip an average album, I am looking at killing the better part of an afternoon, and maybe the evening if something bad happens.  But the EAC style of checking, and then rechecking the data, will definitley please you when it comes to old and damaged cds.  I even did a little test, and lit a cd on fire, just enough to char the data layer a little, and it still extracted the music from it, then broke the cd, and super glued it back together.  Just a single break down the middle.  And once again it extracted.  Not quite as perfect as the first time, but for most people the difference is inaudible.  I definetely recommend EAC to anyone trying to recover damaged music cd's.I have the website somewhere...https://www.ExactAudioCopy.de/  But it is not for the faint of heart, as it does contain some extensive setup options, that if not just right, wasted days..  Good Luck.

-------------
If it don't fit, Force it.
If it breaks, You needed a new one anyway!




Posted By: russ lund
Date Posted: October 27, 2004 at 12:27 PM
I know there is a sonic difference from 128k to 256k,but when you start your vehicle or listen to crap you can't hear the difference.I have a DJ service and I rip at 128k(Musicmatch software) and it's damn hard to hear the difference between my CD's and mp3.Don't use Roxio's mp3 converter it has an annoying whistle in it.

-------------
BigDog




Posted By: tomos
Date Posted: October 27, 2004 at 12:32 PM
Personally I can always tell the difference at 128k. 192 barely. I'm waiting til the next generation of compressed music to be built into players. A lot of them will be 100% lossless like flac.

https://flac.sourceforge.net/

-------------
What's that flippie??




Posted By: kfr01
Date Posted: October 27, 2004 at 2:48 PM

russ lund wrote:

I know there is a sonic difference from 128k to 256k,but when you start your vehicle or listen to crap you can't hear the difference.I have a DJ service and I rip at 128k(Musicmatch software) and it's damn hard to hear the difference between my CD's and mp3.Don't use Roxio's mp3 converter it has an annoying whistle in it.

Again, if you can't hear the difference either you've already cooked your hearing or your equipment is not good.  Might be both on DJ equipment.



-------------
New Project: 2003 Pathfinder




Posted By: Rushman
Date Posted: October 27, 2004 at 6:15 PM
I havent heard (or read) anybody using the Music Match music system. I use that one and am pretty satisfied. It came with the computer when I bought it. I honestly dont know all the stats on it but I havent had a bad burn on reg speed or mp3. You checked it out and its a free download , nothing to purchase. Musicmatch.com .  Just another suggestion

-------------
99 F-one fitty
Pioneer Premier H/U
Alpine EQ
Kicker 1200 amp
4 Kicker comp 10s
6 kicker SS65.2 components




Posted By: Mr_Fusion
Date Posted: October 27, 2004 at 11:01 PM
CD quality IS 128k. 256k is a waste of disk space.




Posted By: haemphyst
Date Posted: October 27, 2004 at 11:35 PM
...if you are listening to a boombox, or your four dollar swap-o-rama PC speakers. If 128 kilo bits per second is CD quality, then why is CD sampling rate 1.44 MEGA bits per second? You must have gone to a modern day public school, 'cause when I went to school, 128,000 did NOT equal 1,440,000. That, or you weren't paying attention in math class...

I don't really want to argue, but "You are wrong, Mr_Fusion." 128k is only "CD quality", because that is what you have been told, and you have never actually HEARD the difference. I can hear the difference on my computer through my sound system. Granted, it is a 250 dollar speaker system, but it is HARDLY the reference quality I have in my car or my living room...

-------------
It all reminds me of something that Molière once said to Guy de Maupassant at a café in Vienna: "That's nice. You should write it down."




Posted By: kfr01
Date Posted: October 27, 2004 at 11:38 PM

Mr. Fusion you are simply and completely WRONG.  CD quality is NOT 128k.  Do you understand the concept of lossy compression?  Sound?

128kbps is around 11:1 compression.  You THROW AWAY 90% of the information on the original.  See Walt Crawford, MP3 and CD-Quality Sound: The Laws of Physics have Not Been Repealed, at https://home.att.net/~wcc.techx/MP3.htm.

See also Marshall Brain, How Mp3 Files Work, at https://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/mp31.htm ("When you are done creating an MP3 file, what you have is a "near CD quality" song. The MP3 version of the song does not sound exactly the same as the original CD song because some of it has been removed...").



-------------
New Project: 2003 Pathfinder




Posted By: russ lund
Date Posted: October 28, 2004 at 2:51 PM
Well pardon me,I had an instructor in our tech school that razzed us about our high priced low distortion amps and we just listened to distorted sh*t with it.If you sit with your $200-800 headphones with your over priced amp feeding them in you easy chair with a bottle of $500 brandy good for you.When I am competeing or displaying our products for a potential customer,yes I use a CD for the best experience.When I crusing in my 1987 Mustang GT with a noise floor of about 80db or play music in a sonic nightmare of a building 128kbs is more that adequate. 

-------------
BigDog




Posted By: kfr01
Date Posted: October 28, 2004 at 3:52 PM

russ lund wrote:

Well pardon me,I had an instructor in our tech school that razzed us about our high priced low distortion amps and we just listened to distorted sh*t with it.If you sit with your $200-800 headphones with your over priced amp feeding them in you easy chair with a bottle of $500 brandy good for you.When I am competeing or displaying our products for a potential customer,yes I use a CD for the best experience.When I crusing in my 1987 Mustang GT with a noise floor of about 80db or play music in a sonic nightmare of a building 128kbs is more that adequate. 

I don't think anyone here said anything you should have taken offense to.  haemphyst and I were merely stating raw facts.  mp3 IS lossy.  128 ISN'T as good as 256, NO MP3 is CD quality.  Humans can tell the difference.  Humans can tell the difference in cars.  These are facts. 

You say 128 is adequate.  I strongly disagree.  It is important to remember that we can both be right.  You shouldn't be offended by my opinion.  "Good enough" to any one individual is always a subjective inquiry.  It is just like anything else.  "Overpriced" between differing products and people is a matter of opinion.  It all comes down to personal values

It all boils down to a "good enough" discussion.  Usually these questions, those involving personal values, boil down to income and class considerations.  I don't like to get into these discussions.  Some people have the means to buy nicer things than others, a simple fact of life.  However, you should know that just because someone enjoys better quality music doesn't necessarily mean that I drink $500 brandy.  It is possible to value certain consumables more than others.  My furniture is cheap stuff from Ikea while I have a thing for custom tailored suits.  I simply value suits more than furniture.  I'm sure you value some aspects of your life more than others.  Why be offended when someone else expresses an opinion based on their values? 

We all value high quality sound, we wouldn't be here otherwise.  Usually obtaining an increase in a material product quality involves financial cost.  We balance our subjective values against cost to make purchasing decisions.  A product is "good enough" when we reach our price limit set by our values.  Here is what I don't understand:   It barely costs a thing to increase bitrate yet people insist on using 128kbps.  This makes absolutely no sense to me.  Storage media and hard drive space is so cheap it is negligable compared to the cost of our car systems.  Why not bump the bitrate up?  It is a FREE upgrade to something we obviously value (sound quality).  But alas, even if I don't understand, it is your value-based decision to make.  You've chosen storage space over sound quality. 

Just don't blame me or others for pointing out the fact that your choice is not ideal for sound quality.



-------------
New Project: 2003 Pathfinder




Posted By: tomos
Date Posted: October 28, 2004 at 4:24 PM
For the people who value storage space over quality, quite honestly who needs or listens to over 10,000 songs at once? Download speed is a factor for most people when downloading and 128 is a fair compromise for most. Besides default encoding rate is 128 on almost every encoder I've used.

128 good enough for me? No, I can easily tell the difference even with road noise. Being a musician though I listen to music with great concentraion and harly ever have it in the background. When I had my diamond hex put in my car I got a headache listening to mp3 as they showed up more artifacts than I knew existed in compressed sound.

-------------
What's that flippie??




Posted By: Mr_Fusion
Date Posted: October 28, 2004 at 5:45 PM
Uhhh...I meant my post to be sarcastic...

I guess it wasn't this site that recently had a huge debate over bitrates...that is why I wrote what I did. Chill out people!




Posted By: kfr01
Date Posted: October 28, 2004 at 6:30 PM

Sorry if I missed the sarcasm.  I'm bad at that.  :-)  Peace.



-------------
New Project: 2003 Pathfinder




Posted By: russ lund
Date Posted: October 29, 2004 at 11:15 AM
Fair enough!

-------------
BigDog





Print Page | Close Window