Karaoke Forums

After getting my 1tb usb powered drive earlier this year I just coped over my 2 smaller drives of files to the new one ,but being as ive alot more space and alot of the files was done at between 128kbps and 192kbps ive decided im going to rerip to 320kbps.
Now questons are would it be worth taking up the space by ripping to wav or something similar.
this is not just for karaoke I do discos weddings/birthdays/private parties not club disco with the club music. So just trying to find best way to get it to sound the best .
Currently using Ashampoo music studio to rip.
Lastly normalizing tracks ive not really used that before but read some use it ,but from a disc ive tried it on ,it sounded like it dulled the tracks a bit ,but cant check on the pa until friday so after input.
thanks all in advance.
Roy

If you're using a Lame encoder to compress, there's no need to compress at higher than 192K, anything higher with such a good encoder will not make a difference in sound but in space On the other hand, if you're using the commercial type mp3 encoder or in wma, I suggest going 320k and you still won't be able to achieve the same quality as the Lame at 192K

The quality of the ripper software makes a huge difference, some will affect the original sound even in wave so you need to make certain you're using the good one

Hi thanks for that micky but isnt lame just a codec which software are you best using with it?

Not to start an argument..But can YOU really tell the improvements going to 320k ?

Im not sure between 192 and 320 but im more concerned with the 128s I have so thought I would get them all the same.

I'm using CDG Ripper but I think most software will let you use this encoder

Here's the latest encoder version

http://lame.sourceforge.net/

Anything compressed at 128k is damaged, you'll never be able to get the original sound back even when decoded to wave!

You'll never be able to hear the difference from 192k to 320k in live setup with Lame and you can still get the original sound back if decoded back to wave...

I personally use CDex to rip, with the lame encoder at 160k. Space is an issue for me, as it's mostly for ipod & mp3 cd use. Ideally, I'd use 192k. CDex is very configurable as regards the format of output folders and filenames, which are taken from track data downloaded from freedb. It's also free.

I wasnt trying to get the quality back by converting 128 to 320 I was going to rerip at the better quality and I guess as I have the space but wont notice anything in wav or other formats I might as well just do at 320 using the lame and see how I go with that .more for piece of mind than anything .A m8 did some of the original ripping so be nice to know its all done the same.

Sorry, I wasn't assuming you wanted to convert back from 128k to wave, I just wanted to clarify this as it was discussed somewhere in the forum

thats ok m8 np

well thats ripping on hold my drive playing up ,they getting on a bit now ,one was out of an old pc and this one done most the work over the last few years so looks like might need a new one if a clean dont help

Just my 2 cents worth, as you well know storage is cheap now...if I were going to rerip I would go directly to wave format. Uncompressed and as close to original as you can posssibly get...plus ripping to wave takes less time. But as stated in other posts I really don't believe you, I or anyone else can distinguish any difference from 192 and up.

_________________
Music speaks to the heart in ways words cannot express.

Can we tag a wave file?

From what I have read the answer would be "No" It can be done but it breaks the format of the wave file rendering them non-compliant wave files.

Just a question because I do not know- is there a need for tags in karaoke files, are some hosting programs dependant on tags rather than file name?

_________________
Music speaks to the heart in ways words cannot express.

Micky @ Tue Aug 03, 2010 3:50 pm wrote:

The quality of the ripper software makes a huge difference, some will affect the original sound even in wave so you need to make certain you're using the good one

This is interesting. Can you shed some more light on it, Micky? What ripper do you consider a good one. What should we stay away from?

_________________
Join Us on Facebook!
NW Ohio Karaoke

And if you want to get down to brass tacks, "WAV" is not necessarily uncompressed linear audio. You can have all sorts of different files with the WAV designation. Even compressed MPEG files wrapped in a WAV header.

Any software built on the Bass sound engine is by far the best out there but the one I personally don't like because it impacts the sound, are Microstudio or Hoster. Now I know some will disagree but this is only MY opinion based on my own personal experience.
I used to back up my cdg's just in case I would scratch or loose one and Microstudio was the software I was using until I realized that my back up disk sounded different, so I thought perhaps it was the cd brand I was using? No, it turned out that everything Microstudio will extract or burn will impact the sound, even when played from the hard drive It pushes the mid forward, less low bass and the highs are limited, it kind of narrow everything in the mid... Just playing the original cd and the one burned with Microstudio in my car, I can easily say which is the original
You can choose 5 different ripper and there's a possibility you'll have a sound difference on all? The same applies to the playback, the softwares that are built on the Bass engine will often sound better because of the quality of the sound engine.

To answer your question; I haven't really tested many rippers but I do like CDG Ripper because it doesn't impact the sound in a bad way and it will let me use the Lame encoder and not the poor wma format which should only be use on anything compressed under 128k