[CLUE-Tech] cdparanoia and ripping CDs with Linux

[Timothy C. Klein]

* Adam Bultman (adamb at glaven.org) wrote:
> Well, it's easily put this way.  IN it's native format, the songs on the
> CD are like wavs (are they wavs?).  huge.  Super-ultra-high-quality, but
> massively huge.  You'd easily eat up an entire hard drive with not near as
> many songs as you would have had if you had encoded them. If you are still
> worried about quality, you can just encode them at a high bitrate.  I use
> grip and have oggenc encode the files at 192kbits.  The file sizes are
> larger than your standard 128kbit MP3, but then, you've got higher
> quality.  I certainly recommend encoding in one form or another.  At work,
> I've got 3000 some odd MP3s from the collective CDs of employees.  There's
> NO way I could have housed that many if they were in wav format.
> 

I believe that CD Audio is very much like a WAV, minus some header
information.  The WAV tells the sample rate and such, whereas the CD
relies on the fact that it is a published standard, so it has no such
information.  Aside from that, I believe CD Audio is very much like WAV.

Also, I believe that from a pure, technical stand point, a WAV is better
quality than MP3.  But, an MP3 is around 1/10 the size, and it tries *very*
hard to eliminate information that a human being is actually *incapable*
of hearing, or information that is redundant.  So, from a practical
standpoint, I can't really tell the difference between the two.  I am
sure that audiophiles with really nice equipment would say they do,
though.

Storing WAVs would very quickly get hard.  If a music CD was almost full, it
is just around 650 mb of WAV files on you hard drive.  Ouch!

Tim

--
==============================================
== Timothy Klein || teece at silverklein.net   ==
== ---------------------------------------- ==
== "Hello, World" 17 Errors, 31 Warnings... ==
==============================================