Posted by fred-bloggs on 11/16/20 11:36

pstromer@gmail.com wrote in news:1136358536.793868.303170
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

> At least to my ears, anyway. I notice a big improvement over 192 CBR
> on modern recordings such as St. Anger. Using Winamp, I can see when
> it jumps up to 256 or 320 on the more complex portions. I rip my CDs
> using dBpoweramp Lame 3.96.1.
>
> I also like the space saving on simpler music, some of my older music
> (Sinatra, Bird) which I re-encoded (from the original CDs, I never
> transcode from lossy to lossy formats). The VBR drops all the way down
> to 128 for most of this mono material from the 1950s, with no (at least
> to my ears) loss of audio quality.
>
> I've always heard that 192 CBR was the recognized "gold standard," but
> I think it's a big waste of space compared to 128 CBR. The really
> complex pieces need to go over 192 anyway, so if space saving is
> paramount, you may as well go for 128. If sound quality is paramount,
> go for Alt Preset Standard.
>
> My only question: Has anyone used Alt Preset Standard, and been
> dissatisfied with it? I have about 1,000 CDs to re-rip, so I'm seeking
> input before going all out on this project.
>

APS is fine.

Rip with EAC if your CDs are scratched.
http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/

If I do a bunch of CDs, I rip to wav with EAC, then encode the wavs to
Lame in RazorLame (on Idle priority) while simultaneously ripping the
next CD in EAC.


--
fred

[Back to original message]