Windows turn audio cd into ape??

hi, i need to rip my audio cd into ape format.
i downloaded the offical monkey's audio software. But it only supports .wav and my audio cd's format is .cda
Is there a another software which can do the job.
thanks !!

 

You can use WMP to rip it into WAV format and then convert the WAV files to ape format from there.

Never heard of ape format.

 

Your CD format is CDA because you're just trying to copy the files from the CD. You need to actually *rip* the CD. I suggest EAC to rip the tracks to WAV.

 

It's a 'lossless' compression system like zip or rar, and unlike MP3. Monkey's Audio has plugins for WinAmp, etc. to decompress and play on the fly.

Sounds good, especially on classical stuff.

And all free.

 

How's it do for file size? I currently have our (my wife and I) entire CD collection ripped to our computer as WMP files. I know that will make everyone here faint, but I'm not a big audiophile and don't notice the subtleties of different formats and audio levels too much. I just don't want my computer filled with junk. But I've never worried about it because 300 GB leaves a lot of space leftover when you're not doing video of any sort.

 

As a rough guide, Gershwin's American in Paris, 19m44s duration

wav: 199Mb
ape: 76Mb
mp3 (224kbps): 29.4Mb

 

There appears to be a slight difference! Any idea what that would be as a WMA file? And can I use this tool to convert all my files at once, even if I have to start it and come back a day later?

Thanks for the advice, and I hope you're able to do what you wanted, gmail. I apologize for the hijack; it wasn't my intent.

 

I do all my stuff in ape, it's a better compression than FLAC (Ive tested) and just hit the one below "insane" compression (extra high I think) and it doesnt take a day to encode.

dmb power amp with the APE plugin works for me.

 

See comments here, seems to sum up pros & cons fairly well. I don't use ape much, just got some music on a 'try-before-u-buy' basis and had to deal with that format.

 

Somewhere roughly in the same region as the MP3 versions.

EAC is indeed the thing to use for ripping the tracks themselves, and yeah arthur2sheds, the entire music collection as WMA does make me a little queezey

 

I use audiograbber to rip my CDs.

I stick with 128Kb Joint-stereo MP3s. First reason, I can not hear any difference between a 128Kb MP3 and a .wav file ripped from a CD. Second reason I choose MP3 is because it is a "lossy" codec. I think many people mis-understand lossy and lossless and think "Ooh, lossless must not loose any quality!". For those who don't know, "lossless" saves every bit of the music- wether you can hear it or not. Lossy codecs get rid of sounds which are masked by louder sounds. Example- your out in a park one day and you can hear squirrels and the sounds of leaves and other stuff, but as soon as an F-16 comes from out of nowhere and flys directly over you, the only thing you can hear is the sound a jet. Because lossy codecs don't save the sounds that your ear will not hear, the important sounds are saved more effiecently. Less sounds saved = more bits/good sounds.

The reason for joint stereo- on most music tracks that do not have a large variation in the sound between the left and right channels, storing the Left + Right channel on one track and the difference between the two channels on the other track takes up less space and allows for more samples thus allowing more accurate sound. I think thats correct, could be wrong, but I remember that joint stereo for most modern music tracks can actually have better quality than direct stereo.

L J

 

Yea, I want ALL my music. I want to decompress them so I get the original CD quality sound, whether I hear it or not.
If you cant hear it, fair enough, but I still enjoy my music as full as possible.

 

Bindibadgi- I see what your point- which is why I rip my original CDs one time, then leave them in their case for the rest of their life.

I think lossless audio at higher bit rates is a good idea, however when competeing for the best quality and lowest bit rate I do not see how lossless could be as good or better than lossy audio. I really dislike the incredibly high bitrates (1024Kb/s?!? I'll stick with wav instead) of WMA lossless. To each their own?

L J

 

Lossless doesnt have a bitrate. It's lossless, which is fixed at the original wave file bit. The encoding is just specific to the compression used, so it's the same as wave, just a fraction of the size.
I dont own my music, it's "perminantly borrowed" from a friend of mine. We have a nice arrangement where I lend him all my DVDs and he lends me all his new music.

 

Not quite. You only have (in your case) 128kbs to reproduce a complex musical passage, so it's a simplified version you get. And the same 128kbs to reproduce a simple tone, when it's overkill. That's why VBR (variable bit rate) was introduced for better MP3 results with generally similar end file size.

However, does it matter? The average-to-good PC soundcard, the quality of amplifier fitted to PC speakers and the speakers themselves are hardly 'hi-fi' and the best MP3 portable is unlikely to contain quality electronics, not to mention the headphones supplied.

If you do your listening through your PC or on the move, 128kbs is adequate, no point in putting a silk purse in a sow's ear. But compare an MP3 with the original CD on a decent audio system and 128kbs will lack some life, not so obvious on pop music but certainly showing with orchestral or big band. Tried it, that's why I buy the CD if I like the MP3, it gets better.

 

128kbps is never adequate imho
You can easily make it a silk purse: portable headphone amp from a usb dac, two small boxes and you can enjoy lossless as much as anyone else. Doesnt matter if your pc is on the move or not.
Some people who use pcs as the source on a hifi system will use battery powered headphone amps or dacs anyway (no mains problems, transformers etc).

 

I listen to my music from my PC. From this PC, I use the onboard nVidia audio chip and an SPDIF line from my PC to a rebadged Pioneer AMP which is currently connected to a pair of 100watt 3-way floor standing speakers (rebadged Pioneer too, RCA). When I choose to use headphones, I plug into the front of my PC- that gets a little bit of white noise, so sometimes I plug into the front of my amp instead when I am clipping audio or trying to determine differences in quality (but the amp is soo far away!). The headphones in question? Sony MDR-V600s, a couple years old but still very good. Maybe this is not a dream setup, but I consider my setup quite a bit better than the average PC audio. I take my music as seriously an any other person, when I want to listen to compressed audio I will compress my audio with the means I beleive are best suited for the job.

128Kb/s MP3 may not store classical music good, from my own tests, I myself believe it does an OK job and I like the small file size. But thats why you can choose other bitrates, all the way up to 320Kb/s. I never did say anything bad about VBR, nor did I even say CBR was better. If you must know, I like CBR better because of the fact that VBR causes seeking problems on a lot of the players that I use. I am not worried enough about filesize to sacrifice seeking for a slightly smaller file, but I do like taking a 10MB/min track down to about 1MB/min.

L J

 

Its all about finding your own level.
I hardly ever listen to digital formats if i do its a cd, nothing else.
But thats me.
Most people are more than happy with 128kbps coming out of their £20 pc speakers

 

Dom, please provide any form of evidence to support your idea as opposed to making a blatant claim of "CDs rule, and your too dumb to tell the difference!"

The amp, and speakers I use cost far more than $20, more like $500. If that's not good enough, I can also perform test using a Sony DVD player (for audio CDs or MP3 CDs) connected to another Pioneer amplifier (with SPDIF of course) which is then connected to an old (but still excellent) pair of Klipsch(sp?) Tangent speakers. I could even go for the Alpine system in my Dad's pickup ($500 "dead" head unit, I have no clue how much the amp and speakers cost), or I could go for the lowest quality audio setup I have, which unfortunately happens to be my car. . . It's only got a $380 head unit, and about $200 worth of speakers- I really want to upgrade it some more but finding $$$ for such upgrades is not easy.

L J

 

I think you havee taken my post out of context.

I was merely saying find the level your happy with, if thats spending thousands fine. If its not that fine too. It just depends what your happy with.

edit: Oh and no need to boast about hifi prices you wont win