Audiotic wrote: > Patrick Dixon;190650 Wrote: >> The most importance decision is to rip to a lossless format. Any >> lossless format can be converted to any other format (lossless or >> otherwise) at a later date. >> >> IMO the other importance thing is to use a ripping program which will >> give you bit perfect copies, or let you know if not - and that's where >> I would have a doubt over iTunes. >> >> The third important thing is to keep your files in separate directories >> for each disk or album, and organise them is a consistent way - >> /Artist/Album/Tracks is a common one. You should also ensure that each >> 'rip' is tagged with at least the Artist, Album and track numbers and >> names. It's relatively easy to add and edit tags at a later date, but >> the more you get right to start with the easier it is, and you need to >> make sure you know at least what everything is and what it goes with! > > Interesting article in the german Stereo magazine of Dec. 2007 (the > latest) - they tested a bunch of rippers and found iTunes to sound the > best. I just put it there as they say it. I thought they are a very > reputable magazine. So?
In theory, the only way *any* ripper can sound better than another is if the other one is faulty, i.e. if it can not rip accurately. If a ripper is working correctly, it should rip with 100% accuracy. What were the other rippers? How did they do the test? To what format were they ripping? R. _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
