Wrangling Your CD Collection
Your first step is to rip, or copy, your audio CD collection to the portable device's hard drive. There are a variety of excellent (and free) applications for this purpose. I use Apple iTunes, but Microsoft's Windows Media Player (WMP) works just as well. If you're going to be using an iPod or another portable audio player to play your collection, consider adding album art to each track, as well. It's still a bit painful to do so with most ripping applications, but it's worth the effort, as you'll agree when you see the artwork appear on your MP3 player's screen. When ripping audio CDs, avoid proprietary formats such as AAC or Windows Media Audio (WMA); instead, use 160Kbps or 192Kbps MP3 format. MP3 files are essentially future-proof and will work in any of today's music applications and devices.

Obtaining New Music
Going forward, try to avoid CDs whenever possible and instead work completely in the digital realm. You'll face two choices when you move into online services, although there's nothing stopping you from dabbling in both. In the first model, you purchase songs and albums as you did before, but in the digital format. In the second, you subscribe to an online service that lets you listen to music from their collection for as long as you're a member.

If you opt for the first choice, you'll typically purchase music from online music services such as Apple iTunes, MSN Music, Napster, RealPlayer Music Store, Yahoo Music, or similar online stores. Although Apple's offering is all the rage these days, I cannot stress this enough: Don't buy any music from the iTunes Music Store. Apple's music format is low quality (128Kbps) and songs stored in this format can't be played in any competing software applications or non-iPod devices. Instead, purchase music from a competing service, all of which offer much higher quality songs. For example, Napster and RealPlayer Music Store offer 192Kbps songs, in WMA and Real Audio formats, respectively. Regardless of where you get the music, as soon as you purchase it, compress the original files in Zip format and back them up to a network drive or some form of removable storage, just in case. Then, copy the music to a standard audio CD, using your jukebox software, then re-rip it to your PC, in industry-standard MP3 format. I actually use a rewriteable CD for this purpose, and simply erase it and start anew each time I purchase music online. It's a little laborious, but this way you ensure that your music will always be compatible with future computers and other devices.

I hope it's obvious why I can't recommend purchasing music from the iTunes Music Store. Because you'll be converting your purchased (proprietary) music into a free and clear MP3 format, it's best to start with a source file of the highest quality possible, and Apple's files are the absolute lowest quality in the industry. However, songs from competing services such as Napster and RealPlayer Music Store are much higher quality and will result in much better-sounding MP3 files.

If you opt for a subscription service such as Napster or Real Rhapsody, be aware that you can't use the previously described technique to copy the content to MP3 files. However, you can use a host of compatible devices, and this type of service is handy for people who often listen to music via an Internet-connected PC, such as at work. Most subscription services are reasonably priced at $15 to $20 per month—or less, if you pay for a year in advance.

Other Audio Entertainment
Digital music will often represent the bulk of your digital audio collection, but there's a lot of other good content. Audible offers audio books, for example, and the iTunes Music Store offers a wealth of amazing and free podcast content, which is like time-shifted radio content that spans virtually every topic imaginable. I'm a big fan of a few technical and travel podcasts, for example. And unlike music purchased from iTunes, this content is already in MP3 format, so there's no conversion required.

Keep Copies Off-Site
Once your music collection is on your hard drive, it will need to be backed up just like any other collection of files. My advice is to keep a duplicate copy of your music collection—and any other valuable files—in a physically separate location. This location can be a removable hard drive, another PC in your house, or, ideally, a storage device that you can physically store much farther away. I actually perform regular backups to a set of FireWire-based hard drives, one of which is always stored at my parents' house. (They happen to live nearby, which is handy.) The last thing you need is to lose your music collection, and all your hard work, because of a hard drive failure. Backups are key.

Spread the Music
No, I'm not talking about handing out your digital music collection to your friends. But the beauty of storing music digitally is that you can more easily enjoy it regardless of where you are. In addition to listening from your PC, you can copy digital music to MP3 players (including iPods), Media Center PCs, media receivers, and other living room-based set-top boxes. You can create your own audio CDs and listen in your car. Be creative. I create a playlist of music for the gym and load up my iPod before heading out to my workout. But when I'm traveling, I often prefer to listen to instrumental music or podcasts. Your own tastes and music collection will determine your possibilities.

Article Information

Email this Article Printer-Friendly

Reader Comments
While you would be correct in assuming that the iTunes Music Store sells low-quality files if you only looked at their 128kbps bitrate, you are actually incorrect in your statements, in that you're not taking into consideration the different file format that Apple uses. I, personally, would never rip a CD to a 128 kbps MP3 file because I can hear the difference. However, using Apple's AAC format at 128kbps, a song's quality equals that of one encoded to a 192kbps MP3. I challenge you to try it for yourself. Tim Shouse -February 8, 2006 Excellent article on how to fully use online-purchased music. I have been hesitant to purchase online music due to considerations of constraints on how I listen to that music. This scenario of burning, then ripping the music back to MP3 allows for easy tranfer of songs from one device to another. Thanks for the validation on how to go about doing this! Brian -February 8, 2006 Tim - as a professional in the industry - I'll take your challenge - it's NOT comparable to 192kbps MP3 - I'd put it in the middle at about 160 kbps in quality. But if quality is what you're looking for - there are sites that sell 320 kbps songs - though not for $.99 each, but still very reasonable. Shawn -February 8, 2006 In my experience over the last 6 or 7 years of ********around with digital music, Tim is completely wrong and Shawn is absolutely right. I generally rip to 224kbps mp3 and also due to convenience, grab songs off iTunes. On burned mixed discs in my car, I can immediately tell the difference between tracks I pulled from iTunes and tracks I ripped myself. The range (like crunchy bass & complex treble) on the iTunes tracks is weak ... especially in music that has a symphony (or cowbells, sorry couldn't help myself). I've been using eMusic lately because I vastly prefer independent music and their tracks are 192VBR kbps but sound absolutely great. Maybe it's the codec they use or something, but they do a great job. Combine eMusic with a free service like Pandora that suggests music based on the musicians you currently like and you'll have that 60 gig iPod filled in like a month ... but with good music. Jason -February 8, 2006 I am a bit lost on how to have proof that your files are a legal copy. Can you elaberate on that? Jeff -February 8, 2006 As an audiophile, who always wants my music to be of the highest quality, could you please identify the sites that sell 320 kbps MP3's? Clive -February 8, 2006 My current solution is to order the CD online, archive it using a lossless codec (using the unsurpassable Exact Audio Copy to rip and WMA lossless as the codec. Some may prefer FLAC for this), and convert it to the highest bit rate that my portable music player can play. My lossless copy allows me to convert to any other format I wish with no additional degradation of quality at some point in the future. I do not think that a better solution will become available until the quality of downloadable music equals or surpasses that of CDs. Also it is worth pointing out that downloading a file at say 192kbps then burning to a CD and ripping back as say a 192kbps MP3 file will result in a lower quality file than ripping from a purchased retail CD and encoding to a 192kbps MP3 file. Richard Brand -February 8, 2006 Beatport sells music at 320kbps in MP3 format. You have to pay $1.99 or $1.49 but its all decent dance music. Richard -February 8, 2006 I represent the huge mass of the public that yawns eveytime I start to hear a techno file start to talk about MP3 vs AAC and everything under the sun. I would definitly recommend using Apple iTunes despite this persons writing bias towards PC's. It is easy, the music file is great and the store cannot be beat as far as buying experience. Brian -February 8, 2006 I could not disagree MORE about avoiding CDs and ONLY working in the "digital realm". If you buy a CD YOU OWN IT! And guess what, you already have your "backup copy" to store off-site. MP3s and players are great, but DRM telling me where/when/how I can play music that I paid for is ridiculous. And, really: How many people REALLY have and use a legitimate backup scheme for ANY of their data. The whole downloaded music scheme (scam?) is pushing towards no person "owning" music -- it will ALL be by subscription and if you can't pay, you won't play. Anyone willing to bet on what percentage of currently downloaded music will simply be lost over the next few years due to failed/crashed hard-drives? hawkd_sf -February 8, 2006 The author of this must not have thought this one out very much. If he is truly concerned about sound quality he would be buying CDs. No question about it. If he is concerned about convenience. You can't beat iTunes. They have the largest catalog. Though when you can't find a song there, go elsewhere. If you are worried about high fidelity sound quality in an MP3 format you are fooling yourself. MP3s are inherently a low-fi format. Apple Lossless and other compressed formats (ogg Vorbis, etc.) would be they way to go if you want a bit of both. His method of buying online and then re-importing to MP3 for the sake of future compatibility seems like it would defeat the purpose of the convenience of buying online. Anyway iTunes can export a non DRM AAC file to MP3. (If you need to play an MP3-CD on your DVD player or something.) Dave -February 8, 2006 The process of burning purchased music to CD and re-ripping certainly achieves the desired purpose - with one caveat. Surely this will further degrade the quality of the music. It's already been compressed before the burn, then will be re-compressed when re-ripped. It's like the next generation in a VHS tape copy. Personally, unless music stores start selling music in a lossless format (I'd be prepared to pay more for it) I don't see the point - I'd rather just buy the CD and do what I want with it. With the possible exception of the odd single that I like but don't want a CD filled with other stuff I don't! Steve -February 8, 2006 I'm going along with Dave on this one. Anytime I'm at all concerned about quality, I buy the CD. I occasionally buy one-off songs (mostly older "for-fun" stuff) from iTunes, and those can be burned to audio CD for archiving and later re-ripped to MP3 for compatibility if necessary- yes there's quality degradation from secondary compression but we've already established that you're not too concerned about quality if you're buying online anyway. At this point it's a quality vs. convenience issue- I love my iPod but if audiophile quality was a concern all the time, I wouldn't be using it. Oh, and I've often considered implementing a system like Richard's and rip CDs to a lossless format before squashing it down to use with iTunes/iPod. If the disk space you'd need doesn't make it impractical, that's probably the best way to go. PB -February 8, 2006 I haven't purchased a CD in a couple of years now. I have too many sitting on the shelf that I purchased because there were one or two songs I liked. The only artist I can think of right now where I liked nearly every track is James Blunt. I'm so happy buying piecemeal on Napster and similar sites (although I'll never put a dime in Steve Jobs pocket -- not an Apple lemming). Chaos831 -February 8, 2006 "compress the original files in Zip format" Uhh get a clue. The files are already compressed! Zip has a greater chance of making a larger file. You would only get the benefit of file cluster size. Dave -February 8, 2006 Sorry to the other "dave" The post directly above is another "dave". I didnt see another Dave had already posted. So I will be Dave2 from here on in. Dave2 -February 8, 2006 CDs are not the source of the best quality music; LPs are. (Try listening to a pipe organ on LP, then on CD, using a quiality audio system. You'll hear the difference.) The CD format can't encode the entire dynamic range of music and discards what it can't encode. Encode and archive your music in whatever format you want; all involve trade-offs. Remember that using a DRM enabled format may render your library inaccessable. (Anyone remember the DivX DVD rental scheme...) Instead of b*tching about DRM, vote the idiots that gave the corporaions these rights out of office; otherwise, prepare to pay each timeyou listen (watch, or read)...) zorg -February 17, 2006 You...are a moron. First of all, audio quality is purely a subjective matter. Different people have different ideas as to what "audiophile" quality sound it. Some people prefer CDs, some LPs. To each their own. Apple uses its own AAC codec to deliver content at 128kps. The whole Apple delivery experience is a compromise to satisfy almost everyone except a**holes who ***** about "audiphile" quality sound. The idea was to deliver songs which are decent quality and do not occupy a ridiculous amount of space on your hard drive or portable media player. I have encoded all my MP3 files in the AAC codec because I love music. I love thousands of songs on my iPod and thousands of songs on my laptop. Converting these MP3 files saved me roughly 50% space with nearly the same sound quality. If you love your MP3 files in 320kps and file sizes of 20MB per song...well, that's great. Don't sh*t all over the iTunes Music Store for providing a decent product at a decent price. Seaton -February 28, 2006 writing an article like this without first going out and doing your own research is the stupidest thing this person ever done. first of all, i got format in both mp3 and aac. sure aac is not as widely popular as mp3 but it gives higher quality at a lower bit rate. good example is, mp2 which is dvd and mp4. mp2 delivers really good quality, but at a higher bitrate for the good quality. mp4 can deliver the same quality at a much smaller file size, even up to 4x less in storage size. for example, a 2 hour movie for most dvd is about 4gigs. i can use the same movie, usually the same quality and convert it to mp4, and say, 1 gig, and for my opinion, its the same quality. so what i'm trying to say is, the guy that wrote this article is a MORON!!!! PimpC -February 28, 2006 If it were mentioned a little more often that CD quality is 16 (bit) x 2 (stereo) = 32 x 44.1(Khz) = 1411.2 kbps, then the arguements about the relative merits of 128, 192, or 320kbps would come into perspective. Notwithstanding the variable bit rate technologies, it should be clearly obvious that most download services are flogging third rate services at premium prices. If prices were per Kilobyte the public at large might find a little insentive to become better informed about the available choices. guthrytrojan -March 7, 2006 Aside from the CD vs. LP argument (and my ears aren't good enough to distinguish), a number of posters above hit the nail on the head. If going digital (and you really have no choice today), buy the CD, and then "do stuff" to it from there. CD offers the highest quality available today by a significant margin, and is about the same price as any of the order-of-magnitude-poorer choices available. As far as the "do stuff" part, I'm a belt-and-suspenders guy. I rip (using EAC) to disk. I then MP3 encode and tag for use on one of my players. I save both versions to HDD - WAV and MP3. And when I get around to it, I actually burn a backup of the WAVs to CD-R. (This last step is because my wife is so hard on the originals!) Irv -March 8, 2006 All I can say is wow. So much inbreeding in here... heh (j/k). Your human ears cannot detect the difference between 160, 192, 320, or even CD (there was only a slight edge on distinguishing a CD). So arguments on quality blows. Maximum PC did an experiment on this and took individuals including the average joe and an audiophile and they couldn't tell the difference. Downloading is a cheaper solution. Unless you get your CD from the $4.99 bargin bin, an average download for a complete album is between $7.99 and $10.99. CDs on average are a couple bucks more. And for those who would rather buy a CD because it's more convienient, go ahead and drive your *** to the store buy your CD(s), and drive back. We'll see how many albums I download, burn, and rip back to MP3 by the time you get back. If you order your CD online, then it will be that many more by the time you get it. As for me, I'm done with CDs... waste of space. As for the guy who wrote this article (Paul BTW), you honestly believe he didn't do any research? MORON. Even research by monkeys can prove his points. lol. I can be such an ***... Brian -March 8, 2006 The majority of you guys are such cry babies.. my goodness! "I need the highest quality of the bestest!! 192kbps is too low for me, it sounds poor" BLAH BLAH BLAH! OK will ya shutup!? I love music on my iPod downloaded from Itunes and it sounds great ok. GREAT! So what is REALLY the point? Why do we have to get so anal about the sound quality? I agree that going out and buying a CD is probably the best choice if you want a backup, best sound quality (If you're really gonna die if you hear something under 1411.2kbps), and avoid dealing with DRM. But the only down fall to that is you usually spend more, and not every song on the cd you buy you will want. So I guess in the long run we all will have to agree to disagree. We all have our own opinions and preferences and neither direction (cd or online) is wrong. Zac -March 14, 2006 cds are for dinosaurs. burn to 320 kbps - network around your house, have a beer and enjoy. esco -March 14, 2006 Many thanks to Paul Thurrott for the original post if only for the relatively up-to-date debate it has inspired. I took a long time to convert from LP to CD for sound quality reasons but eventually gave in for practical reasons (no huge house to store them all). I now want to convert to digital for portability and am likely to go with the 'Buy CD > Rip to 192kbps MP3 > Upload to portable jukebox' option as it seems the best play-off between storage, back-up, longevity of solution and sound quality. Thanks again to all. OllyMc -March 20, 2006 Oh my god... what's the principle to distingush 'digital' media from CDs? CDs are digital sources as well! Many people strated to believe CDs are analog sources. It's ridiculous. I've noticed that often only lossy formats like mp3 are referred to as 'digital'. That may work as a simple psycholigic trick: what's digital is cool, then go digital etc. You may mind CDs are physical sources, so what? One can distribute those digital formats on CDs as well, or vice versa, one can download a CD-image. I feel like many people don't realize what 'digital' really means. Anyways, lossless encodong will let you convert your audio into any desired format without unnecessary loss of quality. Formats like FLAC will let you handle future formats that surpass CD-quality (like DVD Audio 24 bit/96-192 kHz) with ease. If you aren't concerned too much about the quality, you may don't care if you didn't compare. Even on my middle-end stereo the difference is quite clear, not mentioning hi-fi/hi-end solitions. So guys, don't let anyone claiming 192 kbps mp3 being a real CD-quality fool you. Paul B -March 28, 2006 192 is good enough for the music most people listen to, just as McDonalds and Pizza Hut are good enough for most people. 320 is good enough for a lot of music, but still not as good as most CDs and CDs are already a compromise in sound quality. There are lots of factors which I narrowed down. I'm a singer with almost perfect pitch. I've listened to music on vinyl since my father had a Sherwood tube amp and Dual turntable. I got into CDs in 1978. I've had SACD and DVD-A since 2001 and bought 2 iPods for daughters, a Sony ATRAC3 for my bike and tried everything from Creative hard disk to the SanDisk 6GB Flash, which I have found to offer the best overall. CDs were better in general than Vinyl because vinyl skipped, scratched was subject to static, heat, dust, had to be flipped over to hear the other side, and definitely was not portable. I lived in a 125 year old house in college and had to suspend my turntable from the ceiling because vinyl skips. Sound quality wise, a brand new vinyl that was shot with an anti-static gun before playing on my mid-range Yamaha, Harmon Kardon, McIntosh was far more lifelike than the same album on CD, but all the other factors made it less desirable for most, including me. I find the iPod sound is colored, even their lossless. When compared to an SACD, it is very tinny. NOTE: I also find SACD colored vs. DVD-A but SACD seems to be winning that war, in terms of titles available. I find Windows Media Lossless the best option overall however Windows Media VBR at the highest quality level is good enough for a portable player, and listening to from your PC. Ideally you would have a portable with large enough storage to handle lossless but since these typically are hard disk based, the battery life is pitiful and they are subject to shock. Flash is really better all the way around. Samsung announced a 32 GB Flash card which will ship by Christmas and change the picture soon. The Sandisk has a micro sd slot so when the 32Gb cards come out, you'll be able to add a whole lot more storage. There is on problem currently and I can't get answers from Microsoft on it, although I do know how to up the settings in Windows Media to transfer to a device at 320 through a registry hack. Currently, if you rip using Windows Media lossless, but your player doesn't support it, your files are converted to 320 then copied to the player. 320 is good but defintely not as good as VBR let alone lossless. Also, if your player supports VBR, since there are no transcoded files to take up space on your PC, the files copy as quickly as your USB will allow, and you can drag and drop easily. It won't be long before we get 128 GB Flash, and lossless will become the standard, but for now WMA VBR is certainly acceptable. BTW: the Toshiba GigaBeat supports WMA Lossless, but is a hard disk based player. Hopefully Microsoft will get the message and permit ripping in lossless and synching to a portable in VBR. That in my mind will be the best of both worlds. louis -July 22, 2006 Your Comments (required): kidusballer -September 21, 2006 Your Comments (required):Hey Irv, don't backup to WAV, convert to FLAC, this will still give you a lossless backup but at about half the storage requirement. Also if anyone wants to play lossless on their mp3 player right now, check out the Rockbox project, they may have firmware for your device that allows FLAC playback among others. http://www.rockbox.org Name (required): Paul -September 23, 2006 it's nice to see you sriads -October 5, 2006 The argument that "your ears can't tell the difference" is BS. Have any of you attempted to connect your iPod (or average PC) to a high-end hi-fi system? Lossy compression results into poor dynamics, no staging, murky and lifeless sound, and eventually gets tiring. Now, since I have been a producer in the past, I have to tell you that nothing compares to the 24/96 master. After mixing at 24/96 and degrading it to 16/44.1 for CD mastering my ears could already hear the difference. By the same token, I feel that if some of you iPod lovers where to listen to a real hi-fi system you would probably have the same reaction as someone who has spent their entire life driving Hondas and all of a sudden sits behind the wheel of a Mercedes CLK ;) Peter -November 26, 2006 I have enjoyed reading all of the comments. It is very interesting to see the wide variety of opinions! It is my opinion that there are many different music listening experiences, and the quality of the music can vary to match. Here are some examples: 1) Portable player while biking, running, walking - lower quality is fine 2) Background music at party - medium quality is fine 3) In car - medium quality 4) Home stereo with volume cranked to be immersed in music - quality matters! Unfortunately, all options are well covered with the exception of #4. When is someone going to create an on-line music store/service (with the 2 to 3 million songs) where the customer has the option to pay for higher quality? I have been waiting and waiting. I have tried AudioTron, Roku SoundBridge, Creative Zen, IPods and more. I have tried Napster, Rhapsody and Yahoo Music. All in search of a convenient answer for option #4. Unfortunately it does not exist. Well, other than going to the store, buying a CD, and playing the CD in quality player that is. But that is so yesterday! Here is what I would like a music service to do the following: 1. Support a variety of formats: 128 WMA, 320 MP3, lossless and more 2. Provide ability to buy or rent the music 3. Allow the music to be download to portable player 4. High quality answer to play on home stereo 5. High quality software for managing music and play lists But, based on the previous comments, there are not enough of us asking for higher quality. So I continue to suffer with playing my rented Yahoo 128 WMA files on my Roku Soundbridge through my home stereo. Rob -December 20, 2006 Rob, www.allofmp3.com is an excellent service. VERY cheap music, and you can choose between CBR and VBR and many different formats, even CD quality. Kevin -December 26, 2006 The last few posts get to the point. allofmp3.com is a superior service for quality compared to the others. Convenience and the quality of sound from MP3 players, car stereos (with traffic noise) or background music at parties means that 128kbps is good enough. Burn to disc or play a 128kbps (even 192 AAC) on even a half decent stereo and there is a BIG difference (then again, can't see much Top 40 music sounding any better). There is even a difference at 320kbps AAC, mainly those less tangible things that Peter mentions above, but I can hear it and I'm slightly deaf in one ear ;o). The way of the future is better quality, or the try before you buy cheap download with an option to purchase the cd if you like it - direct from the artists themselves.....shudder (Sony, BMG, etc). PJ -January 8, 2007 its is very good Name (required): -March 16, 2007 I guess if audio doesnt make a difference the idiots at DTS making a codec that will take 24mb a second as completely certifiable. DTS HD MASTER. Look the only reason we dont have good audio yet is because of the bafoons that have never heard good audio and believe that their IPOD is a great audio piece. Personally I can't stand crappy music. It is like saying I had the same experience watching a movie on an IPHone vs watching it on a 10 ft screen in full 1080P projector with 20000:1 contrast and an anamorphic lens. Patently ridiculous to say quality does not matter. Unfortunately there is a mentality of people that like to argue this over and over without ever really being able to afford or take the time to hear the difference. I wouldnt go on a site saying that driving a ford focus is the same driving experience as a ferrari testarossa. I havent driven a ferrari testarossa, so to draw from the imagination that it is the same makes zero sense. So many threads are from people that do not know what they are yakkin about, and when it comes to spending money they even get passionate about it .... Stop wasting your time posting on what you know nothing about and get a job so you can enjoy some real music, or go to a live concert dv -February 15, 2008 Compression is an interim solution anyway - within a few years standard PCs and PMPs will have more storage space than people realistically require, so we'll all start using lossless files. I think there will be a lot of people kicking themselves when the 1Tb iPod is commonplace and they've only got 192kbps files to load onto it. Name (required): -June 11, 2008 READER COMMENTS: We want to hear what you have to say about this article!     Acceptable Use Policy Your Comments (required): Your email is only used if our editors need to contact you. It is not used or stored for any other purpose, nor posted with your comments. Enter the text from the image below Please refresh the page if you have trouble reading this text.