The World of CD Ripping and Usenet

Anyone who reads this post I would like to introduce an aspect of CD ripping and sharing of mp3 files on Usenet. This article is intended for those that may not know about CD ripping, so, if you do know about this subject this most likely will bore you.

Specifically, I am referring to world of CD ripping and those who are involved.

If you don’t know what CD ripping is, the best description is digitally "recording" tracks from a music CD album, thereby changing the CD track's digital audio format. The music CD track's file extension is most likely "CDA," for CD Audio when looking at the CD's file directory in, for example, Windows.

For example it may look like:

track01.cda

All types of CD players can interpret the “CDA” file format. The format of the CDA file contains pure digital values, much like WAV files found on most computer systems. The simple sound recorder that is installed with MS Windows is a WAV recorder. Every bit of sound is represented digitally in a WAV and CDA file format.

There are other files with formats that most computer users know as "mp3." MP3 formatted files are compressed, and therefore needs a decoder program to play/hear the music file. There are some portable car CD players that can recognize "mp3" formatted music files. Of course, there are other audio file formats such as AAC, FLAC, and OGG to name a few. Specific computer programs can interpret these file formats, or specific hardware players can also interpret these types of formats. For example, the Apple iPod player can play different file formats.

The argument for the many different audio-file formats boils down to preference, general acceptability, and file compression (storage area concerns). The “CDA” format is widely acceptable (and the preference matches), but file sizes can be very large, i.e., a typical CD album is one big file totaling 700mbytes, or more. If one wanted to store a CD collection on a computer hard drive there would not be a lot of space for a large collection. As a typical CD album having 700mbytes, 300 more would be one gigabyte. Average hard drive sizes is ~80 gigabytes (and larger as time goes). That means with all the other software files loaded onto a computer not many albums could be saved to hard drive. Compression ratios of audio file formats vary. WAV files are comparable to CD files in size. MP3 are widely acceptable and can be variably compressed (more about this later) as much as one tenth of a CDA file and WAV files. AAC, WMA and OGG follows MP3 format by acceptability and compression ratios.

There is a growing acceptance of an audio-file format called FLAC, Free Lossless Audio Codec. Unlike the FLAC format, MP3 is “lossy,” as in loss-ee, in its fidelity, but FLAC is lossless. Which brings up the argument between the MP3 crowd and this new format, and a reason for this journal installment. The point I am making isn’t arguing for or against any particular file format, but instead arguing against the attitudes of some individuals who favorably view these different file formats over others.

The attitude of some MP3ers who are partial to the MP3 format can be described having disdain towards those who may not favor the MP3 format for whatever reason, and visa versa. Focusing on my point further is that within the MP3 crowd there is even more of disdain towards those who may have a favor towards a higher compression ratio, i.e., smaller file sizes.

I should now define what is meant by the variable compressions of MP3 file formats. I will try to stay away from technical abstracts. To create MP3 files computer programs interpret, or “record,” CDA track digital values then compress, or subtract redundant digital values based upon a listening (hearing) model.

As a side bar, digital images use the same concept in file compression, i.e., JPEGs. Movie files with an extension of MPG also uses compression schemes. Dish Network broadcasts their signal in the MPG2 compression scheme, the unit that sends the signal to your TV set interprets the MPG2 scheme from the dish receiver.

The “subtraction,” or the compression ratio, is partially the fidelity information of the CDA track. When players decode MP3 formatted files back into the CDA, or specifically WAV, original to be played, and because of the subtraction process, the resulting decode is not exactly like the original CDA. Therefore, MP3s are known as “near” CD quality.

Next, MP3 coding by computer programs have the ability to vary the compression ratio, either manually choosing one of various choices, or the program will vary the compression ratio automatically. The recording process incorporates what is known as sampling and recording frequency. The higher the recording frequency and the sampling rate the better the playback fidelity, or moves closer to CD quality. What is sacrificed in the coding process is file size. The higher the frequency and sampling the bigger the file size. Sampling rates start from 16 bits and ranges to 320,000 (320k) bits per second. It is said that 160k or 192k bit sampling rate is equivalent to CD quality. The higher rates qualify at studio quality.

The FLAC crowd, then, has the argument that if a bigger file size is needed for saving fidelity, then keep the fidelity yet compress the file size, and in the process why keep MP3 formats.

To reiterate, I am not arguing for or against a particular coding format. What I am arguing against is the attitude of some individuals who look down upon those that prefer the smaller file size of MP3s due to storage constraints. Yes, some MP3ers disdain other MP3ers who favor smaller file size for better storage ability. Why? It is the fidelity issue of recording, or ripping, of a CD that irritates some against others when recording at smaller sampling rates and then share them in the Usenet. Again, why? When “sharing” MP3 with others using the Usenet, some individuals will tag (replying to a post) with “WARNING, DO NOT DOWNLOAD… 128s” in the re: subject line. Somehow they get the satisfaction of warning their fellow Usenet mates that certain files for downloading are "inferior" in quality.

“128” is referring to the sampling rate of the MP3 coding process. When I mentioned that MP3s are known as “near” CD quality, most MP3s are recorded at 128kbps for the file size attraction. In other words there are those who claim they can determine/hear the difference between a file that has been recorded at a sampling rate of 128kbps and a file that has been sampled at higher rates. My argument, again, isn’t towards any one file size or format, I am arguing that those who prefer the higher sampling rate of MP3 recordings need to keep their hands off postings of files that are recorded at the lower rate. Specifically, I am saying that it isn't any of their business what files are of any specific sampling rate. If files are found to have "inferior" quality sampling rates then don't down load them, plain and simple.

Let me put my argument in another term. (Knowing there are international members, please forgive me if you do not know the geographical region of the US).

If I drove from Orange County, Ca. to Adams County, Co., it can be said without distortion of facts that I drove from L.A., Ca. to Denver, Co. Those that favor higher sampling rates will disagree with the human hearing differences between a MP3 file of 128k sampling and a file with a 192k sampling. I am arguing the point that there is not enough differences between the two to harbor the kind of disdain attitude. This attitude is not normal and need to steer away in a different direction.

Continuing, my contention is that any posting is property, a free flea market, if you will. These posted files have ownership. This argument cannot be ignored or waved off as unimportant. A poster is sharing THEIR files, it is THEIR property, with whoever wants to download them. The disdain of some that feel they have the right to “mark” posts as unfavorable is essentially “spray painting” posters property. Instead of having a favorable liking of files that have a higher sampling rate, they are instead criminal “taggers.”

Here is the rub of the issue. Some, maybe allot, do not have high speed (DSL and cable modem) Internet provider. Therefore, those, the "taggers," who do not have high speed internet, also who disdain 128s, are irritated over those who post them and don't inform potential downloaders, in the subject line or with a NFO file, what sampling rates the MP3s are in. So, when one downloads and finds out it is "inferior" there is hell to pay for them spending time downloading "crap." They rationalize "tagging" for their wasted time in downloading.

It is too bad that they feel, or think, that way. An arguer once told me in the signature part of his post that those who think of themselves as normal are in fact delusional. In other words, if normal why change. I say they see themselves as normal, which applies to them, also.