Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › Ripping audio CD at the very best/lossless quaility?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ripping audio CD at the very best/lossless quaility? - Page 3

post #31 of 53
6/2/07 at 7:20am
I do all ripping/converting with Foobar for ease of use and don't usually carry FLAC in my portable except a few songs I love the most. I can't hear the difference from MP3 VBR V0 with my current set but once I upgrade to iMod with greater capacity and a good amp, I'm pretty sure I'll load more FLAC in.
Reply

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

post #32 of 53
6/5/07 at 9:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dj.Evi* View Post
Ripping to FLAC with EAC is the best way to get totally lossless quality while saving space and being able to use them with pretty much anything. You can even put them on your iPod if you upgrade to rockbox firmware. There's really no reason to NOT use FLAC, and while EAC is slower than most other ripping software, it ensures that your rips are always perfect, even when the original CD isn't in perfect condition.
I cannot play FLAC files on my ipod / itunes. At least not the ones we converted. I don't know with what kinda program we converted since my bf did it. But it didn't work.
I am at this very moment converting my library to ALAC. People, you'd better be right about the true losslessly of this format cause it takes a ******** of time!!!!
Reply
post #33 of 53
6/5/07 at 9:51am
My vote is for Apple Lossless, especially if you are wrapped up in Apple the way I am- most of my time is spent on an iMac or iPod. I really enjoy the interface of iTunes, some people do not.
Reply
post #34 of 53
6/5/07 at 12:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redo View Post
FLAC or lossless audio formats aren't really meant for portables to begin with. Use FLAC as your archive format, then convert down to your favorite lossy format for portable. Preferably a lower bitrate, something like mp3 -V 4 for the portable to save disk space (and because portables usually aren't too hi-fi).

Loading up a portable with lossless audio is counter-intuitive if you ask me.
Sure, if you don't want accurate sound reproduction. It's a crime anyone in this forum (or anywhere else) would recommend MP3.
Reply
post #35 of 53
6/5/07 at 3:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peccary View Post
Sure, if you don't want accurate sound reproduction. It's a crime anyone in this forum (or anywhere else) would recommend MP3.
Why should I effectively reduce the capacity of my iPod by 80% even though there is no audible difference to me between FLAC and a well-encoded MP3?
Reply
post #36 of 53
6/5/07 at 6:17pm
Well, I am finally done JEEZZZZZZ! That took all day plus like 4 hours of yesterday but now everything fits my Ipod again. I am a truly happy person
Reply
post #37 of 53
6/5/07 at 6:34pm
cool!

And be assured: They sound the same as before, because in the end, that means in the moment it's played, it's the same file as before, every single bit by bit.

Because if lossless compression wouldn't work, just think what would happen to all those zip and rar files out there

Or to speak in a photographic analogy: MP3 is like JPEG, compressed but still pretty decent. AIFF is like TIFF, uncompressed, the full glory
And ALAC (or FLAC) are like TIFF compressed with LZW (a lossless compression algorithm): After decompressing it again, it's the original TIFF file again, pixel by pixel.
Reply
post #38 of 53
6/5/07 at 6:45pm
anybody up for wavpack?
Reply
post #39 of 53
6/5/07 at 6:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by kikkomang View Post
anybody up for wavpack?
The problem with Wavpack is, that there's no hardware out there which supports wavpack (other than getting Rockbox on your player).
Reply
post #40 of 53
6/5/07 at 8:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peccary View Post
Sure, if you don't want accurate sound reproduction. It's a crime anyone in this forum (or anywhere else) would recommend MP3.
Perhaps you have the wrong forum. This is a headphones forum primarily, not a hi-fi forum. When using a portable (and very few portables can qualify as hi-fi), it is pointless in most cases to have a perfect copy of a CD, because the high resolution simply does not translate on most consumer grade portables. In the same vein, portables are often used in less than ideal listening circumstances, in cars, on trains, along city streets, where again the added resolution of lossless files is simply lost in the ambient noise.
Reply
post #41 of 53
6/5/07 at 11:31pm
do people still use shn's? I used to dl live soundboard recordings ripped in shn format. They're lossless but only about 50% smaller than wavs
Reply
post #42 of 53
6/6/07 at 12:11pm
Not as much as before it seems. Even in bootleg trading communities, you get FLAC files much more often than it used to be, although Shorten is still heavily in use there.
Reply
post #43 of 53
6/6/07 at 1:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhymesgalore View Post
cool!
And be assured: They sound the same as before, because in the end, that means in the moment it's played, it's the same file as before, every single bit by bit.
From what I have understood lossless is a different way of writing the files. As explained before to me by someone else a digital song contains 1's and 0's so for example:
111111111111111100000
A shorter way of writing it would be:
16x1 5x0
When playing back the file it is not being unrapped like with a zip or rar file but the file is just being played as it is right? The ALAC file hasn't been wrapped to make it smaller but just written in a different way wich takes up less space....right? At least that is how I understood it. And when you convert it back to AIFF again it will be like the first line of digits I wrote and also a bigger file again...right??
Just curious on how this stuff works.

And yes I didn't notice any degradation in sound qual. Checked before I converted my entire library. Otherwise it would have had a no go for sure. My brother thinks I am an idiot converting my files. He doesn't believe in lossless compression and thinks the lossless files from apple are a commercial stunt from apple. It is difficult to convince him otherwise cause he is real stubborn and so convinced of he being right all the time, especially on this matter because he studies it and sometimes drives me mad!!
Reply
post #44 of 53
6/6/07 at 2:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Guidry View Post
Perhaps you have the wrong forum. This is a headphones forum primarily, not a hi-fi forum. When using a portable (and very few portables can qualify as hi-fi), it is pointless in most cases to have a perfect copy of a CD, because the high resolution simply does not translate on most consumer grade portables. In the same vein, portables are often used in less than ideal listening circumstances, in cars, on trains, along city streets, where again the added resolution of lossless files is simply lost in the ambient noise.
Though many of them people use portables with an amp. That makes lossless files more worth it imo. And if you on top of that use a revealing hp it makes it even more worth to me.
Reply
post #45 of 53
6/6/07 at 3:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Contrastique View Post
Though many of them people use portables with an amp. That makes lossless files more worth it imo. And if you on top of that use a revealing hp it makes it even more worth to me.
Have you tried ABXing that?

I know I couldn't hear the difference on my portable.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Music

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › Ripping audio CD at the very best/lossless quaility?