or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ripping FLAC using EAC? - Page 2

post #16 of 26


Thanks!

post #17 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by cel4145 View Post


Flac=lossless. Lossless means that no audio quality is lost. Conversion from wave to flac is bit perfect.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cel4145 View Post


Flac=lossless. Lossless means that no audio quality is lost. Conversion from wave to flac is bit perfect.

 

Ya, WAV and FLAC are bit identical.

post #18 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomb View Post
 


EAC is intended to accurately rip from a CD.  The FLAC conversion is simply an accessory choice of output.  It has nothing to do with EAC.  I regularly rip to WAV from EAC, use Foobar to convert the WAV to FLAC (about a 5-10 second operation), then blow away the extremely large WAV files.

 

Actually, you don't have to use Foobar. Open EAC, go to "Compression Options," check box that says "Use External Compression Option"  and choose the FLAC encoder from the browser link. This site has some tips on use.

 

http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=EAC_and_FLAC

post #19 of 26

I know this is an old thread and you likely already have your answer but EAC V1.0 beta 4 from 7.December 2014 works perfectly in Win 8.1 Pro x64. As a matter of fact, I'm ripping a CD with it as I write this post.

post #20 of 26

 I use EAC and it sounds nice enough though softer for MP3. Can I assume there's no difference between vbr and cbr for mp3?how about joint n stereo difference? As for flac how much sample rate should I use?44,000hkz or 48,000 or 96000hkz? I do notice some hissing on the 96,000 hkz though...not sure if it is because my CD has so many scratches...sweat. Can I safely say flac rips like cd quality whereas MP3 is more enhanced? Weird MP3 sounds more like melody.

 

About converting to FLAC Im thinking of 48,000hkz as 96,000hkz seems too big and there's welll..some hissing..hmm. Any opinions? Well I'm planning to use it on smart phone or fiiox1. And like what is shared, CD quality backup.

 

I am confused about the zip and compression. Because mp3 sounds enhanced. Whereas FLAC sounds nearer to CD quality. 


Edited by konseki - 5/30/15 at 12:07am
post #21 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by konseki View Post
 

 I use EAC and it sounds nice enough though softer for MP3. Can I assume there's no difference between vbr and cbr for mp3?how about joint n stereo difference? As for flac how much sample rate should I use?44,000hkz or 48,000 or 96000hkz? I do notice some hissing on the 96,000 hkz though...not sure if it is because my CD has so many scratches...sweat. Can I safely say flac rips like cd quality whereas MP3 is more enhanced? Weird MP3 sounds more like melody.

 

About converting to FLAC Im thinking of 48,000hkz as 96,000hkz seems too big and there's welll..some hissing..hmm. Any opinions? Well I'm planning to use it on smart phone or fiiox1. And like what is shared, CD quality backup.

 

I am confused about the zip and compression. Because mp3 sounds enhanced. Whereas FLAC sounds nearer to CD quality. 


CDs are 44 so you shouldn't rip at higher. CBR and VBR are very different.

post #22 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeahx View Post
 


CDs are 44 so you shouldn't rip at higher. CBR and VBR are very different.

 

 

But I tried ripping at 44 it didnt sound that identical and clear to the CD as compared to 48 and 96. O.O

How is CBR and VBR different?

For Itunes , should I also put sample rate as 44 instead of 48?

 

I am basically ripping into EAC mp3 joint/stereo/flac and Itunes mp3.
And to back up into 2 hard disks for storage.


Edited by konseki - 5/30/15 at 3:22am
post #23 of 26
How about the ripping source, Im referring to the type of laptop where you rip off..not the ripper software. Does newer laptops rip off better quality? Or they are all the same? Cause I'm still on Windows 7 on a $800 + laptop.

 

 

Would anyone of you recommend JetAudio ripper? Or stick to EAC better still?

Thank u so much for all the help!^^


Edited by konseki - 5/30/15 at 5:41pm
post #24 of 26

Using EAC should be alright on most drives. CBR is constant bitrate and VBR is variable bitrate.

post #25 of 26

Hey this is my first post. 

 

I see a couple things in this thread that I just wanted to share my research on. 

 

Lossy = every time you move or listen to a file, a bit of the "data" is lost. Meaning, "Newly ripped" mp3's will sound better then a file you have been kicking around on hard drive to hard drive for 10 years.

Lossless = every time you move or listen to a file, none of the "data" is lost. Meaning, it will always sound the way it did when you created it. 

 

I have chosen to rip WAV files due to the uncompressed nature of the format. There is a cost in disk space but I am going to see if it makes a difference for me, in sound quality. My thought here is, why use FLAC or any other compression that is adding the over-head of decompressing during listening when I can use WAV's and reduce the toil of my hardware? The disk savings of compression in the form of FLAC files seems marginal so, for the time being I am going to use WAV's. 

 

My thoughts on EAC, seems like the free open source go to product for FLAC's and as such, if I decide later to move to FLAC, I will be setup already. 

 

My two cents. 

 

I currently listen to music while at work. My setup is :

 

ATH - m50x Headphones

Lyr Amp from Schiit 

FiiO X5

post #26 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by RexRaveR View Post
 

Hey this is my first post. 

 

I see a couple things in this thread that I just wanted to share my research on. 

 

Lossy = every time you move or listen to a file, a bit of the "data" is lost. Meaning, "Newly ripped" mp3's will sound better then a file you have been kicking around on hard drive to hard drive for 10 years.

Lossless = every time you move or listen to a file, none of the "data" is lost. Meaning, it will always sound the way it did when you created it. 

 

I have chosen to rip WAV files due to the uncompressed nature of the format. There is a cost in disk space but I am going to see if it makes a difference for me, in sound quality. My thought here is, why use FLAC or any other compression that is adding the over-head of decompressing during listening when I can use WAV's and reduce the toil of my hardware? The disk savings of compression in the form of FLAC files seems marginal so, for the time being I am going to use WAV's. 

 

My thoughts on EAC, seems like the free open source go to product for FLAC's and as such, if I decide later to move to FLAC, I will be setup already. 

 

My two cents. 

 

I currently listen to music while at work. My setup is :

 

ATH - m50x Headphones

Lyr Amp from Schiit 

FiiO X5


This is partly true but lossy compression only loses data when it is created or if it somehow becomes corrupted which can happy to anything. Older MP3s don't sound as good because compression has improved a lot over the years.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home