Are my flac files the best possible quality?

[seefeel]

I'm ripping flac files with EAC with the following command line:

-0 -V -T "TITLE=%t" -T "ARTIST=%a" -T "ALBUM=%g" -T "TRACKNUMBER=%n" -T "DATE=%y" -T "GENRE=%m" -T "RIPPER=Plextor PX-W4824A, EAC 0.95pb3 Secure mode, accurate stream, test & copy." -T "SOURCE=Your Name" %s

When I play back these files they show up as 545kbps in foobar2000. Is that normal, or should that show up as a higher kbps?

Is there anything I need to change in order to get the best possible sound quality for ripping the flac files, or are my settings correct for achiving the best quality files?

 

[sir poulet]

You can't get better quality in sound, since FLAC is lossless no matter what. The only difference in encoding is slight file size differences as you increase the compression and the speed of this encoding. Also it's hard to measure what bitrate should be showing up because it depends on what song is playing.

 

[seefeel]

Ah, ok. That makes sense. I guess going with higher compression would be better if it won't at all affect the sound quality of the files?

I assumed, like with mp3s, the higher the bit rate, the better the sound quality. So it's different with flac files because they're lossless? Wouldn't the bit rate, if it's a lossless copy of the cd, have a bit rate as high and the same as the original cd has when it's playing? And wouldn't that be a consistent number? Would you please elaborate on why the bit rate changes from song to song?

Thanks very much for the info. This is very helpful, as I am beginnging to rip my 2,500 plus cd collection to my computer for archiving.

 

[Stephonovich]

Basically, what sir poulet said. It's always going to be lossless, so it's as good as what you're feeding it. GIGO.

I do, however, have one question. How come you're running -0 compression? You do realize that's essentially no compression at all, correct? If you're doing that, why even bother encoding it into FLAC? Even on a slow (for instance, on FLAC's page, a PII 333MHz with 256MB RAM) machine, it only takes you about 13 minutes to encode one album. Assuming an album is 60 minutes, that's still better than 4x realtime. Bump that computer up to a fairly modern machine, say, a P4 2.4GHz with 512MB RAM, and your encode time is going to be running around 2-3 minutes. Surely you can spare that.

EDIT:

My bad, your 2nd post wasn't up yet. I see your confusion. As for why the bitrate changes, it's referring to how much it can compress it. An uncompressed WAV file has a bitrate of 1,411,200 kbps. (that's bits, mind you, not bytes) Even though FLAC is lossless, it still can compress things, and as such, will show you (on average, for the track) how much it managed to shrink it down to.

2500 CDs? Geez, man... good luck to you. Glad to see you're choosing a lossless codec, though. Much easier in the future to test out other options.

(-:Stephonovich

 

[Kuja]

Since it's lossless, does that mean if you decode it, it will be bit-perfect compared to the original wav?

 

[breez]

Yes. Lossless = no loss.

 

[ixeo]

today i just ripped some cds i have to flac and compared it to the mp3s i have.. and with a crapsource..plus some decent headphones... i can hear the difference, and its not subtle at all with headphones

with laptop speakers however, i can't tell the difference..geez flac makes a really big difference! i aint going back to mp3s..ever.

u dont know what your missing out listening to mp3s!

 

[Stephonovich]

This isn't always true. You'd be very hard pressed to correctly identify an --aps encoded MP3 from a FLAC file. With a really good source, amp, and cans, you probably could, but move up to an --ape or --api, and I seriously doubt you could. It's just that good.

(-:Stephonovich

 

[ixeo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephonovich This isn't always true. You'd be very hard pressed to correctly identify an --aps encoded MP3 from a FLAC file. With a really good source, amp, and cans, you probably could, but move up to an --ape or --api, and I seriously doubt you could. It's just that good. (-:Stephonovich

whats --aps? linkage?
my mp3s are all CD -> CDex -> LAME codec @ 192kbps -> file!

 

[Stephonovich]

--aps, --ape, and --api refer to quality settings for the LAME encoder. Respectively, --alt-preset standard, --alt-preset extreme, and --alt-preset insane. It's a VBR (Variable Bit Rate) mode. They're basically the new --r3mix settings, if you were into LAME when that was popular. They're what LAME is mainly tuned for now, as such, you get best quality when using them. Here's a good thread describing them in great detail.

(-:Stephonovich

 

[seefeel]

I ripped the same CD with three different compression settings and this is the size difference I ended up with. There isn’t a very big difference between them. I think I'm just going to stick with the -0 setting.

-0 302mb
-5 289mb
-8 288mb

 

[zowie]

I only use MP3 for non-critical portable and can live with it, but I'd like to compress some stuff I have on my hard drive as back-up for CDs. Can anyone point me to a web page that explains FLAC, e.g., where to download the codecs, how to set, etc.

Thanks

 

[seefeel]

Here's a good place to start.

http://flac.sourceforge.net/

 

[zowie]

much obliged

 

[Stephonovich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by seefeel I ripped the same CD with three different compression settings and this is the size difference I ended up with. There isn’t a very big difference between them. I think I'm just going to stick with the -0 setting. -0 302mb -5 289mb -8 288mb

First, depending on the type of music, the amount of compression can vary a lot. Music with a lot of depth and dynamic range, such as symphony, usually doesn't compress all that well, whereas highly compressed (compressed as in range, not in size) music like rock does better. That being said, there's always exceptions. I've got an acoustic/electronic album that's very soft, has tons of depth, and compresses by almost 50%.

Second, if you are going to encode at -0, why even bother? Just keep the WAV files.

(-:Stephonovich