[rsbrsvp]

Hi. I have been in Head fi for a while but just now am moving to computer based audio.

Could someone please tell me the best way to rip CD's for the best quality sound?

I understand that AIFF and WAV are supposedely sonically equal? Is that true?

Also- Is EAC better to rip than WAV in WMP because it has error correction?

Is there any way to use WMP for WAV ripping with error correction?

Thanks..

 

[iriverdude]

EAC, flac encoder.
Foobar for replaygain job done.

 

[paaj]

EAC is probably the best Windows based ripper, because of the accurate rip where it checks it's result with an online database. There are lot's of How-To's to find on EAC.

AIFF and WAV are equal, uncompressed music. AIFF supports tags.

You can encode it to FLAC or ALAC: losslessly compressed music so only smaller, not losing quality.

 

[Nooc]

FLAC is the format.

 

[FauxReal]

Everyone agrees, FLAC is the best lossless codec for all practical purposes.

For a lossy codec I would use Exact Audio Copy (software interface) w/ the LAME encoder installed and encode to V0 (quality setting) mp3 files.

More info here: LAME - Hydrogenaudio Knowledgebase

 

[thoppa]

You might also want to think about the file name because this can help indexing. I'd suggest "artist - album - track number - track name" because this way the files can be sorted alphabetically in any window.

 

[jriver]

Any lossless format will give you the same sound quality, and will be the same quality as WAV or AIFF. Lossless files will be smaller and tagging will be more likely to be compatible among different players (software and hardware).

 

[Redo]

I use dbpoweramp, it utilizes the accurate rip database as any good ripper should, and I like the interface (works wonders for converting audio formats outside of the ripper). Plus if the CD is in bad shape it can do error correction just as good as EAC can.

In either case, if you're going lossless, go with FLAC.

 

[Deep Funk]

FLAC is better, O.K. but by what margin? Does it give you the sensation of listening to a good recording on CD or LP?

 

[Ham Sandwich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deep Funk /img/forum/go_quote.gif FLAC is better, O.K. but by what margin? Does it give you the sensation of listening to a good recording on CD or LP?

Sound quality from FLAC is equal to WAV or any other lossless format. A 16-bit 44.1 kHz FLAC file is the same audio quality as you get from CD.

FLAC has very good support by various audio applications, but that support is not universal. FLAC has good tagging and various applications can read and store the tags.

The problem with lossless audio is that there is no one single format that has full tagging support and is supported by all applications you'd want to use. For example, Apple's iTunes can't do FLAC. Microsoft's WMP can play FLAC if you install the right codec, but it cannot read or write the tags.

In lossy audio you have MP3 that is supported by pretty much every application. It is as universally supported as you are ever going to get. In lossless audio we don't have a similar universal format. It's a situation that frankly sucks. Too much fragmentation in the market. No universally portable standard.

Pick a lossless format based on what OS you use (if you use Mac it will likely be ALAC) and what applications you want to use. Use the lossless format that has the best support amongst the applications and devices you want to use.

The main contenders for lossless are ALAC, FLAC, ans WMA Lossless.

 

[UNHchabo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deep Funk /img/forum/go_quote.gif FLAC is better, O.K. but by what margin? Does it give you the sensation of listening to a good recording on CD or LP?

A Flac will give you exactly the same data as what's on the CD. Flac is a format for lossless compression, meaning that it takes the data ripped from the CD (stored in a .wav or .aiff file), and makes the file smaller with no loss of quality, as opposed to lossy formats like MP3, which make the file smaller by throwing out data that's deemed less important.

 

[Deep Funk]

I buy all my music on CD, so back ups are no problem. I used to rip music with WMP11, but that program just doesn't function well all the time. I'll remove WMP11 if WMP Classic really is what I'm looking for.

WMA files never really dissappointed me. All the music comes from CD's so quality isn't an issue. What about WMA Lossless?

 

[UNHchabo]

WMA, being a lossless compression format, will make files smaller than .wav or .aiff format with no loss of quality, just like FLAC. Outside of Windows Media Player though, WMA Lossless isn't as well supported as WMA is. FLAC is probably the best-supported lossless format out there.

Just keep in mind that for a lossless format to have the same data as the original CD, you need to rip straight from the CD to that lossless format. If you try to take a lossy MP3 or WMA file and encode it to WMA Lossless or FLAC, the data has already been lost, and can't be recovered without re-ripping.

 

[JMT391]

Before re-ripping all of your music library into FLAC or any other lossless format, make sure you can tell the difference on your setup. Re-rip a CD you know very well into a lossless format, and use foobar's ABX comparator using one lossy rip and one lossless rip of a song.

If you can run 10-20 trials without having a high %chance of guessing, go ahead and re-rip. If not, you're better off waiting until you have better equipment.

But as an answer to your question, EAC + FLAC + Foobar is a great combination on windows. Keep in mind though that EAC and Foobar take a lot of patience to get working properly.

 

[SirDrexl]

Eh, I think he could still benefit from ripping again, if only to make sure it's done properly (with an AccurateRip app like EAC). If space is not an issue, you might as well do it with a lossless codec.

Regarding EAC vs. dBpoweramp, I've been an EAC user for a while, but I tried dBpoweramp. Through from what I read, it seems that the reason dBpoweramp is faster is because it just does a burst rip and then compares that to AccurateRip. The idea is that there's no need to keep re-reading blocks of data like EAC, if one pass can get a result that matches AR. This puts less stress on the drive as well, since it isn't going back and forth constantly to re-read blocks of data.

However, if you just set up EAC to do a burst read (while still using AccurateRip), I believe it's doing the same thing. I actually prefer EAC a little in this regard, because I can force it to do a second pass using the test and copy feature. That makes me feel better about not having errors in the first and last 2940 samples of the disc that AR ignores. If I happen to have a problem CD that requires more reads, I can try secure mode.

dBpoweramp has some other features, which may be worth checking out. I just felt that as a pure CD ripper, it wasn't worth the money for my needs.