[SoundGoon]

Hello. Wondering which is the better format top rip cd's to my HD: Windows Media Player Lossless or iTunes WAV. Those are my two options in terms of players. Thanks

 

[krmathis]

Quality wise the should be no difference, since they both contain the same PCM data stream. Using a lossless audio codec would fit more music on your computer though, since they compress to about 60-70% of the uncompressed file size.

 

[Redo]

Rip via EAC to FLAC, use Foobar2000 for playback

 

[Cosmid]

I tend to think FLAC is the best format. Nowadays more and more DAPs play FLAC files, including modded iPod, and the SQ is the same as WAV format.

 

[gordolindsay]

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index....mparison_Table


Look at the table and pick the one that has the most features in it that you are looking for. They all are the same as far as audio quality is concerned.

I use wavpack because it fits all my criteria that I needed it too.

 

[jvs]

wav! Every player supports it. Why go through the trouble of using anything else for just 40% less storing space. Only real problem is that the wav files themselves cannot contain tags. But your player's library can!

 

[blessingx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jvs wav! Every player supports it. Why go through the trouble of using anything else for just 40% less storing space. Only real problem is that the wav files themselves cannot contain tags. But your player's library can!

"Just" 40%? Wow, there are not a lot of things (amount of sleep, take home salary, overall audio quality, how well endowed you are, etc.) were 40% isn't a pretty big deal is there? 40% is like almost ... 40%.

And no tags is a big disadvantage for future equipment changes.

Reversing the argument, why not just use lossless now and spend the few hours later to convert back to WAV/AIFF is necessary?

 

[pedxing]

40% savings is a lot. You can hold up to like about 66% more data with the same amount of storage space (I think I did my math right).

I usually see pop and rock music get compressed down to about 70%. Quieter classical music might be compressed down to 30-40%.

I suggest using FLAC if you are planning to use other players in the future. Otherwise, you any lossless codec you are comfortable using.

If you use foobar 2000 and FLAC, you can download an extra tool called flacattack which automates the process of ripping and encoding to FLAC. In addition of FLAC , you can choose one other encoding format too. So in the end, you can automate the process to generate a wav file, a FLAC file, and a mp3 file. The only problem I have with flacattack is its installation process. Installation and configuration requires some tinkering and some extra software utilities, especially if you need to embed cue files into FLAC.

 

[Redo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jvs wav! Every player supports it. Why go through the trouble of using anything else for just 40% less storing space. Only real problem is that the wav files themselves cannot contain tags. But your player's library can!

No tags, I have no clue how to setup gapless wav (or if it's possible), and I would be wasting 15-20 more gigs easy on my music right now. So when I build my collection up to 3000 songs or so, I would be wasting 120+gigs with wav!!! Rather, with FLAC, I get tags, gapless, and would only be using 80gigs or so over 3000songs.