Does it matter how I rip to FLAC?

[Mr00000]

Currently I'm using WinAmp to rip to FLAC. This seemed like the easiest to set up compared to EAC or CDEX. I would think that FLAC is FLAC is FLAC... is there anything wrong with just using Winamp?

Thanks much,

Mr00000

 

[krmathis]

FLAC is FLAC. Meaning that the input audio data always will be stored without data loss.

But the quality of the input audio data may vary, depending on the condition of the CD you rip (scratches, etc.) and the accuracy of the ripper engine. EAC are known for being "the best" CD ripper, but cdparanoia (used by CDex, Max, etc.) are very reliable as well.

 

[Mr00000]

Yes, I know of / am a fan of the paranoia function in CDEX. So, it would be best for me to leave the ease / comfort of Winamp and go to EAC?

 

[krmathis]

If your CD's are not badly scratched I guess WinAmp will make identical rips as CDex and EAC. Badly scratched CD's might be different matter.

I say stick with WinAmp. Then use CDex or EAC for those stubborn CD's if you ever run into problems.

 

[Sh0eBoX]

EAC really isn't hard to use at all.. once you get past the setup procedure (which is quite simple if you follow the guide here), it's a breeze to rip

 

[Redo]

The best EAC ripping guide:

http://calonet.org/eac

 

[vcoheda]

dbpoweramp is very good as well.

 

[mcmyers]

The main advantage of EAC for me is that when a CD is scratched and a song is going to have skips in it, EAC tells me that as soon as it finishes ripping. Or it just gets hung up. Other rippers will just rip the song with skips and I have to discover the skips on my own.

But if a CD is in perfect condition, I wouldn't think it would matter what you used.

 

[SysteX]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcmyers /img/forum/go_quote.gif The main advantage of EAC for me is that when a CD is scratched and a song is going to have skips in it, EAC tells me that as soon as it finishes ripping.

The reference version of dbPowerAmp will do this as well, though it is not free.