[FEAST]

Seeking out the Highest Quality way to import CD's.
 
I am hoping to get some feedback here regarding the program and formats used to rip CD's to my computer.  I have currently been ripping using iTunes's lossless .aiff encoder with no error correction.  I understand that there are many different ripping programs, file formats, settings, and players.  Lets discuss what matters, what doesn't, and what the best options are and why.  I hope to make a decision regarding the best options for importing, and create a good reference for others in the process.
 
 
Priorities in ripping music:
 
1. Highest quality (perfect transparency) - disk space no issue, no compromises here.
 
2. Good tagging (artist, album, song & # or better)
 
3. File format compatibility (preferably compatible with many devices and software players)
 
 
 
Thing's I have heard: (and that need addressing)
 

1. I can get better rip quality from programs like Exact Audio Copy etc vs. iTunes depending on how scratched my CD's are.  (the reason apparently being better error correction etc) 

 

1. I heard .aiff is the same quality as .wav only with better tagging. (are they the same quality? - does .aiff have better tagging to this day still because .wav is a much more widely supported format) 

 

1. .aiff and .wav are the highest quality formats to rip using. (what about .flac etc?)

 

1. .aiff is the same codec as apple lossless, except that apple lossless is compressed for smaller sizes and decompressed on playback.  The quality is the same as long as the processing is available to decompress in real time.

 
 
My scenario:
 
-I am just in the process of building my CD collection and want to rip it in the best way possible.  Hard drive space is no issue.
 
-I use foobar2000 into a Cambridge Audio DAC for playback, but am open to consider any player.
 
-I use portable music players like iPod's etc, so the file format must be compatible with these players OR able to be converted into .mp3 or .wav formats.
 
 
Discuss.
 
(Note: Good posts that are informational, clear, detailed, and fair regarding/comparing/pro & con for all the codecs, bit rate's, programs and anything else will be quoted in this opening post as a good reference.  Links too.

 

[Thecoolguy]

I use EAC because its free and very accurate. The only con about it, IMO, is that it is very hard to setup and use. I hear dbpoweramp is better/simpler, but it also costs $30. I rip my CD's to FLAC, but EAC can also rip to mp3 and wav
 
If you're curious about EAC, heres a good guide on how to use it-http://blowfish.be/eac/Rip/rip0.html

 

[JerryLove]

They will all start by importing the WAV from your CD. Accuracy (reading through scratches) is determined by the CD reader and driver software: not the ripping software.
 
Your best sound quality (100% fidelity) will come from using any lossless CODEC. FLAC, WMA-Lossless... here's a list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless_data_compression#Audio

 

[FEAST]

I noticed AIFF ALAC is not on that list.  I have heard claims that it is lossless but compressed.  Is this true?

 

[moodyrn]

Aiff is apples's version of wav. It's not compressed. It's the same as wav ; that is, uncompressesed lossless files.

 

[FEAST]

Quote:

Aiff is apples's version of wav. It's not compressed. It's the same as wav ; that is, uncompressesed lossless files.

Oops, I meant ALAC - apple lossless.  

 

[Avro_Arrow]

Here is my advice...
 
I rip my CDs to .wav with EAC
Remember to scan the album art while your at it.
I can later use LameXP to convert it to whatever format I want.
As far a tagging goes, MP3 gives you the best tagging options and
WAV gives you the least. I use MP3Tag Pro for my tagging duties.
I have no experience with iTunes or Apple formats as I seem to 
be allergic to Steve Jobs. In all of my collection, I have only one
.aiff file, a quadraphonic version of Pink Floyd "Wish You Were Here".
 
I use Foobar with WASAPI for playback to an external DAC

 

[c61746961]

ALAC employs a lossless compression scheme, indeed. You'd be better off encoding to a widely supported lossless format like FLAC, though.

 

[Avro_Arrow]

You may find this site very useful.

 

[FEAST]

Quote:

ALAC employs a lossless compression scheme, indeed. You'd be better off encoding to a widely supported lossless format like FLAC, though.

I dont understand how FLAC can compress files to 768kbps and still be lossless.  Where is the other 500kbps going?

 

[Avro_Arrow]

It uses a compression algorithm like .zip or .rar, just taylored to audio...
Quote:

I dont understand how FLAC can compress files to 768kbps and still be lossless.  Where is the other 500kbps going?

 

[FEAST]

Quote:

It uses a compression algorithm like .zip or .rar, just taylored to audio...

 

I see.  So then it decompresses it later.  I think I want to go with .wav files at this point because they are 100%, widely compatible, and don't require decompression.  I have EAC what is the best way to get those suckers tagged?

 

[FEAST]

Wow, nevermind.  You apparently CAN'T tag wav's.  Great.  So as soon as I move my files they will lose their tags.  Looks like FLAC it is then.

 

[khaos974]

Imagine the following text file:
 
Quote:

I dont understand how FLAC can compress files to 768kbps and still be lossless.  Where is the other 500kbps going?I dont understand how FLAC can compress files to 768kbps and still be lossless.  Where is the other 500kbps going?I dont understand how FLAC can compress files to 768kbps and still be lossless.  Where is the other 500kbps going?I dont understand how FLAC can compress files to 768kbps and still be lossless.  Where is the other 500kbps going?I dont understand how FLAC can compress files to 768kbps and still be lossless.  Where is the other 500kbps going?I dont understand how FLAC can compress files to 768kbps and still be lossless.  Where is the other 500kbps going?I dont understand how FLAC can compress files to 768kbps and still be lossless.  Where is the other 500kbps going?I dont understand how FLAC can compress files to 768kbps and still be lossless.  Where is the other 500kbps going?I dont understand how FLAC can compress files to 768kbps and still be lossless.  Where is the other 500kbps going?I dont understand how FLAC can compress files to 768kbps and still be lossless.  Where is the other 500kbps going?I dont understand how FLAC can compress files to 768kbps and still be lossless.  Where is the other 500kbps going?I dont understand how FLAC can compress files to 768kbps and still be lossless.  Where is the other 500kbps going?

 
Quote:

display 12 times "I dont understand how FLAC can compress files to 768kbps and still be lossless.  Where is the other 500kbps going?"

 
Both text file contain the same amount of information, except that the second text file is shorter. Except for totally random information, everything contains redundant data, Lossless compression program simply use that redundancy to make smaller files. Depending on how efficient the codec is at finding those redundancies and the type of audio you have, lossless codec achieve a compression rate of 50 to 70%.
 
 
Quote:

I dont understand how FLAC can compress files to 768kbps and still be lossless.  Where is the other 500kbps going?

 

[Avro_Arrow]

When I rip my albums, I include the .cue and .m3u files.
Some players or programs can use this information
in the place of tags.
On the computer I don't really need tags so much.
When I transfer stuff to my portable player I convert
to either .flac or .mp3 (with q=0) and tag and embed
album art (mp3 only) at that time.
 
Quote:

Wow, nevermind.  You apparently CAN'T tag wav's.  Great.  So as soon as I move my files they will lose their tags.  Looks like FLAC it is then.