[vcoheda]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackSol /img/forum/go_quote.gif If size is not an issue then what is the problem with WAV?

this sounds right to me.

also, i use dBpoweramp with accuraterip. very good program. can also convert unprotected files from format to format.

 

[sisenor]

Not to threadjack, but I'm going to a meet on Saturday and since most of my music is on my computer/ipod and because I don't have too many cds (scratched/lost) I'll be bringing music in the form of lossless (ALAC) CDR. How will this sound compared to an original cd??

 

[vcoheda]

lossless should sound the same as the cd.

 

[antiman]

can anybody actually tell the difference between aac 330 kb and lossless? i'm skeptical on that... and as for flac files, nothing plays them! what's the use? i converted to 330 aac those files someone put up of that test cd from (was it) sennheiser... astonishing! I don't see the point of flac, at least until portable players use it...

 

[BlackSol]

Quote:

Originally Posted by antiman /img/forum/go_quote.gif as for flac files, nothing plays them!

http://flac.sourceforge.net/links.html#hardware

 

[K2Grey]

The difference between aac 330 and lossless is that one is truly lossless whereas the other uses a sophisticated method to remove information which people are theoretically unable to hear.

Well, I know people have pulled off ABXs with high bitrate LAME etc., I wouldn't be surprised if people can do it with high bitrate AAC as well, although certainly not everyone can do it and those who can can't do it with all material. Also I suppose if you have hearing problems then the psychoacoustical models don't apply to you and thus you would be able to tell the difference.

 

[Ocean Machine]

I've used EAC to FLAC. Sound quality is great, but speed is not. Also, EAC is a bit picky ripping discs, and you'll end up with some tracks that will get left out because of errors. The other thing I don't like is that FLAC isn't a universal format, so you can't put the files on your portable player.

 

[Wired_Gargoyle]

I use EAC to rip my CDs. No complaints really, takes a while to rip a CD but I do my collection slowly and rip new CDs when I get them.

I use Chris Myden's Guide to set up EAC well enough that I can't tell the difference between the CD and the MP3 I've ripped. I then use Musicbrainz/ to generate the tags and filename so it matches the rest of my collection.

 

[rhymesgalore]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contrastique /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have never used Flac and I am not sure either how to convert a cd to flac. I always use AIFF to convert my cd's to and I believe it comes really close to cd-qual. It is lossless if I am not mistaken. I use iTunes to do that.

[size=xx-small]the thread is a bit old i know, but nevertheless....[/size]

Well, it should sound exactly like the Cd, because that's what you get if you rip in AIFF (which is the Mac-counterpart of wave): The exact data as was on the CD.
Uncompressed, so it is the exact same size as it was on the CD.


But it's a complete waste of space to rip in AIFF, because if you rip in ALAC instead, you will get the EXACT SAME sound quality, but save up to 50% of your disk space.

And since you use a MAC, it doesn't matter that you don't use FLAC either, because as it is lossless as well, it also sounds exactly like a rip in AIFF.

 

[Peccary]

Go with FLAC.

 

[Redo]

FLAC or lossless audio formats aren't really meant for portables to begin with. Use FLAC as your archive format, then convert down to your favorite lossy format for portable. Preferably a lower bitrate, something like mp3 -V 4 for the portable to save disk space (and because portables usually aren't too hi-fi).

Loading up a portable with lossless audio is counter-intuitive if you ask me.


Here's a great EAC ripping guide. It may seem long, but it's easy to follow:

http://calonet.org/eac

The only thing I recommend changing is don't use Test+Copy for secure mode, straight copy is exactly the same. In fact, I don't use Test at all unless I'm doing burst mode and want to see if CRC codes match. Otherwise Test is a big waste of time =b

 

[Contrastique]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhymesgalore /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, it should sound exactly like the Cd, because that's what you get if you rip in AIFF (which is the Mac-counterpart of wave): The exact data as was on the CD. Uncompressed, so it is the exact same size as it was on the CD.

I thought it was but I wasn't completely sure, so thanks for the additional info.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhymesgalore /img/forum/go_quote.gif But it's a complete waste of space to rip in AIFF, because if you rip in ALAC instead, you will get the EXACT SAME sound quality, but save up to 50% of your disk space.

That sounds quite odd to me since you will loose half of the size but keep the same qual...Don't know how it exactly works though but you will have to sacrifice something in order to let the files shrink so dramatically. Not saying you are wrong, but it just sounds odd.

 

[EnOYiN]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contrastique /img/forum/go_quote.gif That sounds quite odd to me since you will loose half of the size but keep the same qual...Don't know how it exactly works though but you will have to sacrifice something in order to let the files shrink so dramatically. Not saying you are wrong, but it just sounds odd.

It works a bit like this:

Suppose you've got a CD filled with music. Since it's digital it exists of zeros and ones. So an example of this would be:

1111111111111111 <-- Those are 16-bits. Yes, there are. You can count them if you want to.

What a compression does is the following. It will look for repeating paterns in the code. Since there are 16-bits which are the exact same it will save it in another way. A common way to do this is like this:

4 x 1111

Still 16 bits, but written in another way. This you will not have to save the full 16 bits but a substitute of the same thing.

Not only ALAC and FLAC use this, but winRAR, winzip and 7z do the exact same thing. They are looking for repeating paterns and save them in another way.

 

[Contrastique]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnOYiN /img/forum/go_quote.gif It works a bit like this: Suppose you've got a CD filled with music. Since it's digital it exists of zeros and ones. So an example of this would be: 1111111111111111 <-- Those are 16-bits. Yes, there are. You can count them if you want to. What a compression does is the following. It will look for repeating paterns in the code. Since there are 16-bits which are the exact same it will save it in another way. A common way to do this is like this: 4 x 1111 Still 16 bits, but written in another way. This you will not have to save the full 16 bits but a substitute of the same thing. Not only ALAC and FLAC use this, but winRAR, winzip and 7z do the exact same thing. They are looking for repeating paterns and save them in another way.

Thanx. That makes it clearer to understand. But they could go wrong, couldn't they?? Or am I just too negative?
Maybe now I am just like, shoit, my ipod is full because of those aiff-files and I could have compressed in a good way.
But anyways, I like the files so I will be doing that for long long time I guess. Haha very stubborn person, I know

I am refusing to convert my entire library again.
But thanx again for explaining.

 

[Dj.Evi*]

Ripping to FLAC with EAC is the best way to get totally lossless quality while saving space and being able to use them with pretty much anything. You can even put them on your iPod if you upgrade to rockbox firmware. There's really no reason to NOT use FLAC, and while EAC is slower than most other ripping software, it ensures that your rips are always perfect, even when the original CD isn't in perfect condition.