[mofonyx]

Hi there,

Would there be any disadvantages ripping XRCD to FLAC?

Cheers.

 

[jilgiljongiljing]

I personally couldnt tell the difference. But I don't know if there are any technical disadvantages in doing so

 

[infinitesymphony]

The benefits of XRCD are mostly in the mastering and manufacturing process. The mastering will contribute to the overall sound quality, and the improved manufacturing process means that there will be less defects. The final product will rip the same as a regular CD, so the FLAC will contain everything that's on the disc without loss.

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mofonyx /img/forum/go_quote.gif XRCD to FLAC, any loss in quality?

No, there should be no quality loss.
* XRCD contain regular PCM audio data (16bit, 44.1KHz).
* FLAC is lossless. Meaning that it will store the exact same audio data as the source file.

 

[mofonyx]

Okay cheers.

There is XRCD24 though, how would that work with FLAC?

 

[krmathis]

FLAC support 24bit audio data as well...

 

[infinitesymphony]

All of those labels are the same... The content of the disc can be ripped and played back as normal.

The only exception to that rule is HDCD, which contains a 20-bit stream encoded in the least significant bit (LSB). It requires a decoder to be properly played back: either a hardware HDCD-capable CD/DVD player, or the semi-accurate software decoding present in Windows Media Player.

 

[Michgelsen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mofonyx /img/forum/go_quote.gif Okay cheers. There is XRCD24 though, how would that work with FLAC?

XRCD24 still has 16bit 44.1kHz data on the CD, it's somewhere in the mastering process again that they use 24bit audio.

 

[LyicalAssassin]

XRCD is the next generation in Flac encoded through JVC technology. On the typical computer you will not hear much difference through the files versus an actual XRCD disc. It's relatively new and is much better quality then the standard flac file. A personal fav of mine is the, Eagles - 2009 - Hell Freezes Over - XRCD(Remaster)

 

[khaos974]

Quote:

 
What makes the XRCD - 24 bit Refined Digital so impressive:
• XRCD is a standard “Red Book” CD and can be enjoyed on any CD player.
• A 24 bit digital signal is used as an essential part of the CD manufacturing process.
• High precision DVD K2 Laser and K2 Rubidium Clock are used together.
• This greatly improves CD glass mastering.
• Quality control from mastering through manufacturing insures the original audio brilliance is maintained in the final XRCD.
• A constant commitment to quality audio by highly trained and dedicated audio engineers means every XRCD will sound magnificent

 
 
The bolded part means XRCD is standard 14/44.1 PCM, ie it's quite possible that an XRCD will sound better than the standard version, but that's because of the mastering, A/D conversion. A Flac encoded from that XRCD will sound better than the Flac encoded from the standard CD by the same amount.

 

[jocar37]

I'm also interested in ripping XRCDs. There is something about the sonic signature of a good XRCD that I like better than any other format I've listened to.

The ripped files will be used through a hard drive, attached vis usb or networked to, my main sound system. My question is what format should I use? Storage is cheap any more, so I was thinking WAV, but read WAV doesn't support metadata well. 

So then I was considering FLAC. But I'm concerned that if I go to FLAC I may lose something of the character of the XRCD that I enjoy. I understand that WAV is an exact copy. But I also understand that WAV and FLAC are both lossless forms, so theoretically there should be no difference. But theory and practice aren't the same. No doubt you all have read reviews of equipment that on paper are very similar, perhaps even identical, which sound way different when played in the same sound system. 

So it would not be helpful to hear from people without actual XRCD ripping experience who can only tell me how there "should" (in theory) be no difference. My question is for those of you who have actual experience ripping XRCD. Do you find any difference in the sound of the XRCD when ripped to FLAC? Or in WAV? If neither sounds as good as the original XRCD(which would surprise me, but I want to cover my bases), which do you think sounded better?

While my primary goal is to get the best possible sound, I also want to be able to identify and choose tracks/playlists through my Squeezebox or BDP103. So if there is no or little sonic difference between WAV and FLAC, I'll may give up a modest degradation in sound for the convenience and go with FLAC. But if FLAC is not nearly as good as WAV, can anyone tell me if dBpoweramp - or another good ripping program - includes features or add-ons that allow you to attach metadata to WAV files, or that works with other programs that allow you to attach metadata?
 
Also, do you think it would be better,worse or no different if, instead of the computer's internal cd/dvd drive, I used a high quality external cd player connected to the computer via coax/optical cable?

 

[jocar37]

bump.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  I'm also interested in ripping XRCDs. There is something about the sonic signature of a good XRCD that I like better than any other format I've listened to.

The ripped files will be used through a hard drive, attached vis usb or networked to, my main sound system. My question is what format should I use? Storage is cheap any more, so I was thinking WAV, but read WAV doesn't support metadata well. 

So then I was considering FLAC. But I'm concerned that if I go to FLAC I may lose something of the character of the XRCD that I enjoy. I understand that WAV is an exact copy. But I also understand that WAV and FLAC are both lossless forms, so theoretically there should be no difference. But theory and practice aren't the same. No doubt you all have read reviews of equipment that on paper are very similar, perhaps even identical, which sound way different when played in the same sound system. 

So it would not be helpful to hear from people without actual XRCD ripping experience who can only tell me how there "should" (in theory) be no difference. My question is for those of you who have actual experience ripping XRCD. Do you find any difference in the sound of the XRCD when ripped to FLAC? Or in WAV? If neither sounds as good as the original XRCD(which would surprise me, but I want to cover my bases), which do you think sounded better?

While my primary goal is to get the best possible sound, I also want to be able to identify and choose tracks/playlists through my Squeezebox or BDP103. So if there is no or little sonic difference between WAV and FLAC, I'll may give up a modest degradation in sound for the convenience and go with FLAC. But if FLAC is not nearly as good as WAV, can anyone tell me if dBpoweramp - or another good ripping program - includes features or add-ons that allow you to attach metadata to WAV files, or that works with other programs that allow you to attach metadata?
 
Also, do you think it would be better,worse or no different if, instead of the computer's internal cd/dvd drive, I used a high quality external cd player connected to the computer via coax/optical cable?

 
The only thing that matters is the master the recording was derived from. There is no benefit to fancy disc and file formats, as they make no audible difference. Lossless is lossless. There is no loss of data or quality, and no audible difference between lossless formats unless the system used has a problem properly playing them. dBpoweramp can write tags to WAV files, but you don't need to use uncompressed lossless. Further, you shouldn't be able to distinguish between 256 kbps AAC and lossless. The CD drive used is irrelevant, since the exact same data is being extracted. The only difference there could be is if one drive is better at error correction for scratched discs.

 

[Lazer72]

Wav is uncompressed raw lossless, flac is compressed lossless, with no quality loss at all.