AVS Forum banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
i have some questions about FLAC i really need cleared up before i re-rip my entire cd collection.

in WMP (windows media player) it now lets me use (although i dont see a place to choose a compression level?) FLAC but the bit rate is roughly varied between 500 - 1000 Kbps as opposed to WAV at about 1400 Kbps, roughly averaging about half the size of WAV. since i have reformatted my computer a couple of years ago i have been ripping cds in WAV for the sole purpose of making my own mix cds. (just left what songs i had on my old DAPS as they were ([email protected])) i figured i was doing the right thing RIPPING in WAV and then 'BURNING' in WAV was the correct thing to do keeping the quality chain uncompressed theoretically keeping the quality/integrity of my mix cds the same as store bought. now if i were to start ripping in flac for DAP reasons i could/should NOT be using those to make cds? lossless or not say a 750Kbps flac is NOT what i am holding in my hand when holding a commercial cd? or was ripping/burning in WAV still not the same as a commercial cd anyway?

what file type is easier (less taxing on the CPU of a DAP) for a DAP to read/play?

either i go through the trouble of re ripping my entire collection 2X per cd, or i use WAV for everything. i think both the sonynwza17 and the fiiox5ii both now accept 200GB SDxc cards. even at WAV sizes i might get away with one or across 2 different SDxc cards and never have to re-rip again.

is ripping/playing a WAV or FLAC file what they mean by "cd quality" file? more than 'lossey' but less than 'hi res'? -- i assume it is impossible to make my existing cds a better/higher resolution than what they are? making something out of nothing. you know, before i re-rip everything? i am going to be re-doing both files and player soon and want to do it right 'from the ground up' sorta-speak.

any clarity on this issue is greatly appreciated.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
326 Posts
i have some questions about FLAC i really need cleared up before i re-rip my entire cd collection.

in WMP (windows media player) it now lets me use (although i dont see a place to choose a compression level?) FLAC but the bit rate is roughly varied between 500 - 1000 Kbps as opposed to WAV at about 1400 Kbps, roughly averaging about half the size of WAV. since i have reformatted my computer a couple of years ago i have been ripping cds in WAV for the sole purpose of making my own mix cds. (just left what songs i had on my old DAPS as they were ([email protected])) i figured i was doing the right thing RIPPING in WAV and then 'BURNING' in WAV was the correct thing to do keeping the quality chain uncompressed theoretically keeping the quality/integrity of my mix cds the same as store bought. now if i were to start ripping in flac for DAP reasons i could/should NOT be using those to make cds? lossless or not say a 750Kbps flac is NOT what i am holding in my hand when holding a commercial cd? or was ripping/burning in WAV still not the same as a commercial cd anyway?

what file type is easier (less taxing on the CPU of a DAP) for a DAP to read/play?

either i go through the trouble of re ripping my entire collection 2X per cd, or i use WAV for everything. i think both the sonynwza17 and the fiiox5ii both now accept 200GB SDxc cards. even at WAV sizes i might get away with one or across 2 different SDxc cards and never have to re-rip again.

is ripping/playing a WAV or FLAC file what they mean by "cd quality" file? more than 'lossey' but less than 'hi res'? -- i assume it is impossible to make my existing cds a better/higher resolution than what they are? making something out of nothing. you know, before i re-rip everything? i am going to be re-doing both files and player soon and want to do it right 'from the ground up' sorta-speak.

any clarity on this issue is greatly appreciated.
WAV is uncompressed, like on the original CD. FLAC is loss-lessly compressed (example would be a computer ZIP file compression). Playing back FLAC should be identical to WAV, if the player supports FLAC. However, using FLAC to create new CDs (assuming the player cannot read FLAC) I don't have any information about. The difference could be about 50% disc space savings; if disc space is not an issue, it is simpler to just keep them as WAV for this purpose. If it is an issue, then you would want more information about the re-creation to CD process.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 · (Edited)
WAV is uncompressed, like on the original CD. FLAC is loss-lessly compressed (example would be a computer ZIP file compression). Playing back FLAC should be identical to WAV, if the player supports FLAC. However, using FLAC to create new CDs (assuming the player cannot read FLAC) I don't have any information about. The difference could be about 50% disc space savings; if disc space is not an issue, it is simpler to just keep them as WAV for this purpose. If it is an issue, then you would want more information about the re-creation to CD process.
thank you highmr, i guess why i am confused is the word ''lossless'' is being used for both. in terms of burning a cd, its going to 'output' the cd in WAV no matter what the track was 'ripped' in. if a FLAC is half the size or even 60% of a WAV file i dont see how it can be equal in quality to a wav file. i am not arguing in any way here, but if 2 formats are the same (lossless), then how can it be the same at 1/2 the size? i take it that FLAC should be considered a more acceptable alternative to WAV as opposed to MP3s giving me close to cd quality but allowing me to double the # of tracks per GB. WAV should be easier for a DAP to play since there is nothing to 'unzip' and process compared to a FLAC file should it not? (i plan on getting a class 10 / U3 sdxc card.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
466 Posts
WAV is uncompressed, like on the original CD. FLAC is loss-lessly compressed (example would be a computer ZIP file compression). Playing back FLAC should be identical to WAV, if the player supports FLAC. However, using FLAC to create new CDs (assuming the player cannot read FLAC) I don't have any information about. The difference could be about 50% disc space savings; if disc space is not an issue, it is simpler to just keep them as WAV for this purpose. If it is an issue, then you would want more information about the re-creation to CD process.
You will get back an identical audio copy by creating a CD from FLAC.

The important thing in my opinion, is tagging (metadata, e.g. album info, artwork, etc.) With FLAC and ALAC this is supported natively, I am not so sure about WAV - it may be stored in a separate folder. If so, this makes WAV less portable across systems.

Sometimes I like to point out to my WAV-only colleagues that lossless compression in audio is hundreds of years old. Sheet music. In those days instead of computer memory it was ink and paper that were conserved. So they invented symbols (algorithms) to represent whole notes, sixteenth notes, etc. No real difference from modern algorithms.
Imagine if Beethoven were forced to write a symphony in nothing but 1/32 notes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
You will get back an identical audio copy by creating a CD from FLAC.

The important thing in my opinion, is tagging (metadata, e.g. album info, artwork, etc.) With FLAC and ALAC this is supported natively, I am not so sure about WAV - it may be stored in a separate folder. If so, this makes WAV less portable across systems.

Sometimes I like to point out to my WAV-only colleagues that lossless compression in audio is hundreds of years old. Sheet music. In those days instead of computer memory it was ink and paper that were conserved. So they invented symbols (algorithms) to represent whole notes, sixteenth notes, etc. No real difference from modern algorithms.
Imagine if Beethoven were forced to write a symphony in nothing but 1/32 notes.
Thank You ClPetersen, i do believe i have seen a separate folder for art work at the end of the tracks opening up my WAV files. i do like the thought of artwork and even the song title being permanently embedded per track so my mix cds dont say 'track 1-track 17'. i will have to do some major experimenting across different software before i re-do it all. i thought about getting a seperate/additional SSD hard drive JUST to put the software and my ripped files on so if i have to reformat the main computer or get a new one i can just port it over to a new computer and not have to re rip all the time.

MediaMonkey??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
286 Posts
i have some questions about FLAC i really need cleared up before i re-rip my entire cd collection.

in WMP (windows media player) it now lets me use (although i dont see a place to choose a compression level?)

Use Exact Audio Copy (EAC) to rip your cd collection to uncompressed WAV. Storage is cheap, once you have the original wav files, you can compress them to any format you wish and not have to re-rip your collection.

FLAC but the bit rate is roughly varied between 500 - 1000 Kbps as opposed to WAV at about 1400 Kbps, roughly averaging about half the size of WAV. since i have reformatted my computer a couple of years ago i have been ripping cds in WAV for the sole purpose of making my own mix cds. (just left what songs i had on my old DAPS as they were ([email protected])) i figured i was doing the right thing RIPPING in WAV and then 'BURNING' in WAV was the correct thing to do keeping the quality chain uncompressed theoretically keeping the quality/integrity of my mix cds the same as store bought. now if i were to start ripping in flac for DAP reasons i could/should NOT be using those to make cds? lossless or not say a 750Kbps flac is NOT what i am holding in my hand when holding a commercial cd? or was ripping/burning in WAV still not the same as a commercial cd anyway?

Flac is lossless and is bit perfect. You will be to make a cd from your flac files that is the same as one made from wav files.

what file type is easier (less taxing on the CPU of a DAP) for a DAP to read/play?

Modern CPUs of DAPs are very efficient. The energy it would take to decompress a flac file would be negligible in comparison to playing a wav file.

either i go through the trouble of re ripping my entire collection 2X per cd, or i use WAV for everything. i think both the sonynwza17 and the fiiox5ii both now accept 200GB SDxc cards. even at WAV sizes i might get away with one or across 2 different SDxc cards and never have to re-rip again.

Use EAC for ripping your cds into wav. Once you have done that, use a batch converter to process that directory where the wav files are stored into flac in a different folder.

is ripping/playing a WAV or FLAC file what they mean by "cd quality" file?

The term "cd quality" is to often used for marketing purposes. Cd quality is 44.1khz at 16 bits. Anything less is not cd quality although may sound similar.

more than 'lossey' but less than 'hi res'? -- i assume it is impossible to make my existing cds a better/higher resolution than what they are?


Yes, it is possible to make your existing cds sound better than what they really are. It is called upsampling, very similar to video upsampling. Using Foobar and the Sox upsampler plugin, I find it more enjoyable to listen vs the original. Foobar with the right plugins can also upsample to DSD. Along with a DSD dac, in my experience it made the music sound a little bit more smoother. Upsampling is very subjective - some people like it, others don't.

making something out of nothing. you know, before i re-rip everything? i am going to be re-doing both files and player soon and want to do it right 'from the ground up' sorta-speak.

any clarity on this issue is greatly appreciated.
Best advice is that if you are going to start over and do it correctly, use EAC to rip your collection so you will know that they ripped correctly and store them in the original WAV file format. Have a backup of that as well on another drive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Best advice is that if you are going to start over and do it correctly, use EAC to rip your collection so you will know that they ripped correctly and store them in the original WAV file format. Have a backup of that as well on another drive.
WOW Stiguy2014, i REALLLLY appreciate you going through the trouble of going through all that to answer the post, that was what i was hoping for. a thousand thank you's. i did briefly google and read up on EAC a little bit. i will most likely use it as i do want to do this right, i just dont have time to implement all this right now. your post was very informative and helpful and i am grateful.... thank you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,482 Posts
FLAC is far more widely supported across media players and OS's. Storage prices are not relevant, efficiency is. No matter how cheap is a drive, you can put twice as many files on the same storage with FLAC with zero quality loss. Tagging also much easier as well. There is absolutely no evidence that upsampling will give you better quality of the input files,[how could they there is no real added data ] and converting PCM to DSD is ..........well, if one still waiting for the tooth fairy?;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,974 Posts
Thank You- Cure,

I am slowly getting into this subject as well. There is a hi-rez download that I want to buy (it is not avail on physical CD/SACD)'
so, I am looking for the best way to download it/store it? :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,350 Posts
Thank You- Cure,

I am slowly getting into this subject as well. There is a hi-rez download that I want to buy (it is not avail on physical CD/SACD)'
so, I am looking for the best way to download it/store it? :)
JA depending on who you are buying the download from you only have options on what they offer. It usually comes down to either AIFF, FLAC or DSD depending of course on what you are buying. In some cases you have a choice of 88/24, 96/24, or 192/24. DSD is different entirely and depends more on what your DAC can handle. As far as the download itself you have to download their downloader and that downloads it to wherever you have directed it to be stored on your computer. After you are done you can copy it to a NAS, a portable drive, the cloud, your phone. It's up to you. But you should back it up somewhere for safe keeping.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top