1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Rip CD's in flac or wma-lossless?

Discussion in 'Audio' started by hersnab, Oct 12, 2009.

  1. hersnab

    hersnab Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2005
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Hi all,
    I have recently found the benefits of ripping cds in a lossless format, I have an i-river h140 with rockbox for portable audio and a 360 in the living room. Now the i-river plays flac's but not wma-lossless and the 360 plays wma-lossless but not flacs.
    My question is this: which format is it better to rip too if I need to convert it later for other use or does it matter? Or to put another way, is it better to rip a cd to flac to convert to wma lossless or the other way round?
     
  2. Lethal_B

    Lethal_B Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,061
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    68
    in terms of decoding in future, wma lossless is a lot slower than flac, so it would take you a lot longer to transcode to, say, mp3 or flac.
     
  3. hersnab

    hersnab Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2005
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    excellent, just the answer I was looking for, thanks
    so I'll be ripping my collection to flac then converting to wma lossless when needed.
     
  4. k00ka

    k00ka Regular member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2008
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    With dBpoweramp and the muti-encode codec, you can rip to both flac and WMA lossless at the same time..

    " Encoders no other offers this full range of audio encoders: mp3, m4a (AAC iPod & iTunes), Windows Media Audio (WMA), Ogg Vorbis, FLAC, Apple Lossless (ALAC) to name a few. Taking the popular mp3 format, we supply both Lame and Fraunhofer encoders in Reference, maximizing choice. With Multi-Encoder encode to two different formats at the same time!
     
  5. Mez

    Mez Active member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    2,895
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    68
    k00ka, you sound like an add. I do agree dbPA is the best on the market as long as you do not mind paying for ease of use.

    For my 2-cents both M$ and Apple have inferior lossy formats I wouldn't trust them for anything. Go with the market leaders Flac and Ape.

    Leathal, I wouldn't care so much about transcoding speed as I would about the compression rate. The Max compression takes much longer but you are saving space.

    The benifit of lossless is it preserves not audible sound information. Having a lossless archive is not a bad idea. You have all the music information. Playing those files from your HD is not a bad idea either. However to play them on a mp3 player will not improve listening pleasure and waste lots of space. It is very unlikely you can tell the difference between 192 CBR mp3s and loseless. In fact it is unlikely that you can hear the dif at 160 CBR and less at VBR. Just make sure you keep your archive.
     
  6. k00ka

    k00ka Regular member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2008
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    Hey Mez, I didn't mean to "sound" like and ad..Just wanting to point out to the OP how and with what app will rip and convert to both formats..That was a quote, in case you missed it..
    I don't agree with your Apple's (AAC) assessment that it offers "inferior lossy formats"..Of course that's just your opinion..And none of us share ears..
    FWIW, I also prefer ripping to flac..Both EAC and the very good dBPA (IMO)...
     
  7. Mez

    Mez Active member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    2,895
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    68
    Just pulling you leg but it did read like the best kind of add a sincere one.

    As for Apple and M$ lossy formats. I really need to clairfy my self. Making a sweeping statement like I made is stupid. AAC, WMA, ect are the best encoders for comercial bit rates. That is their target. AAC is know to produce artifacts in the HiFi range. Lame does not produce artifacts in the HiFi range but does produce them in the commercial range. Apple has admitted their lossy encoder produce artifacts in the HiFi range so this is fact not an opinion. The same with LAME. These judgements are come from a very serious third party audio group that even Apple respects.

    I think I might be able to locate the artical about AAC if you don't believe me but it is maybe a year old so it might be hard to find.



     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2009
  8. k00ka

    k00ka Regular member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2008
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    Yeah, it did look like an add after re-reading it..Thought I felt something tugging on my leg...
    Cheers!..
    T
     
  9. Mez

    Mez Active member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    2,895
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    68
    One last thing! I didn't really explain myself.

    If I remember correctly, all the commercial encoders are built on the Fraunhofer encoder. This means they are all about the same. Fraunhofer never got the psychoacustic modling right as LAME did. What I really hate about these formats are they use psychoacustic modling in a constant bit rate. They are all 'Frankenstiens'. They do what they can with psychoacustic modling then truncate what they need to make the bit rate. The VBR is a better format in my opinion because you know what the quality is while it not clear with AAC or the other comercial encoders. I understand why they did it. They pack more quality into 128 than a normal CRB. The time index is also precise. But the quality varies within a tune which drives me up a wall. I like to control the quality. I set it where I can't hear the difference and leave it at that. I think that is why so many AAC users go to lossless. That is their only clean product.
     

Share This Page