I use Free CD-DA Extractor to rip music CDs. The program has different compression levels for the lossless codecs APE and FLAC. I was wondering if there is a difference in quality when you raise the compression. Is the music still perfect at the highest compression level? If the music is still perfect, then why even have the option and just always have it set at the highest possible compression to get the smallest file size? If the quality gets lower as compression goes up, then is it really lossless?
I would recommend Exact Audio Copy with the Lame Encoder instead of using CD-DA and their encoders. You cand download EAC from here along with the Lame encoder. http://www.afterdawn.com/guides/archive/mydeneaclame.cfm And this will give you the best method of what bitrate to encode your mp3's at. I would personally recommend VBR as it takes up less space than CBR and it still sounds great. http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/1912 If you need any help with anything at all just ask.
thanks for the advice. i actually have tried the LAME encoder with EAC. but i prefer the no hassle ripping with a more user friendly software such as CD-DA. I still use EAC for tougher jobs, such as ripping form damaged CDs and stuff using their error correction. But i don't really like mp3s. Why use LAME mp3s (on a high quality VBR setting) when you can get a perfect reproduction at about the same filesize using a lossless codec. And when ripping at lower quality to yield smaller sizes (such as around 4mb per song), the Vorbis OGG codec beats the pants off mp3 compression even at lower bitrates (rip and listen closely with headphones if you don't believe me). BUT... that doesn't answer my question: When using a lossless codec will I get lower quality music at higher compression settings? If no, why not have the highest compression setting the ONLY setting? If yes, how can it be called lossless?
I would go with lossless compressions as you say they sound better than mp3 but there not as popular as mp3 and I need to listen to music when i'm out so mp3 is the only option at the moment. I hear PCM is also a good format but again not as popular as mp3. I wonder if mp3 will die out one day. EAC isn't that hard to use. IMO I would say it's user friendly. Reagrds to your question. I have no idea. I'm sure someone with more knowledge on this forum can answer your question.
The most difficult thing i found about EAC was that i couldn't seem to figure out how to switch from one format to the other without having to use the "Additional Command Line Options." But i just decided to give it another try and it worked! i was able to switch from one file format to the other using the drop down menu. but then, why is it that everyone who has a guide for EAC want you to enter additional command line options? does it really make for better ripping?
If it's truly "lossless compression" (i.e., FLAC, Wavpack, Monkey Audio) then you'll always get your original wav file back. It doesn't make sense to talk about an adjustable level of compression in lossless... since you get, what you get when you compress with lossless. You really don't have that much control over it (like you do with "lossy compression". Plus, all of the lossless encoders generally come out with about the same compression percentages (within 1-5%). Yes, I think you need to use the command line because FLAC and Wavpack use external encoders. That is, they're not native to EAC. It's not that complicated to rip once you've configured EAC correctly. Follow this guide: http://www.angelfire.com/magic2/hq-audio/tut-lossless.htm
Yeah, I did notice that at even the highest compression level, that there wasn't really much of a difference in file size (25mb compared to 22mb). And even a straight WAV file isn't that much bigger. I guess it's kinda like a ZIP file where you can have maximum compression, but it's not that big of a deal. This leads me to the question of: then why lossless? The file sizes aren't much bigger, and by just ripping a CD ISO, you could at least retain the entire CD's playing patterns, such as songs that lead right into the next song without stopping. I guess that because you save just a little more space that it'll make a difference when storing dozens of albums. Also, there's still one question that hasn't been answered. If the music is still lossless at maximum compression, then is there really any reason to use any of the lower compression settings? I guess it takes more time, but it probably wouldn't matter unless you're ripping a hundred CDs in a row. I think that most people get a CD once and a while and back it up, but I guess that there are also those people that all of a sudden decide to go on a backup fest and rip everything they own (and what their friends own). But even at max compression, it really doesn't take very much longer to rip, and unless you sit there and stare and the progress meter with stopwatch in hand, it probably wouldn't matter. If you were watching a movie or doing other things while ripping, you probably wouldn't notice. So is there really any reason (besides time) to use any lower level of compression? I think the last post answered this, but it would be nice if someone just told me straight out.
The compression levels used in losseless codecs don't have anything to do with quality. Higher compression does have an impact on encoding time. Most encoders recommend using a compression level somewhere in between the maximum and minimum levels offerd by the codec. There really isn't much difference between the different levels other than how much power (CPU time and memory) it takes to encode and decode the file. A good lossless codec and front-end (ie: FLAC, APE, Apple Lossless) should create files half the size of its "raw" WAVE counterpart, at maximum compression (at medium compression the lossless file should be about 1/3 smaller). The resulting file size will still be much larger that of any lossy codec, (ie: Mp3, Mp4, Ogg) but the sound quality will be far greater. The only time a person should worry about higher levels of lossless compression is when they plan on listing to the files on a portable media player. The extra "load" on the CPU will deplete the battery much faster than a lossy compressed file, a WAVE file, or a lightly compressed lossless file. I recommed dBpowerAMP (dMC) for all of your lossless (and lossy) encoding needs! http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/127334 Ced
Thank you. At last all my questions have been answered! That dbPowerAmp looks nice, but it's no longer freeware Has anyone ever used Free CD-DA? Which is the software I just recently switched to. It's been working fine but i'm not sure if it has any error checking capabilities, which would give me some piece of mind while ripping.
Yea it is. The $14 stuff is only a limitation on the Mp3 encoding abilities of the app. The rest of the codecs can still be used without paying the fee. Also the fee only adresses the built-in Mp3 encoder. You can still use the LAME-CLI encoder (although it is out of date; it can be easily updated if you can obtain the latest LAME pack (DLL and EXE)). The Mp3 encoding limitation was placed on the app at version 11. If you don't want to bother with any crap, download an older version: Link to dMC v10: http://www.dbpoweramp.com/bin/dMC-r10.exe Ced
