• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

audio cd ripping help

H

hardcore_gamer29

Senior member
so i got my favourite audio cd today i want to know which format to choose in windows media player during ripping i need the bestest sound quality and i have no space issues thanks
 
I generally rip all my CDs into 320kbps MP3 for compatibility across multiple devices, but then I just throw in the actual CD if I want to listen to it "al naturale".
 
tushardehra said:
so i got my favourite audio cd today i want to know which format to choose in windows media player during ripping i need the bestest sound quality and i have no space issues thanks
Click to expand...
WAV, FLAC or ALAC. They all are lossless but FLAC and ALAC are compressed so those take less space. My opinion? FLAC all the way - zero flaws.

I always rip my CDs to flac (well, I rip them to wav with EAC but I'll convert them to FLAC and then tag them properly). My CDs will always stay as pristine backups in case the worst happens. I buy lossless FLAC tracks if possible.
 
Last edited:
tushardehra said:
i dont have any space issues can i go with wav for quality?
Click to expand...
I'd use flac because you can't, for example, embed album art in a wav file. Wav makes only sense as temporary format. Flac is lossless, you can tag the files properly (artist name, track, album name, year, composer...) and add album art. Windows 10 supports flac properly.

Just in case you didn't quite get the lossless part: quality is identical with wav and flac but flac will take less space thanks to lossless compression.
 
Last edited:
Tup3x said:
I'd use flac because you can't, for example, embed album art in a wav file. Wav makes only sense as temporary format. Flac is lossless, you can tag the files properly (artist name, track, album name, year, composer...) and add album art. Windows 10 supports flac properly.

Just in case you didn't quite get the lossless part: quality is identical with wav and flac but flac will take less space thanks to lossless compression.
Click to expand...
I rip everything to WAV first then rip to whatever portable format. WAV will always be the best, then I archive the WAV in case I need a pure copy again.
 
actually i did in wav in pc media player quality is crisp clear but in my samsung galaxy e7 it doesnt feel good its heavy voice not clear why
 
Oyeve said:
I rip everything to WAV first then rip to whatever portable format. WAV will always be the best, then I archive the WAV in case I need a pure copy again.
Click to expand...

I personally don't agree, I still think FLAC is the best. FLAC has totally lossless compression, that then gives you the ability to add metadata like album art and tags. You can also use .cue files the exact same way you'd use them on .wav sets to create losslessly compressed versions of the albums you owned.

If you ever need to burn a replacement CD (or simply need the originals again), convert them back to WAV and in combination with the .cue file you have a bit-perfect version of your album again ready to go onto CD.
 
Oyeve said:
I rip everything to WAV first then rip to whatever portable format. WAV will always be the best, then I archive the WAV in case I need a pure copy again.
Click to expand...
I don't see what's the point. Flac is superior to wav in archiving. It's lossless, takes less space and you can tag the files properly.
 
This is an age old debate. Rip it to flac, and also make a high bitrate MP3. No matter what is ideal, especially if you have hearing loss, the real contest is whether you can blind ABX pick which is flac and which is high bitrate MP3. This becomes even more significant as people get older because the majority of MP3 compression loss is in treble definition, which is the frequency range where older ears lose sensitivity.

However this is all a bit silly. If you're playing it back on a phone, and (?) unknown earbuds or earphones, your weakest link in audio quality is probably not the file format. At the same time I would not use that as an excuse to set standards low and make a rip that won't achieve full fidelity on the right gear... not for audio anyway, video takes up a lot more space relative to flash chip price:storage ratio.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top