EAC and FLAC and WAV

[mattjax05]

Hi

Im new to the EAC program and in general the music compressing game and would like some advise please.

I have a Windows laptop and I use EAC to rip my cd's in WAV form but would like to now rip them in the FLAC format. How can I do this?

Also, is this format any better than WMA Lossless or indeed any worse than WAV, I suppose it depends on the context in which you use the files (lets say for burning onto cd a using in my budget (but very competent) stereo system?

Thanks, Matt

 

[Anonymous]

You want the FLAC codec and frontend from http://flac.sourceforge.net/

You can drag and drop a selection of files from windows explorer to the UI frontend to convert them to the format - I don't really fuss about the default UI options other than the output directory, but see the 'help' info for command switches and all.

Plenty guides to using EAC and setting up to use external codecs floating around, some linked here - http://flac.sourceforge.net/documentation_tasks.html

Can recommend MP3Tag for batch file tagging, if it just will not work with FLAC or EAC.

Never noticed any loss of sound quality, and it's more widely supported by different media players than WMA - even will playback on certain home hifi/AV equipment, listed on the project website as they become aware of it.

 

[pete321]

mattjax05:

Hi

Im new to the EAC program and in general the music compressing game and would like some advise please.

I have a Windows laptop and I use EAC to rip my cd's in WAV form but would like to now rip them in the FLAC format. How can I do this?

Also, is this format any better than WMA Lossless or indeed any worse than WAV, I suppose it depends on the context in which you use the files (lets say for burning onto cd a using in my budget (but very competent) stereo system?

Thanks, Matt

I used to use EAC but found it a bit too slow. I now use dbPowerAmp which is not free, but a gives as good as quality as EAC with more flexibility.

With regard to lossless formats, I have my music on Apple Lossless for my iPod on one PC and WMA Lossless on the other for use with Vista Media Centre. I chose WMA over FLAC because it was easier to use with Media Centre, i.e. name tags, etc.

Whatever lossless codec you choose, you can easily convert to another or back to wave without out any loss of quality.

 

[Gerrardasnails]

mattjax05:
Hi

Im new to the EAC program and in general the music compressing game and would like some advise please.

I have a Windows laptop and I use EAC to rip my cd's in WAV form but would like to now rip them in the FLAC format. How can I do this?

Also, is this format any better than WMA Lossless or indeed any worse than WAV, I suppose it depends on the context in which you use the files (lets say for burning onto cd a using in my budget (but very competent) stereo system?

Thanks, Matt

You can convert wav to flac or WMA Lossless with bdpoweramp (there is a free version). I ripped to FLAC and WAV but now rip using Windows Media Player straight to WMA Lossless. Much easier for me.

 

[Anonymous]

mattjax05:
Hi

Im new to the EAC program and in general the music compressing game and would like some advise please.

Sorry to come so late, but here you have my 2 cents.

It is possible to rip a CD straight to FLAC with EAC. Take a look at "Installation and configuration of EAC"ÿin this post from PJPro:ÿhttp://whathifi.com/forums/post/95806.aspx

This link can be of help, too:ÿhttp://users.fulladsl.be/spb2267/index.htm

http://users.fulladsl.be/spb2267/index.htmRegarding lossless formats, all lossless should be equal quality (as already stated in previous answers).

Finally, I'd recommend you to consider dbpoweramp. I started using EAC and it's great, but then I realized how much time ÿwas needed to tag songs properly and find cover art. Thats what led me to try dbpoweramp and I'm happy to pay for it.

Furthermore, with dbpoweramp it's possible to encode HDCDs in 20 bits instead of standard 16 (don't trust the numbers, I may be wrong, but the fact is that dbpoweramp will give special care to HDCDs). I'm not sure this will make a difference to my duet, but I'm thinking in a future DAC with support for that.

 

[PJPro]

waldo:[snip]....Finally, I'd recommend you to consider dbpoweramp. I started using EAC and it's great, but then I realized how much time ÿwas needed to tag songs properly and find cover art.......[snip]
I just don't understand these comments regarding tagging and EAC and you are not the first to make them waldo. What is the issue?

For cover art, I use the media player / library application to sort it. So, within Foobar200, I use Album Art Downloader. This never fails to find a cover and searches just about every album art provider in the universe (configurable). It may be used outside of Foobar if you wish.

 

[Alec]

PJPro:waldo:[snip]....Finally, I'd recommend you to consider dbpoweramp. I started using EAC and it's great, but then I realized how much time ÿwas needed to tag songs properly and find cover art.......[snip]
I just don't understand these comments regarding tagging and EAC and you are not the first to make them waldo. What is the issue?

For cover art, I use the media player / library application to sort it. So, within Foobar200, I use Album Art Downloader. This never fails to find a cover and searches just about every album art provider in the universe (configurable). It may be used outside of Foobar if you wish.

indeed, and eac tags too.

tho ive never bothered with the art myself, yet.

 

[Anonymous]

PJPro: I just don't understand these comments regarding tagging and EAC and you are not the first to make them waldo. What is the issue?

I can only speak for me. I'm very short of time and need to rip my CD collection (though being about 200 CDs it may look as a small collection in this forum). With dbpoweramp I can rip, tag and download cover art all in one shot and really fast.

I specially apreciate the tagging with 4 different sources. Tags from freedb are useless too frequently for my taste.

I gave a try to Album Art Downloader, but there is a need to choose among all the options (with different resolutions and quality). I'd spend a lot of time looking at each option to find a winner. Yes, I know the problem is me!! but this is what happens.

So, it's more about the way I think and do things (add to this number of CDs); dbpoweramp overall design fits better to me.

When I have all my collection ripped I'll probably start using Album Art Downloader and tag manually if necessary, but at the moment I want all my CDs ripped asap to enjoy my Duet ÿ

 

[PJPro]

Fair enough.

 

[mattjax05]

Thanks everyone for your comments.

I am now sucessfully using EAC to rip CDs into either WAV or FLAC format. I can also sucessfully decode and encode these formats using Foobar 2000. I am happy with my set up for now so thanks for all your help.

BTW - I have had no problems tagging CDs in EAC so far (touch wood it remains that way!!)

 

[mattjax05]

I spoke too soon.....

When I rip a CD to FLAC I have no problems with the tagging but if I then convert that format to WAV I Iose all the metadata?

If I convert the file back from WAV to FLAC its back again - is this right?

Also, If I rip a CD to WAV first I get no metadata, but when I convert to FLAC the tagging is all *** about face?

If I rip WAV to MP3 I get an error to say the metadata could not be written.

Hope someone can help.

Thanks.

 

[John Duncan]

And people wonder why I use iTunes?

 

[Anonymous]

mattjax05:
When I rip a CD to FLAC I have no problems with the tagging but if I then convert that format to WAV I Iose all the metadata?

If I convert the file back from WAV to FLAC its back again - is this right?

ÿ

WAV format doesn't support tags. Usually metadata for this format is managed by the media player using its own database.

 

[manicm]

I do not believe that converting one lossless format to another sounds the same. Worse, I believe that the different lossless formats sound different themselves before any conversion. My ears prefer in order WAV, WMA, FLAC, Apple Lossless.

However from convenience point of view I would choose WMA or Apple, their sound being good enough. It's a good thing Linn's DS players now fully support Apple Lossless, it's a huge win for iPod owners as this means less duplication of music.

 

[Anonymous]

Hmmm.ÿLet's start from the beginning and take it from there.ÿ

1. wav and aiff are the largest types of high quality file. They are merely containers for the raw audio and will reproduce the audio exactly how it was on the CD. You will not hear a difference between the two.

2. FLAC and Apple lossless use compression algorithms which reduce the size of the file by around 30%. These files can then be decoded back to their raw state i.e. wav or aiff.ÿYou will not hear a difference between the two or the raw audio.

3. WMA is a lossy filetype like mp3. You prefer this one?

 

[Gerrardasnails]

Octopo:
Hmmm.ÿLet's start from the beginning and take it from there.ÿ

1. wav and aiff are the largest types of high quality file. They are merely containers for the raw audio and will reproduce the audio exactly how it was on the CD. You will not hear a difference between the two.

2. FLAC and Apple lossless use compression algorithms which reduce the size of the file by around 30%. These files can then be decoded back to their raw state i.e. wav or aiff.ÿYou will not hear a difference between the two or the raw audio.

3. WMA is a lossy filetype like mp3. You prefer this one?

WMA Lossless, which I use is the same as you described FLAC and Apple Lossless - perfect Lossless compressed which can be brought back to the raw state.

 

[Anonymous]

Gerrardasnails:Octopo:
Hmmm.ÿLet's start from the beginning and take it from there.ÿ

1. wav and aiff are the largest types of high quality file. They are merely containers for the raw audio and will reproduce the audio exactly how it was on the CD. You will not hear a difference between the two.

2. FLAC and Apple lossless use compression algorithms which reduce the size of the file by around 30%. These files can then be decoded back to their raw state i.e. wav or aiff.ÿYou will not hear a difference between the two or the raw audio.

3. WMA is a lossy filetype like mp3. You prefer this one?

WMA Lossless, which I use is the same as you described FLAC and Apple Lossless - perfect Lossless compressed which can be brought back to the raw state.

Quite right, whenever I hear WMA without the Lossless bit I always think the worst. I shouldn't.ÿ

 

[manicm]

'These files can then be decoded back to their raw state i.e. wav or aiff. You will not hear a difference between the two or the raw audio.'

I'm sorry, but I beg to differ on this common wisdom that conversion preserves the same audio quality or characteristics. My ears don't bear this out, and neither will scientific instrumentation.

 

[Anonymous]

Fair enough. Apart from the science bit.

 

[PJPro]

Agree with Octopo on this one.

Lossless compression, perhaps unsurprisingly by it's name, does not lose any of the data in the original uncompressed .wav file.

Given the same platform and media application, you should hear no difference between any of the lossless formats. If you do, then it implies that one or more are in fact lossy.

However, having said all of this, if anyone has some tangible evidence to the contrary or someone can point out my misunderstanding of what lossless compression is all about, I would be interested to hear it.

 

[nads]

PJPro a question ID3 tagging? and WAV files can it be done.

 

[PJPro]

Yes.

 

[manicm]

I don't consider myself an audiophile, having only limited exposure to various hi-fi, but in the pursuit of ripping perfection and endless hours of experimentation, my ears do not believe lossless or indeed any conversion between different formats produces the same results. My results consistently tell me if you have the original recording, always rip from there and not from any copies.

Why not experiment yourself, I'd like to know what your ears tell you?

 

[ianandyr]

If you rip a CD using EAC or dbPoweramp or indeed WMP, and then convert that single rip to both a WAV file and a FLAC encoded file you will find if you then convert the FLAC file back to a WAV file that you have two bit for bit identical files. As two identical WAV files will sound exactly the same when played back on the same kit the question then is whetherÿplaying back a WAV file versus playing back a FLAC file, which requires an on-the-fly decoding step, will sound exactly the same. In theory the answer is yes but .......

 

[PJPro]

Agreed. So, essentially what we are talking about here is the differing abilities of the media player to play the file.....or decompress it on the fly.

I have a feeling that most of the media players I use which are able to play flac files use the same flac dll that EAC uses to rip the file in the first place. So there shouldn't be an issue there, since we have agreed that converting from wav to flac and then back again produces an identical wav file.

So the issue must be in the time it takes to do the conversion on the fly....with errors introduced here. Trouble is that it takes very little time to perform a decompression of a flac file to wav. Moreover, I would expect a media player to use a little memory to cache a certain amount of the file so it can ensure all is well with it before playback. Indeed, given the amount of memory available on PCs nowadays, I'd be tempted to bung the whole file in memory (I am sure that TVersity does this).

Given the above argument, I cannot see why a wav and flac file should sound different if played through the same media player.

Note: Of course, I am making an assumption here. That media players convert the various compressed formats to an uncompressed audio stream. Perhaps they don't.