EAC and FLAC and WAV

[Alec]

PJPro:Yes.

i was under the impression the answer is no.

manicm - you have no evidence for your assertion ("the science bit") then?

 

[PJPro]

al7478:PJPro:Yes.

i was under the impression the answer is no.

No.

 

[Alec]

PJPro:al7478:PJPro:Yes.

i was under the impression the answer is no.

No.

Um...yes.

LOL! Ahem. I've long thought it because many websites say that WAV files do not support id3 tags, and that they just show up correctly in some media players because the player is reading its own database - the track is not tagged, in the true sense.

A quick google indicated that this is the case.

 

[PJPro]

For all intents and purposes the answer is no. But see this thread and this application.

Whether, having got your tags into the file, you can do anything useful with them is another question. I haven't tried tagging wavs and investigated whether there are media players that recognise them mainly because I cannot see why one would want to store music as a wav file.

 

[Alec]

PJPro:For all intents and purposes the answer is no. But see this thread and this application.

Whether, having got your tags into the file, you can do anything useful with them is another question. I haven't tried tagging wavs and investigated whether there are media players that recognise them mainly because I cannot see why one would want to store music as a wav file.

Blimey. Seems a bit of a headache to make them do it then?!

Theres a lot of confusion, as there are so many people who regard them as un-taggable.

Anyhoo, i stand corrected. kinda

 

[ianandyr]

A reasonably spec'd PC will do the FLAC to WAV conversion in a second or two. It is essentially an unzip operation. Assuming the original input was WAV file generated from a CD rip then the output from the FLAC decoder will be either a RIFF formatted WAV file, an AIFF file or raw samples each containing a PCM bitstream identical to the original bitstream in the WAV input file. All media players have to do this decode/uncompress operation to play the file.

So, WAV -> FLAC -> WAV -> soundcard will be identicalÿ(at the bit level)ÿto WAV -> soundcard. Indeed, assuming consistency between reads of the same CD it will be identical (at the bit level) to CD -> soundcard.

However, given the fact that 'consistency between reads' may not always be achievable then the ability of an EAC or a dbPoweramp to make multiple passes while ripping a CD and to compare the output to a reference database allows for a decent argument that the WAV/FLAC -> soundcard will provide at least as good, if not a more accurate, (bit level) input than CD -> soundcard.

The Microsoft WAV standard does not allow for metadata. Typically when it appears that you have tagged a WAV file you have actually made an entry in a database maintained by your media player. To test this try opening the tagged file in another player. You will usually find that the metadata is not present.

I say 'usually' because there is a WAV format that allows for tagging metadata known as the Broadcast Wave Format. These files can be played on any player that will play a standard WAV file. However the implementation in media playing and tagging software of features to allow the reading & writing of BWF tags is not common.

 

[PJPro]

It is true to say that adding tags to the end of a .wav file breaks the wav standard.

 

[Anonymous]

Finally a good explanation as to what these different file types actually are! I do need to clarify something though - when you talk about FLAC and apple lossless as using compression algorithms, is this in a way that a computer ZIP file would be compressed with (genuninly) no information lost, or do these files still have data stripped away in some way losing something from the source data (despite the lossless moniker)?

I like to think of myself as a bit of an audiophile purist and investing in high end CD players still feels to be the right way to go, but the obvious (cheaper and convenient) appeal of a lossless file type is very high. Is there actually any practical or audible reason to stay with the CD anymore?

 

[ianandyr]

Archie13:I do need to clarify something though -ÿ when you talk about FLAC and apple lossless as using compression algorithms, is this in a way that a computer ZIP file would be compressed with (genuninly) no information loss

Yes. The term lossless compression in this case means exactly that.ÿ

 

[John Duncan]

Archie13:Is there actually any practical or audible reason to stay with the CD anymore?

Practical, yes (sometimes you just want to stick a disc in the drawer). Audible? No.....(gets coat).

 

[manicm]

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?

I meant WMA Lossless

 

[Anonymous]

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?

I am totally intrigued by why you keep saying that WAV, WMA Lossless, ALAC and FLAC sound different.

Can you please let us know exactly what your setup is as that is the only thing I can think of that would account for your perceived difference.

Thanks

 

[manicm]

No special setup, just ripping on my Dell XPS M1530 laptop with Cambridge Soundworks speakers using built-in soundcard and hearing for myself.

Another special note - a relatively unknown and old decoder by Microsoft (2003 and you can still get it off their site) decodes WMA Lossless to the 'original' WAV format.

Well I tried it this using a WMA Lossless song I purchased from Linn as part of an album and I can tell you to me, and I'm not discounting the placebo effect here, the decoded WAV file did not sound *quite* as good as the original WMA Lossless file.

I also tend to agree with a user on another forum that since CD transports are different, diiferent PC's may well give different results when ripping CDs to WAV.

My experiences leads me to the following personal conclusions, this is my truth and may not be others':

1. Ripping from CDs is far from perfect to any format, and I don't care whether one is using EAC or FLAC whatever.

2. MP3s are rubbish, ripped or purchased, even at 320kbps, but with the caveat that somehow Linn's MP3s sound analogue and without a trace of the usual sibilance and harshness. And I've downloaded 3 or 4 MP3 albums from them and the sound is consistently good, I've asked them how but have yet to reply.

3. For me the only audiophile digital route would be to purchase digital music, of which of-course there is simply not enough.

4. I rip CDs onto my laptop for casual listening and they are fine for listening while I work.

5. I believe WAV still sounds best from all lossless formats, and for this purpose I believe EAC is the best WAV ripper.

 

[Gerrardasnails]

manicm:
No special setup, just ripping on my Dell XPS M1530 laptop with Cambridge Soundworks speakers using built-in soundcard and hearing for myself.

Another special note - a relatively unknown and old decoder by Microsoft (2003 and you can still get it off their site) decodes WMA Lossless to the 'original' WAV format.

Well I tried it this using a WMA Lossless song I purchased from Linn as part of an album and I can tell you to me, and I'm not discounting the placebo effect here, the decoded WAV file did not sound *quite* as good as the original WMA Lossless file.

I also tend to agree with a user on another forum that since CD transports are different, diiferent PC's may well give different results when ripping CDs to WAV.

My experiences leads me to the following personal conclusions, this is my truth and may not be others':

1. Ripping from CDs is far from perfect to any format, and I don't care whether one is using EAC or FLAC whatever.

2. MP3s are rubbish, ripped or purchased, even at 320kbps, but with the caveat that somehow Linn's MP3s sound analogue and without a trace of the usual sibilance and harshness. And I've downloaded 3 or 4 MP3 albums from them and the sound is consistently good, I've asked them how but have yet to reply.

3. For me the only audiophile digital route would be to purchase digital music, of which of-course there is simply not enough.

4. I rip CDs onto my laptop for casual listening and they are fine for listening while I work.

5. I believe WAV still sounds best from all lossless formats, and for this purpose I believe EAC is the best WAV ripper.

I don't understand what you are saying here. When you rip losslessly from a cd, you are taking the files from the disc and placing them on your hard drive. Regardless of format, lossless is losslesss. You can't get a better kind of perfect. From my experience, WMA lossless files, ripped from my cds is the best sound I've heard on my system. The files are streamed to my DAC.

 

[manicm]

Gerrardasnails:manicm:

No special setup, just ripping on my Dell XPS M1530 laptop with Cambridge Soundworks speakers using built-in soundcard and hearing for myself.

Another special note - a relatively unknown and old decoder by Microsoft (2003 and you can still get it off their site) decodes WMA Lossless to the 'original' WAV format.

Well I tried it this using a WMA Lossless song I purchased from Linn as part of an album and I can tell you to me, and I'm not discounting the placebo effect here, the decoded WAV file did not sound *quite* as good as the original WMA Lossless file.

I also tend to agree with a user on another forum that since CD transports are different, diiferent PC's may well give different results when ripping CDs to WAV.

My experiences leads me to the following personal conclusions, this is my truth and may not be others':

1. Ripping from CDs is far from perfect to any format, and I don't care whether one is using EAC or FLAC whatever.

2. MP3s are rubbish, ripped or purchased, even at 320kbps, but with the caveat that somehow Linn's MP3s sound analogue and without a trace of the usual sibilance and harshness. And I've downloaded 3 or 4 MP3 albums from them and the sound is consistently good, I've asked them how but have yet to reply.

3. For me the only audiophile digital route would be to purchase digital music, of which of-course there is simply not enough.

4. I rip CDs onto my laptop for casual listening and they are fine for listening while I work.

5. I believe WAV still sounds best from all lossless formats, and for this purpose I believe EAC is the best WAV ripper.

I don't understand what you are saying here. When you rip losslessly from a cd, you are taking the files from the disc and placing them on your hard drive. Regardless of format, lossless is losslesss. You can't get a better kind of perfect. From my experience, WMA lossless files, ripped from my cds is the best sound I've heard on my system. The files are streamed to my DAC.

Yes, perhaps lossless is lossless but many forget that like CD players give different results, different drives in PC will give different results. I can guarantee you that the same CD ripped in different PCs to WAV may sound different.

The drive is definitively a limiting factor here , and this is where I will disagree with Ashley James, and as a corollary maybe why he recommends Apple Macs so strongly - maybe their drives somehow give superior audio results.

So yes, lossless is lossless, but by no means identical from PC to PC!

And also why I believe the CD player won't be dead anytime soon, not even in five years, cos I doubt I'll be able to purchase Dark Side Of The Moon in the lossless digital format I want even then.

But I would be really interested to know if Cyrus goes the digital route and the products they launch - maybe then I'll become a digital convert.

 

[PJPro]

manicm:

Yes, perhaps lossless is lossless but many forget that like CD players give different results, different drives in PC will give different results. I can guarantee you that the same CD ripped in different PCs to WAV may sound different.

May or will?

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here.

When using EAC the files produced are verified as identical to the files on the disk. The new files are compared to thousands of other rips (freedb) to ensure they are the same. Where does the difference arise?

Please remember that EAC can take as long as it likes to read and verify a file. The CDP has to read it there and then.

 

[Anonymous]

Manicm, PJPro is correct. The way that EAC works makes the quality of a CD much less relevant than for a CD player. EAC will reread the data on a CD multiple times to ensure it gets a perfect read. A CD player cannot do that as it has to do everything in real time, it only gets one chance to do it right.

Also EAC allows you to compare your read outcome with that of others on the internet to ensure that your read is 100.00000000% accurate (its unlikely that others will get the same read errors as you so it can generally be relied upon).

In any case, I am surprised you can hear any difference between the formats on a laptop. My dad has an XPS 1330 and its definitely not the last word in hifi. I cannot tell the difference between a Cyrus CD8X and an ALAC file (via Apple Airport Express) playing through my DAC XP and Mono-Xs so I am shocked that you can apparently tell the difference between one lossless format and another on a laptop using an internal sound card.

 

[John Duncan]

Grimaldi:I cannot tell the difference between a Cyrus CD8X and an ALAC file (via Apple Airport Express) playing through my DAC XP

And there we have it...

 

[Alec]

manicm:
So yes, lossless is lossless, but by no means identical from PC to PC!

I have absolutely no idea how this sentence can possibly be true.

Surely, if a file is lossless, it is identical to any other lossless file ever made? If you can then hear a difference between them, that difference must be in the playback equipment...?

If there are differences in the ways lossless files are encoded (an area i get a bit lost in), are they all really lossless?

If you cant tell the difference while kicking back and enjoying your music - which i naively continue to believe this is all about - does it matter?

 

[Alec]

manicm:
1. Ripping from CDs is far from perfect to any format, and I don't care whether one is using EAC or FLAC whatever.

I respectfully disagree, based on the depth and weight of opinion and my own experience.

manicm:2. MP3s are rubbish, ripped or purchased, even at 320kbps, but with the caveat that somehow Linn's MP3s sound analogue and without a trace of the usual sibilance and harshness. And I've downloaded 3 or 4 MP3 albums from them and the sound is consistently good, I've asked them how but have yet to reply.

IMO, if you encode 320kbps mp3s with LAME and EAC, you will be hard pressed to tell the difference between those and lossless files, unless you are listening extremely critically.

manicm:3. For me the only audiophile digital route would be to purchase digital music, of which of-course there is simply not enough.

You need to clarify this a bit - CDs are digital music afterall.

manicm:4. I rip CDs onto my laptop for casual listening and they are fine for listening while I work.

Then listen and enjoy!

 

[manicm]

Grimaldi:Manicm, PJPro is correct. The way that EAC works makes the quality of a CD much less relevant than for a CD player. EAC will reread the data on a CD multiple times to ensure it gets a perfect read. A CD player cannot do that as it has to do everything in real time, it only gets one chance to do it right. Also EAC allows you to compare your read outcome with that of others on the internet to ensure that your read is 100.00000000% accurate (its unlikely that others will get the same read errors as you so it can generally be relied upon). In any case, I am surprised you can hear any difference between the formats on a laptop. My dad has an XPS 1330 and its definitely not the last word in hifi. I cannot tell the difference between a Cyrus CD8X and an ALAC file (via Apple Airport Express) playing through my DAC XP and Mono-Xs so I am shocked that you can apparently tell the difference between one lossless format and another on a laptop using an internal sound card.

1. I do have a proper hifi system, but have been using my lappie for ripping experimention. Yes the XPS is not hifi by any means but I am using it to differentiate between different digital formats - even with the admittedly crappy sound card, is this so absurd?

2. In my mind, and I acknowledge many will disagree here, EAC is only as good as the drive. Let's for argument sake you have a dodgy drive which misreads sometimes EAC is going to fix this even with countless re-sampling? I don't think so. Like CD players sound different, I believe CD drives in PCs do make a difference. In another post you mentioned that some drives have different lasers for CD and DVD playing, well I would hazard these are few and far between in PCs, even a laptop as relatively expensive as an XPS.

3. I have used EAC to both rip to WAV and burn my original CDs for the car, and I can tell you the sound still sucks - and I put this down to the CD drive - so things like EAC and AccurateRip can only do so much for me.

4. To repeat, all of the above leads me to believe that the quality of a drive is important to start off with, much like a CD player.

So I will agree to disagree with many others here, but all in the spirit of music.

 

[manicm]

al7478:manicm:

1. Ripping from CDs is far from perfect to any format, and I don't care whether one is using EAC or FLAC whatever. I respectfully disagree, based on the depth and weight of opinion and my own experience. manicm:2. MP3s are rubbish, ripped or purchased, even at 320kbps, but with the caveat that somehow Linn's MP3s sound analogue and without a trace of the usual sibilance and harshness. And I've downloaded 3 or 4 MP3 albums from them and the sound is consistently good, I've asked them how but have yet to reply. IMO, if you encode 320kbps mp3s with LAME and EAC, you will be hard pressed to tell the difference between those and lossless files, unless you are listening extremely critically. manicm:3. For me the only audiophile digital route would be to purchase digital music, of which of-course there is simply not enough. You need to clarify this a bit - CDs are digital music afterall. manicm:4. I rip CDs onto my laptop for casual listening and they are fine for listening while I work. Then listen and enjoy!

Here's one to really ruffle the feathers, and I understand I'm setting myself up for ridicule, but I believe 192k MP3s sound better than 320k MP3s. Just as I believe for compressed WMAs where I think 160k sounds better than 192k.

AAC is the only format where higher bit rates really do sound better.

 

[manicm]

PJPro:manicm:

Yes, perhaps lossless is lossless but many forget that like CD players give different results, different drives in PC will give different results. I can guarantee you that the same CD ripped in different PCs to WAV may sound different.

May or will? I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. When using EAC the files produced are verified as identical to the files on the disk. The new files are compared to thousands of other rips (freedb) to ensure they are the same. Where does the difference arise? Please remember that EAC can take as long as it likes to read and verify a file. The CDP has to read it there and then.

PJPro, I am certainly not discounting what you and others say here. I think I will hold off on these discussions until I get a DAC and connect it to the hifi through my PC and then re-appraise my results.

Happy listening.

 

[PJPro]

PJPro:[snip].....The new files are compared to thousands of other rips (freedb) to ensure they are the same.
Please excuse my error. I meant AccurateRip not freedb.

 

[PJPro]

manicm:
Here's one to really ruffle the feathers, and I understand I'm setting myself up for ridicule, but I believe 192k MP3s sound better than 320k MP3s. Just as I believe for compressed WMAs where I think 160k sounds better than 192k.

AAC is the only format where higher bit rates really do sound better.

OK. What's the logic behind this statement?