FLAC or WAV?

[Gareth82]

Thanks for the replies everyone.

I think what i will do is rip to FLAC, then back up to a external hard drive so i have got two copies of the FLACs, and then i can convert the FLACs to whichever is needed to work with what i decide to buy while also keeping a copy of the original FLAC rips.

What bit do i rip to FLAC? I have seen somewhere you can get 16bit and 24bit.

Just out of interest, if i converted from FLAC to WAV would i lose any sound quality?

And if i ripped from FLAC to WAV and then from the WAV back to FLAC would i lose any quality and would it be the same as the original WAV rip?

Thanks

 

[Eric2]

CD’s are 16bit so if ripping CD’s I would recommend sticking to 16bit.

You shouldn’t lose quality going from Flac to Wav but you would lose the metadata, album artwork etc. This is the reason I use AIFF.

 

[Andrew Everard]

Now all you've got to explain away is the big print...

 

[MajorFubar]

i ripped from FLAC to WAV and then from the WAV back to FLAC would i lose any quality and would it be the same as the original WAV rip?
Thanks

You can convert backwards and forwards WAVFLAC to your heart's content. Nothing will change unless the file gets corrupted. If you want to try to save even more space on your unused backup, you could even try WinZip'ing the FLACs, though I bet that wouldn't save much (might do though...I've never tried!)

 

[Gareth82]

Thanks for clearing that up, i was just checking as i am going to rip everything to FLAC and keep two copies of everything so one can be a back up and the other can be converted to something else when needed, just wanted to check if converting from FLAC to another lossless format and then back again would be ok, otherwise i would of made three copies of everything.

 

[The_Lhc]

Thanks for clearing that up, i was just checking as i am going to rip everything to FLAC and keep two copies of everything so one can be a back up and the other can be converted to something else when needed,

There's no need for that really, at least not for the reasons you think. Creating an mp3 version of a FLAC file (for example), does not delete the FLAC file, the mp3 will be created in addition to the FLAC file, which will remain unchanged.

Arguably you should have a backup simply to protect you against losing the files due a disk failure or some such.

 

[Anonymous]

hi i was reading post regarding wav vs flac , if both are recorded properly then there is not much difference if any

as for id tags on wav files you should have ripped the cd's to wav to create each folder is named as artist - album name

then inside each folder is the wav files as 01 artist - track name 02 artist - track name ect

i have used wav files like this and i can see the track info ect on pc and mp3/wav player and android phone

but if you want true id tag support on wav files then you need to use Broadcast Wave Format info here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_Wave_Format , compare to wav info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WAV

i have also made copies of my wav files as mp3 at 256k for my family to use on whatever they want

i dont use flac as im happy to use b-wav for hifi and mp3 for portable , this works for me.......

 

[SteveR750]

FLAC uses less space, as it's compressed (though lossless).

 

[Anonymous]

I have been reading this thread with interest and now I am going to ask a dumb question. I just downloaded DB Poweramp (free version) and ripped a CD to try it out. So what do I use to actually select and play tracks i.e. what's my I-tunes equivalent?

I am guessing that if I had Squeezebox I would use that and just point it to the folders, but what about without Squeezebox?

 

[The_Lhc]

hi i was reading post regarding wav vs flac , if both are recorded properly then there is not much difference if any

as for id tags on wav files you should have ripped the cd's to wav to create each folder is named as artist - album name

then inside each folder is the wav files as 01 artist - track name 02 artist - track name ect

i have used wav files like this and i can see the track info ect on pc and mp3/wav player and android phone

but if you want true id tag support on wav files then you need to use Broadcast Wave Format info here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_Wave_Format , compare to wav info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WAV

i have also made copies of my wav files as mp3 at 256k for my family to use on whatever they want

i dont use flac as im happy to use b-wav for hifi and mp3 for portable , this works for me.......

I don't get this, you admit that there's no difference in audio quality between FLAC and WAV but you'd rather use WAV and have to cludge the tag info in some way, rather than FLAC that supports full tagging natively and uses less space?

 

[Alec]

Have to agree with The_Lhc

 

[philipjohnwright]

If you are using dbPoweramp then why not rip to two formats at the same time (or three or four, although I can't see the point of that really)?

I rip to ALAC and 320kbps MP3, the former for my main system, the latter for my phone / iPad. dbPoweramp allows you to specify the location it places the ripped file - I put it straight into the Add To Itunes folder in each respective library (main system runs on a Mac Mini, the other on my laptop).

If it's OK to reference an external website there's a great article on ripping strategy over at Computer Audiophile. Very extensive, down to the different setting on dbPoweramp. I followed it pretty closely, just deciding I don't need a third archive copy (mainly because I'd then need another 900gb of disk space!).

I can't tell any difference between WAV, FLAC, and ALAC; I chose ALAC because I use iTunes. You can always convert to a different format at a later stage using dpPoweramp, although do this for a large number of files would be a pain, even given the batch mode.

Finally, re the question on which bit depth to use. Go for 'same as original' - one of the settings in dbPoweramp.

 

[Anonymous]

i have plenty of harddrive space on the pc i built , 1tb for drive c which is just for windows7 and programs , drive d is 3tb

for media and i also have 2 external 3tb harddrives for backup , i use a usb external dac from pc to hifi

as for taging im using Broadcast Wave Format which holds more info , see link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_Wave_Format , compare to wav infohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WAV

but even if you use standard wave files they are named up as artist - song title , what more do you want .

as for flac , why use another format , wav is based on pcm so its a studio standard

and wav is more compatible than flac , not all products support flac and many people i know

cant even get flac to burn to cd to play on hifi , even after getting flac plugins ect so it needs converting not good,

the point is i like wav and mp3 is ok for my wife & kids , you like flac , i dont want another format

the more formats you have the more converter programs you need , then the quality becomes rubbish,

i buy a cd rip it to wav for myself and rip the cd to mp3 for my family . im happy with the way i do things

everyone else can do what they want

 

[The_Lhc]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_Wave_Format, compare to wav info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WAV

but even if you use standard wave files they are named up as artist - song title , what more do you want .

Album art? Year, genre, contributing artists, etc.

as for flac , why use another format, wav is based on pcm so its a studio standard and wav is more compatible than flac , not all products support flac and many people i know cant even get flac to burn to cd to play on hifi, even after getting flac plugins ect

They're idiots then, I can do that, it's a piece of pie.

the more formats you have the more converter programs you need , then the quality becomes rubbish,

Utter nonsense. Sorry but that is patently not true. FLAC is lossless, you can convert back and forward between that and wav as many times as you like and there will be no loss of quality.

 

[BigColz]

Just rip them in FLAC with minimum compression, keep all tagging etc. Then if for whatever reason you want to change formats download conversion software and you can change around lossless formats with no loss of quality..

On my mac I rip to FLAC minimum compression using 'max', then compress a copy to 320 mp3 to keep on my itunes library using 'Switch' Both are free and work beautifully.. I'm sure there are plenty of PC audio converters available and everyone swears by DbPoweramp for ripping (i'd get it if you could for mac)

Simples :cheers:

 

[MajorFubar]

many people i know cant even get flac to burn to cd to play on hifi

Don't most people use Nero? Nero has supported FLAC for a while, hasn't it?

 

[hammill]

many people i know cant even get flac to burn to cd to play on hifi

Don't most people use Nero? Nero has supported FLAC for a while, hasn't it?

Most people? I don't know anyone who does and most of my relatives would think it was a Roman emperor ( the better educated ones at least). One of my friends was just ripping for the first time and had never heard of FLAC until I persuaded him it was the best format and he is a programmer and generally aware of technology. We should remember that this forum not a representative sample of mankind.

 

[jcbrum]

FLAC is an outdated format, now that ALAC is in the public domain. There is no requirement for it any longer. ALAC is universal and of course lossless.

JC

 

[gregvet]

I think thats overstating it slightly (and i am apple through and through). There are still quite a few applications/programs/platforms that dont support ALAC, whereas its only apple stuff that doesnt support FLAC.

I dont see why we need both, but Im not sure its a foregone conclusion that ALAC will be the winner.

 

[pauln]

I'd have to agree with that - I think you'll find that far more computer "audiophiles" use flac than alac and it's supported by many of the more recent media players/blu ray players etc.

Foobar is a widely respected and very popular free player that can also convert to mp3 using the lame encoder.

As for ripping, I would also say that Exact Audio Copy is very popular, it's also free.

Have a look on Headfi or Hydrogen Audio for more info.

Personally I'd much prefer to use free open source software and make a small donation than ever use anything Apple.

PS This forum software is so broken - I clicked on preview and it lost my post and logged me out!

 

[fr0g]

I'd have to agree with that - I think you'll find that far more computer "audiophiles" use flac than alac and it's supported by many of the more recent media players/blu ray players etc.

Foobar is a widely respected and very popular free player that can also convert to mp3 using the lame encoder.

As for ripping, I would also say that Exact Audio Copy is very popular, it's also free.

Have a look on Headfi or Hydrogen Audio for more info.

Personally I'd much prefer to use free open source software and make a small donation than ever use anything Apple.

PS This forum software is so broken - I clicked on preview and it lost my post and logged me out!

Shock. I am going to defend ALAC now. ALAC is in fact also free and open source now.

Although I personally have no use of it, it makes a great deal of sense if you buy into the Orchard. Either way you can convert losslessly between them, and there are applications that will do them all at once.

 

[MajorFubar]

many people i know cant even get flac to burn to cd to play on hifi

Don't most people use Nero? Nero has supported FLAC for a while, hasn't it?

Most people? I don't know anyone who does

Well by 'most people', clearly I meant 'most people interested in burning recordable media'. If you are one of those people, you own a PC and you haven't heard of Nero, where've you had your head shoved for 15 years. And if you aren't interested in burning media, then you probably aren't too concerned about what software to do it with.

 

[CnoEvil]

If you are one of those people, you own a PC and you haven't heard of Nero, where've you had your head shoved for 15 years.

...and there's me thinking he was the last of the Julio-Claudian Emperors, and was about in A.D.37, and the only thing he burned was Rome!! :?

(but this is 'cause I'm old and technically confused, being just a little behind the times)

 

[MajorFubar]

....the only thing he burned was Rome!! :?

Well it wasn't originally called Nero Burning ROM for nothing...

Its original desktop icon was the walls of Rome burning

 

[Helmut80]

Really, is Nero still around? Haven't used it in almost a decade.