Which codec is best for lossless ripping?

Machinemessiah

New member
Mar 7, 2013
18
0
0
Hi, I would appreciate a few opinions on which codec is the best to use for lossless files.

I'm asking this as I am going to re-rip (massively boring task!!) my cd's onto a new Synology NAS in a lossless format. I am going to purchase dbpoweramp software to do this. I will also be buying some 24 bit downloads as well where they give you a choice of codec to download. My thoughts are to rip the cd's into ALAC for my ipod and possibly flac for the Cyrus streamer that is also on my shopping list.

What I don't quite understand is that WAV runs at 1411kps and ALAC (and I would assume flac?) runs at around 1000kps. So how can they both be lossless and has anyone noticed a difference between the two SQ wise? I have also seen that flac has compression settings? Will this affect SQ? I have been told that for metadata and album art both ALAC and flac are better than WAV for storing this information. How so? However, I have also been told that ALAC runs at a maximum of 24/96 and not 24/192 for flac and WAV.

A lot of questions I know, but hopefully someone can point me in the right direction as I want to get this right first time! I will of course compare a few discs using different codecs but I would be really interested in people's thoughts on this subject.
 

Trefor Patten

Well-known member
Mar 31, 2008
40
0
18,540
Rip everything into WAV (AIFF if you use a Mac) this leaves you with more room to manoeuvre in the future if you want to batch-convert to something else. Then export as ALAC or AAC for your iPod. WAV or AIFF are exact copies of what is on the CD. ALAC and FLAC use clever algorithms to compress the sound without losing any of it, unlike MP3 or AAC which throws some of the sound away in the belief that most people will not miss it.
 

The_Lhc

Well-known member
Oct 16, 2008
1,176
1
19,195
Machinemessiah said:
Hi, I would appreciate a few opinions on which codec is the best to use for lossless files.

I'm asking this as I am going to re-rip (massively boring task!!) my cd's onto a new Synology NAS in a lossless format. I am going to purchase dbpoweramp software to do this. I will also be buying some 24 bit downloads as well where they give you a choice of codec to download. My thoughts are to rip the cd's into ALAC for my ipod and possibly flac for the Cyrus streamer that is also on my shopping list.

What I don't quite understand is that WAV runs at 1411kps and ALAC (and I would assume flac?) runs at around 1000kps. So how can they both be lossless and has anyone noticed a difference between the two SQ wise?

WAV is uncompressed, it is a bit for bit copy of the CD contents, *LAC are losslessly compressed, they take a copy of what's on the CD and then compress it without losing any information, in the same way you can zip a Word document and then unzip it and get the same document out.

I have also seen that flac has compression settings? Will this affect SQ?

In theory, no, in practice some people claim to notice a difference, it's very unlikely though.

I have been told that for metadata and album art both ALAC and flac are better than WAV for storing this information. How so?

WAV is a very old format, it predates ideas like metadata and tagging, so it has very limited support for those things and none for album art, FLAC and ALAC included full metadata, tagging and album art support.

However, I have also been told that ALAC runs at a maximum of 24/96 and not 24/192 for flac and WAV.

No idea I don't use ALAC.
 

spockfish

New member
Jan 18, 2011
34
0
0
Indeed a lot of questions, but I would suggest to take some basic considerations:

- take an open format. Which means that the format should be open for anyone, without royalties involved. That would mean that ALAC is out, because this is Apple specific.

- compression mechanisms differ, but we're talking about 'lossless' compression. That means that the original signal is being generated from the compressed data with a 100% guaruantee. As such compression levels on lossless formats do not matter one single bit (pun intended). This is one of the core principles of lossless compression.

So then compare wav and flac. Both follow the above, although wav originally came from the microsoft stable. But flac indeed is (way) better than handling metadata correctly than wav. The mean reason is that the metadata in flac is part of the standard, and very well defined. In wav you can store metadata, but there are many different ways to do that and most of it is based on 'convention' rather then on a well-defined way. So taking care of metadata in flac files is something that almost any media player can do properly, but with wav that's a different story.

So I would seriously suggest flac. It is also that flac is getting the upper hand in online lossless formats outside Apple's alac.
 

manicm

Well-known member
Seriously doubt that, while I prefer WAV over both in audio terms, I would say since going open source ALAC is gaining the upper hand over all lossless formats. Linn offer it now. Last time I checked B&W are offering CD resolution audio in ALAC only (FLAC before).

Others will follow suit as it's easier for many users to fire up iTunes than anything else.
 

professorhat

Well-known member
Dec 28, 2007
992
22
18,895
spockfish said:
- take an open format. Which means that the format should be open for anyone, without royalties involved. That would mean that ALAC is out, because this is Apple specific.

ALAC has been open source since way back in 2011 (link). So no reason not to use this if you want to, especially if you're a user of Apple products given they won't support the FLAC format.
 

spockfish

New member
Jan 18, 2011
34
0
0
professorhat said:
spockfish said:
- take an open format. Which means that the format should be open for anyone, without royalties involved. That would mean that ALAC is out, because this is Apple specific.

ALAC has been open source since way back in 2011 (link). So no reason not to use this if you want to, especially if you're a user of Apple products given they won't support the FLAC format.

Well, which one you choose: the good news is there are enough tools out there that can conver FLAC to ALAC and vice versa. But I would prefer it above WAV just alone for the meta data issue with WAV.
 

AnotherJoe

New member
Jun 10, 2011
407
0
0
FLAC is the best bet for compability.

Any Apple device (expect the Ipod classic) can easily be made to play and stream FLAC.
 

professorhat

Well-known member
Dec 28, 2007
992
22
18,895
AnotherJoe said:
FLAC is the best bet for compability.

Any Apple device (expect the Ipod classic) can easily be made to play and stream FLAC.

You say that, but if you're an iTunes user with an Apple iDevice, then FLAC certainly isn't the best for compatibility (as shocking as it may be to you that such people exist!).

As per usual, your current circumstances should really determine the format you choose - as Spockfish has noted, it's easy enough to convert between FLAC to ALAC and vice versa at a later date if you need to, so it's not as if this is a life altering decision.
 

MajorFubar

New member
Mar 3, 2010
690
8
0
Choose ALAC or FLAC depending on whether you're primarily Windows or Mac based. As for SQ they sound absolutely identical to each other, and they both sound absolutely identical to WAV. They are in effect ZIP files tailored to storing music not documents, and they uncompress 'on the fly' to replicate the original file byte for byte and bit for bit. Anyone who claims to hear a difference is misleading themselves and you.

The highest bitrate supported by Apple Lossless is 32/384 if I recall correctly, so any 24/192 you throw at it will barely break it into a sweat.
 

ReValveiT

New member
Aug 2, 2010
20
0
0
MajorFubar said:
As for SQ they sound absolutely identical to each other, and they both sound absolutely identical to WAV. They are in effect ZIP files tailored to storing music not documents, and they uncompress 'on the fly' to replicate the original file byte for byte and bit for bit. Anyone who claims to hear a difference is misleading themselves and you.

Exactly this ^ 'nuff said etc. etc...
 

AlbaBrown

New member
Jun 29, 2012
14
0
0
Use a bit accurate ripper, like DBPoweramp, and rip into WAV. That way you have a bit-for-bit copy of the original then (disk space permitting!) batch convert the desired albums/tracks into FLAC and/or ALAC.

DB Poweramp can successfully attach metadata and album artwork to the WAV files so they survive the conversion to other formats.

In regards to SQ difference, mathmatically FLAC and ALAC are lossless, and all of the data is recovered upon decompression HOWEVER subtle differences CAN be heard upon playback in revealing systems. Nothing to do with the data itself but due to the fact that any additional conversion does increase workload/noise that neighbouring circuitry in the streamer will be subtly affected by. Despite computer technolgy integrating into Hifi it does not banish the engineering principles on the effect of noise (electrical, rf or mechanical) impeding component performance in audio design.

But the difference is so small that most people will make the tiny sacrifice in return for retaining metadata compatibilty to aid browsing the library by Artist/Album etc rather than by folder structure.

Thankfully with all that boring guff out the way you can get back to actually enjoying your music!!
 

MajorFubar

New member
Mar 3, 2010
690
8
0
AlbaBrown said:
In regards to SQ difference, mathmatically FLAC and ALAC are lossless, and all of the data is recovered upon decompression HOWEVER subtle differences CAN be heard upon playback in revealing systems. Nothing to do with the data itself but due to the fact that any additional conversion does increase workload/noise that neighbouring circuitry in the streamer will be subtly affected by.

Eh?? Either a bit-perfect signal gets fed to the DAC or it doesn't. How does the data get corrupted on its way to the DAC just because it's been uncompressed from essentialy a ZIP file, when you already agree that the uncompression is lossless? This is just highly-dubious pseudo-science, justified by hinting that anyone who can't hear these 'differences' haven't got a good-enough system. Sorry.
 

spiny norman

New member
Jan 14, 2009
293
2
0
AlbaBrown said:
HOWEVER subtle differences CAN be heard upon playback in revealing systems.

tumblr_melif5gGVQ1r7a2bao1_400.gif


;)
 

michael hoy

Well-known member
Oct 6, 2008
793
279
19,270
seeing as you are going to use dbpoweramp, rip to all the formats in one go (disk space permitting) it is easy to setup and then try out the various rips.

I rip all mine to FLAC, ALAC, WAV and mp3, never use mp3 myself but I have 8 TB of disk space and can afford to have all those formats.

EDIT:

You do not have to rip to each format seperately, you just set this up once as custom rip and each time you select this it will rip to all the set formats automatically.
 

manicm

Well-known member
MajorFubar said:
AlbaBrown said:
In regards to SQ difference, mathmatically FLAC and ALAC are lossless, and all of the data is recovered upon decompression HOWEVER subtle differences CAN be heard upon playback in revealing systems. Nothing to do with the data itself but due to the fact that any additional conversion does increase workload/noise that neighbouring circuitry in the streamer will be subtly affected by.

Eh?? Either a bit-perfect signal gets fed to the DAC or it doesn't. How does the data get corrupted on its way to the DAC just because it's been uncompressed from essentialy a ZIP file, when you already agree that the uncompression is lossless? This is just highly-dubious pseudo-science, justified by hinting that anyone who can't hear these 'differences' haven't got a good-enough system. Sorry.

While maintaining that they don't hear differences Linn concede that on-the-fly conversion (which is what lossless/lossy audio requires) can possibly affect playback. And they pride themselves on being an engineering company.

So while you're quick to dismiss, feel free to dispense with the dogma as well.
 

Machinemessiah

New member
Mar 7, 2013
18
0
0
Thanks everyone for your help. One thing I mentioned in my original post was the difference in bit rates (?) of 1411kps for WAV and around 1000kps for ALAC and flac. I see that there are different opinions on whether or not there is any difference SQ wise between these codecs but surely a jump from 1000 to 1400 or so makes a difference to the quality of the final result?

Any thoughts on that one?
 

professorhat

Well-known member
Dec 28, 2007
992
22
18,895
That's just the compression. If ALAC and FLAC maintained the 1411 kbps bit rate, there would be no compression, and thus no benefit to the process at all.
 

MajorFubar

New member
Mar 3, 2010
690
8
0
manicm said:
While maintaining that they don't hear differences Linn concede that on-the-fly conversion (which is what lossless/lossy audio requires) can possibly affect playback. And they pride themselves on being an engineering company.

So while you're quick to dismiss, feel free to dispense with the dogma as well.

That's just called covering your back, and if I was one of Linn's marketeers of course I'd say something similar. But I personally don't have to worry about potantially alienating a proportion of my customer-base by shouting at the top of my voice that the emperor has no clothes.
 

MajorFubar

New member
Mar 3, 2010
690
8
0
Machinemessiah said:
Thanks everyone for your help. One thing I mentioned in my original post was the difference in bit rates (?) of 1411kps for WAV and around 1000kps for ALAC and flac. I see that there are different opinions on whether or not there is any difference SQ wise between these codecs but surely a jump from 1000 to 1400 or so makes a difference to the quality of the final result?

Any thoughts on that one?

No there are none. The only reason FLAC/ALAC result in a smaller bitrate is because the lossless compression means that the same data (in a compressed format) takes up less space on the disk. So to use your figures, it's being pulled off the disc at around 1000kbps and then unzipped to its full size. The compressed file is still EXACTLY the same as the uncompressed WAV of the same file. And if a streamer/playback device is somehow compromising that stream of bits purely because it has to uncompress it on the fly, then it's time for the device's designers to go back to their drawing board.
 

hammill

New member
Mar 20, 2008
212
0
0
MajorFubar said:
manicm said:
While maintaining that they don't hear differences Linn concede that on-the-fly conversion (which is what lossless/lossy audio requires) can possibly affect playback. And they pride themselves on being an engineering company.

So while you're quick to dismiss, feel free to dispense with the dogma as well.

That's just called covering your back, and if I was one of Linn's marketeers of course I'd say something similar. But I personally don't have to worry about potantially alienating a proportion of my customer-base by shouting at the top of my voice that the emperor has no clothes.
Exactly. Linn are a HiFi company and just as capable of talking b*****ks as any other HiFi company.
 

Machinemessiah

New member
Mar 7, 2013
18
0
0
I think I will use the utility of dbpoweramp to rip to WAV for home stereo use and ALAC for my iPod. I will also do flac rips as well to future proof should I get a different portable music player or phone in the future. Any 24 bit downloads I will purchase in WAV and convert as necessary. Providing this software does in fact store artwork/metadata as has been suggested.

A lively and very informative debate! Thanks again everybody.
 

TimothyRias

New member
Aug 13, 2013
2
0
0
AlbaBrown said:
In regards to SQ difference, mathmatically FLAC and ALAC are lossless, and all of the data is recovered upon decompression HOWEVER subtle differences CAN be heard upon playback in revealing systems. Nothing to do with the data itself but due to the fact that any additional conversion does increase workload/noise that neighbouring circuitry in the streamer will be subtly affected by. Despite computer technolgy integrating into Hifi it does not banish the engineering principles on the effect of noise (electrical, rf or mechanical) impeding component performance in audio design.

Although that is true in principle, the effect runs both ways. Playing back WAV (as compare to A/FLAC) puts a slightly higher strain on the storage system and data throughput, increasing potential sources of electronic and mechanical noise. It is therefore certainly not a given that WAV will give a better playback result. (If any difference is even noticeable.)

More importantly, these factors become completely moot, if the DAC is not integrated into the streamer, but is a separate isolated component. In that case the the digital input to the DAC is identical between the different codecs, and the analog signal leaving the DAC is as likely to be influenced by the processor of the streamer as it is by the mobile phone in your pocket (or one of the other million sources of electronic noise in your house or your neighbor's).
 

manicm

Well-known member
MajorFubar said:
manicm said:
While maintaining that they don't hear differences Linn concede that on-the-fly conversion (which is what lossless/lossy audio requires) can possibly affect playback. And they pride themselves on being an engineering company.

So while you're quick to dismiss, feel free to dispense with the dogma as well.

That's just called covering your back, and if I was one of Linn's marketeers of course I'd say something similar. But I personally don't have to worry about potantially alienating a proportion of my customer-base by shouting at the top of my voice that the emperor has no clothes.

Those were not Linn marketeers but engineers, I used to regularly follow the Linn forums. And their united preference is FLAC, so there's no reason why that would not be an objective statement.

Also, being a fairly regular follower of the Naim forums, you'll find a few owners who store their audio as FLAC on NAS drives but let the media server software decode to WAV before reaching the streamers, as they found they prefer the sound of WAV. And these are not lunatics.

And more importantly, they're not derided by other posters or owners. There's very little of the flaming I find here, and owners there are free of set agendas or dogma.
 

manicm

Well-known member
[UNPUBLISHED DUPLICATE]

TimothyRias said:
AlbaBrown said:
In regards to SQ difference, mathmatically FLAC and ALAC are lossless, and all of the data is recovered upon decompression HOWEVER subtle differences CAN be heard upon playback in revealing systems. Nothing to do with the data itself but due to the fact that any additional conversion does increase workload/noise that neighbouring circuitry in the streamer will be subtly affected by. Despite computer technolgy integrating into Hifi it does not banish the engineering principles on the effect of noise (electrical, rf or mechanical) impeding component performance in audio design.

Although that is true in principle, the effect runs both ways. Playing back WAV (as compare to A/FLAC) puts a slightly higher strain on the storage system and data throughput, increasing potential sources of electronic and mechanical noise. It is therefore certainly not a given that WAV will give a better playback result. (If any difference is even noticeable.)

This is not necessarily true - it also depends heavily on the streamer as well. Linn decidedly uses a different streaming architecture to their counterparts - to date most other streamers pull data from storage and media servers, whereas Linn commands the control software and media server to push data to their streamers.

Which is also why I find it disingenous when some say that a good streamer is just a glorified, overpriced PC.
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts