Ripping in FLAC using EAC

[bhagwan]

I appreciate the pain you're taking!

I will have to think hard whether I have the patience to re-do all my CDs.

Sir,
I have 2 box full of your CD's [300 ++]
They are being ripped.
I should be done by Sunday.
200 + have been ripped.
Please do come with a HDD & I will transfer all the music to you.
Grey Goose - Compilations etc. are a few that could not be ripped - accurate data was not there - I guess - maybe some other reason - but all CD's take under 5 to 8 mins to rip.

 

[square_wave]

I am sorry, I do not agree with what you have to say;
Technically - you are 100 % correct.
However, when you listen - they sound different.

Same goes with EAC & dB
When you rip the same cd - 2 times - different location on same HDD & play back - same software used [for play back] they [files] sound different.
I do not have a reason - why - but the dB ripped files are 'better' than the EAC files.

If this was not the case - why would I re-rip 5000 ++ CD's [I already have them in flac] - ripped with EAC.
I am re-ripping the music in Wave - dB
Ponder..

I found this to be true too. Wavs sound slightly better. Not sure why. I have always ripped to wavs. I have friend who ripped almost 300 cds to flac using EAC. After many trials and listening, he is now in the process of ripping them all again to wav using db poweramp. Shift delete and a few minutes took care of all the 300 albums in flac !!

Not sure why they sound different and I dont want to waste valuable time trying to find out. What matters is the result.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Well, I was going to maintain the "can't be different" front, then I had a thought: hey, most people are using Windows machines, and I reminded myself of the many frustrating hours, on the job, that I spent trying to sort out utterly illogical problems including stuff that worked on one machine, but would not work on a seemingly identical machine. And I wondered! :lol:

 

[IndianEars]

square wave... I ( and a large number of audiophiles) agree with you that wav sounds better than flac.

However, such opinions do not find resonance on this forum.

Many forum members here seem to "listen" with their logic rather than their Ears, so I have now stopped posting such comments / sharing such views here.


He that doesn't know but knows that he doesn't know is simple, teach him.

He that knows but doesn't know that he knows is asleep, wake him.

He that knows and knows that he knows is wise, follow him.

He that doesn't know and doesn't know that he doesn't know is a fool, shun him.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

I have listen end with my ears, very hard. Just as I have listened very hard to 44.1 and 96. I have also listened not hard at all, because that is the way to assess what some folks call "musicality," or "toe-tapping factor," etc.

Those of us that listen with logic do not turn off our ears when when do so. No do we turn off our music-loving hearts. The absolute insistence that we do, which one can encounter anywhere that audiophiles gather, is just a defence mechanism for an indefensible position.

Microsoft software is crap, so anything is possible! :lol:

Let people rip to whatever they want. Heck, it's their music!

There are some things that I am against. One of them is the thought patterns that we sometimes see in those who appear to have only just discovered the 30-plus-yr-old personal computer and treat it as if it were a hand-built, discretely wired, slightly faulty, valve amplifier that only works well when cosseted, on a good day.

Oh wait... I just remembered the Microsoft factor! :lol:

And I wish I could say that Linux was perfect: I can't.

Ultimately, there is only one thing I think about file formats, sample rates, bit depths, etc... and that is that the more to think about them the less I enjoy the music. So If I play you something, and you ask me what kind of file it is, the chances are that I'll have to look at the file properties to tell you.

 

[venkatcr]

square wave... I ( and a large number of audiophiles) agree with you that wav sounds better than flac.

However, such opinions do not find resonance on this forum.

Many forum members here seem to "listen" with their logic rather than their Ears, so I have now stopped posting such comments / sharing such views here.


He that doesn't know but knows that he doesn't know is simple, teach him.

He that knows but doesn't know that he knows is asleep, wake him.

He that knows and knows that he knows is wise, follow him.

He that doesn't know and doesn't know that he doesn't know is a fool, shun him.

That defines the difference between a blind believer and one who uses the grey cells between the ears in addition to the ears themselves.

Cheers

 

[square_wave]

That defines the difference between a blind believer and one who uses the grey cells between the ears in addition to the ears themselves.

Cheers

You sure are a wise man

 

[square_wave]

square wave... I ( and a large number of audiophiles) agree with you that wav sounds better than flac.

However, such opinions do not find resonance on this forum.

Many forum members here seem to "listen" with their logic rather than their Ears, so I have now stopped posting such comments / sharing such views here.


He that doesn't know but knows that he doesn't know is simple, teach him.

He that knows but doesn't know that he knows is asleep, wake him.

He that knows and knows that he knows is wise, follow him.

He that doesn't know and doesn't know that he doesn't know is a fool, shun him.

It is actually a mindset. Think no more about it.

A wave file and a flac file is pretty much the same if you look at them from a data perspective. Once you look beyond data into the multifarious chain of events that go into the playback of these formats....maybe one could find some answers.

I remember this conversation on AA a few years ago where many people like Gordon Rankin and Steve N participated.

Computer Audio Asylum

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Well, the multifarious chain of events is computer technology. Technological answers still apply. Subject, of course, to the Microsoft effect, which probably explains a lot of the stuff that happens on PCs that shouldn't.

Speaking as a guy who used to look after 40 or 50 of the things, I can live with that.

LATER...

I remember this conversation on AA a few years ago where many people like Gordon Rankin and Steve N participated.

Computer Audio Asylum

Just read it, and it hardly seemed like a massive confirmation that FLAC and WAV sound different. Only if you read the posts by people who think that FLAC and WAV sound different!

 

[arj]

I found this to be true too. Wavs sound slightly better. Not sure why. I have always ripped to wavs. I have friend who ripped almost 300 cds to flac using EAC. After many trials and listening, he is now in the process of ripping them all again to wav using db poweramp. Shift delete and a few minutes took care of all the 300 albums in flac !!

Not sure why they sound different and I dont want to waste valuable time trying to find out. What matters is the result.

SW, is this because it was ripped as FLAC or because it was played as FLAC /
What i mean is if we convert the ripped Flac to Wave, does it sound better ?

 

[square_wave]

SW, is this because it was ripped as FLAC or because it was played as FLAC /
What i mean is if we convert the ripped Flac to Wave, does it sound better ?

One group was ripped as wav. The other group was ripped as flac. Played back as flac or wav depending upon what it is, right ?? am I missing something here ?

We tried this on multiple pcs. With db poweramp as well as EAC. On different players like JRiver, Dual pc playback using J Play etc.. Always the wav sound just a bit better. Not sure why. You wont miss the wav file if you have not compared it though If you have not done this comparison I am sure you will never even think about it....

I am sure the difference is due to something elsewhere other than the data...

 

[arj]

One group was ripped as wav. The other group was ripped as flac. Played back as flac or wav depending upon what it is, right ?? am I missing something here ?

What i meant was if the same file was payed as a Flac and then after conversion to Wav does it sound different ?

If there is a difference between the two, it either has to do due to the compression being done into a Flac while ripping. OR due to the decompression process at the Audio player when converting from Flac .

 

[square_wave]

What i meant was if the same file was payed as a Flac and then after conversion to Wav does it sound different ?
.

I never did this. A cd was converted to wav as well as flac. Then, both were played back. For all practical purposes, this is what we do when we move from disc playback to file playback.

I don't mess with the flac which I download from hd tracks etc...

 

[gobble]

Ummm I tried the flac versus WAV comparison yesterday, and damn! I think I hear a difference too!

With flac the sound loses a bit of openness. The WAV has a hint of sparkle and shimmer in the top end and the sound flows in a more relaxed context. I tried some songs from an EVA Cassidy album that I realized were not converted into flac and I wanted to tag the tracks. I tested with flac -3 settings and it wasn't too hard to tell the difference. With flac -1 encoded file I really had to strain to discern a difference between the two but it was there - the same difference but to a lesser degree. Encoding (or rather the process of decoding) appears to throw a bit of mud(diness) into the mix. This is a real good candidate for ABX blind testing.

I am still tempted to keep my default flac -1 settings as the resulting file size is less than half and I can tag the files (but I will really have to reconsider if I need tagging) With the WAV file size, I will have to abandon doing Wifi Xfers from my desktop to Music PC and consider copying physically via thumb drive.

G0bble

 

[IndianEars]

Google, I concur with yr findings..

Now can you please try this 1 more experiment:

Play the Same .wav file, :

a. Stored on the same HDD as the Operating System

b. On an external USB connected HDD

To me option A sounds every so slightly better.... not quite as much difference between .wav & .flac

 

[paramesh]

Hi All,
When I am trying to rip audio cd with EAC in WAV format ,I am not getting title name(song name). can any one suggest where to change ? I follow all instruction what mention here. when I try same CD with foobar I can able to get the song name.

Thanks in advance.

 

[dheerajin]

internet should be on..when ripping CD..IMO...it will try to get the database..and you will get all the information..

Hi All,
When I am trying to rip audio cd with EAC in WAV format ,I am not getting title name(song name). can any one suggest where to change ? I follow all instruction what mention here. when I try same CD with foobar I can able to get the song name.

Thanks in advance.

 

[paramesh]

internet should be on..when ripping CD..IMO...it will try to get the database..and you will get all the information..

you meant to say freedb right ? internet is on even though also same.

 

[jsmithe]

you meant to say freedb right ? internet is on even though also same.

What happens when you go Database, Get CD Information From and then select the freedb entry from the drop-down? Do you notice a connection attempt out and/or do you get a freedb result window asking you to select a CD (this happens when there are multiple matches in freedb)?

Do all CD's not show freedb track information using the above steps or is it just the one? If all, then there probably is something wrong with your connection to freedb. If it's just the one CD it's quite likely that there is a metadata mismatch between freedb and that CD.

 

[paramesh]

What happens when you go Database, Get CD Information From and then select the freedb entry from the drop-down? Do you notice a connection attempt out and/or do you get a freedb result window asking you to select a CD (this happens when there are multiple matches in freedb)?

Do all CD's not show freedb track information using the above steps or is it just the one? If all, then there probably is something wrong with your connection to freedb. If it's just the one CD it's quite likely that there is a metadata mismatch between freedb and that CD.

Error - CD not found in database is coming .