• Hello and Welcome to HiFiVision.com - an online community for the home entertainment and tech enthusiasts!

    If you would like to ask a question, participate in a discussion and view attachments please Register yourself.

Which software is best DBPOWER AMP OR EAC FOR RIPPING

Subscibe to HiFiMART Newsletter

ApSai

New Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2019
Messages
5
Points
1
Location
AP
Which software is best for rippings cds
for wav and aiff

and reasong why is good
 

elangoas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
7,517
Points
113
Location
Madrasapattinam
Which software is best for rippings cds
for wav and aiff

and reasong why is good
Have used EAC in the past to rip the CD's to FLAC/WAV.. No idea on AIFF format you have mentioned.. EAC was widely suggested to rip CD's, hence i used it.. Guess i also tried DB power amp / Monkey audio too, but stuck to EAC..
 

MaSh

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2012
Messages
3,442
Points
113
Location
Bangalore
I used foobar and it was smooth and error free. Default output is wav. FLAC needs additional components.

MaSh
 

mpasanthosh

Active Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
Messages
121
Points
28
Location
Salem
dBP because it allows one to include metadata to a wav rip.
Yes i agree, i use dBP with accurate rip enabled.
The metadata editing is breeze to work with, it has another option for C2 Error pointers as well.
To set this up you could read the manual, some CD drives support it whereas some don't.

C2 Error Pointers - the ability for a drive to tell a ripping program that the ripped data has errors. Not all drives support C2 pointers, some drives support it badly (ie many errors slip through undetected). dBpoweramps Secure ripper benefits from C2 Error Pointers unless enabling produces lots of errors (some drives do....).
 

ravindrads

Active Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2017
Messages
103
Points
28
Location
Bangalore
In my experience. I tried using EAC since i know many audiophiles use this to accurately rip cds. BUt was annoywed at the speed at which it rips. Patience is must,. But i found dbpoweramp awesome. It used the processors all the cores and rips the cds so fast. I use 2x cd ripping as compared to the default 16x. at 2x speed it takes around 15 to 20 mins for a cd top be ripped. But quality is awesome. can be ripped to any format
 

mpasanthosh

Active Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
Messages
121
Points
28
Location
Salem
In my experience. I tried using EAC since i know many audiophiles use this to accurately rip cds. BUt was annoywed at the speed at which it rips. Patience is must,. But i found dbpoweramp awesome. It used the processors all the cores and rips the cds so fast. I use 2x cd ripping as compared to the default 16x. at 2x speed it takes around 15 to 20 mins for a cd top be ripped. But quality is awesome. can be ripped to any format
Yes it is, I prefer dBpoweramp over EAC as well, I use it with accurate rip enabled.
 

SEANDSILVA

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
823
Points
63
Location
Mumbai
dBP because it allows one to include metadata to a wav rip.
As I understand dbp has recently come up with adding metadata to wav files which is like having the best of both worlds. hence would most bdp/ network players be able to read wav files with metadata off a portable hdd or would that capability be restricted only to flac with metadata?
I'm about to rip my audio CDs, I've been scouring endless sites but only succeeded in getting more confused with the never-ending wav vs uncompressed flac war wrt audio quality. Would appreciate advice on this please. my ultimate goal is to play the ripped files on my 2ch home stereo setup.
 

harry123456

Active Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2008
Messages
127
Points
43
Location
New Delhi
Hi,
If you are interested in Quality reproduction of music you should rip your CDs in WAV format. Playing FLAC files through a software and comparing them with a WAV file of the same song i find WAV sounds better.

Cheers.
 

surfatwork

Active Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
296
Points
43
Location
Kochi
Hi,
If you are interested in Quality reproduction of music you should rip your CDs in WAV format. Playing FLAC files through a software and comparing them with a WAV file of the same song i find WAV sounds better.

Cheers.
Unlikely since flac is lossless and a regenerated WAV file is binary bit perfect with the original WAV, except for maybe Metadata which is immaterial.
I would think that any perceived differences are psychosomatic, with all due respect.
 

jai1611

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,257
Points
113
Location
Bangalore
Unlikely since flac is lossless and a regenerated WAV file is binary bit perfect with the original WAV, except for maybe Metadata which is immaterial.
I would think that any perceived differences are psychosomatic, with all due respect.
That's the theory. In practise, it would depend on the software used for playback. In any event, wav has near-universal while flac doesn't. The historic reason to not rip to wav was lack of metadata, which is now solved
 

jls001

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
6,145
Points
113
Location
Mumbai
As I understand dbp has recently come up with adding metadata to wav files which is like having the best of both worlds. hence would most bdp/ network players be able to read wav files with metadata off a portable hdd or would that capability be restricted only to flac with metadata?
I'm about to rip my audio CDs, I've been scouring endless sites but only succeeded in getting more confused with the never-ending wav vs uncompressed flac war wrt audio quality. Would appreciate advice on this please. my ultimate goal is to play the ripped files on my 2ch home stereo setup.
Don't know if your BDP will be able to read the meta data but I would suggest you to rip to wav if you're using dBP to rip.

I agree with @harry123456 that wav sounds superior to flac when ripping the same track. Mathematically a flac is completely lossless and in theory can be decompressed to exactly the original wav, but actual hearing tells a different story. The extra step of decompressing a flac to wav for playback might be responsible in somehow degrading the sound. Of course this is purely my speculation.
 

SEANDSILVA

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
823
Points
63
Location
Mumbai
Hi,
If you are interested in Quality reproduction of music you should rip your CDs in WAV format. Playing FLAC files through a software and comparing them with a WAV file of the same song i find WAV sounds better.

Cheers.
Thanks for the suggestion.

Don't know if your BDP will be able to read the meta data but I would suggest you to rip to wav if you're using dBP to rip.

I agree with @harry123456 that wav sounds superior to flac when ripping the same track. Mathematically a flac is completely lossless and in theory can be decompressed to exactly the original wav, but actual hearing tells a different story. The extra step of decompressing a flac to wav for playback might be responsible in somehow degrading the sound. Of course this is purely my speculation.
Thank you Joshua for suggesting that I rip to wav over flac given your rich experience and expertise in the world of HiFi. Time will tell whether the bdp/media player reads the wav file tagged with metadata and hence will use wav as step 1 of my CD rip sop. If step 1 fails then step 2 will be to transcode to dBP's newly introduced 'uncompressed flac' format as the next best alternative.
 

jai1611

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,257
Points
113
Location
Bangalore
But if the two source files is are identical, why would this matter?
Flac is compressed, WAV is not. The decompression needs to be perfect for them to be identical. The fact that the decompression needs to be realtime is what likely causes issues with some software - a problem that doesnt exist for WAV.

A different perspective would be winzip vs 7zip. Both work with much more mainstream compression than FLAC. Despite this, they have different efficiency (reflecting in time taken to compress or decompress). The end result is the same as they arent doing it real time. Flac is nowhere as mainstream and software for playback is not as well developed. When you add the overlay of real time decompression is where potential differences in playback quality come from.

I haven't done any comparisons on this in years so dont know if flac vs wav matters with my current software. I rip CDs to wav as a matter of course now as I already paid for the DBPoweramp license years back.
 

surfatwork

Active Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
296
Points
43
Location
Kochi
Flac is "lossless" compression. If you took a document, zipped it up (whether using winzip or some other software), and then unzipped it, you would get the exactly the same document. Not a slightly corrupted version of it. It's the same with flac.
And decoding flac is very very fast. Even the most inefficient playback software wouldn't get it wrong.
However, everyone is free to believe what they wish. Facts remain facts, though.
 

jls001

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
6,145
Points
113
Location
Mumbai
Flac is "lossless" compression. If you took a document, zipped it up (whether using winzip or some other software), and then unzipped it, you would get the exactly the same document. Not a slightly corrupted version of it. It's the same with flac.
And decoding flac is very very fast. Even the most inefficient playback software wouldn't get it wrong.
However, everyone is free to believe what they wish. Facts remain facts, though.
Listening is the final arbiter. Compare for yourself. It's easy to do.
 
Top