AudioNervosa

Systemic Development => Digital Audio Devices => Streaming Players => Topic started by: rollo on February 26, 2019, 10:00:32 AM

Title: Ripping CD to Server
Post by: rollo on February 26, 2019, 10:00:32 AM

   FLAC or WAV is the question. Which has better sound for PCM ripping.


charles

Title: Re: Ripping CD to Server
Post by: Triode Pete on February 26, 2019, 10:08:23 AM

AIFF!

Title: Re: Ripping CD to Server
Post by: P.I. on February 26, 2019, 11:59:36 AM

I use AIFF because of the superior metadata manipulation over other formats.

WAV is argueably better sounding, but the differences are very slight.  AIFF is basically a container for what is a PCM file that allows for additional data to be encoded for art, filing, etc.

FLAC sucks.  Lossless compression is an oxymoron at best.  Anytime a bit or byte is manipulated quality is lost.  There is no free lunch especially in a format that is as fragile as digital audio.

Apple Lossless also sucks.

FLAC audio is a tad hazy and flat sounding compared to WAV or AIFF formats.  Transients lose some impact compared to WAV or AIFF.

There was a time when storage cam at a premium. I remember how much my first WD HDD cost for 200Megs.  It isn't that way any more.  When TB are available for next to nothing (in audio terms) it is misdirected to do ANY compression whatsoever.  I have 6TB of audio data here.  This includes redundancy for backup.

Title: Re: Ripping CD to Server
Post by: Triode Pete on February 26, 2019, 03:14:08 PM

Quote from: P.I. on February 26, 2019, 11:59:36 AM

I use AIFF because of the superior metadata manipulation over other formats.

WAV is argueably better sounding, but the differences are very slight.  AIFF is basically a container for what is a PCM file that allows for additional data to be encoded for art, filing, etc.

FLAC sucks.  Lossless compression is an oxymoron at best.  Anytime a bit or byte is manipulated quality is lost.  There is no free lunch especially in a format that is as fragile as digital audio.

Apple Lossless also sucks.

FLAC audio is a tad hazy and flat sounding compared to WAV or AIFF formats.  Transients lose some impact compared to WAV or AIFF.

There was a time when storage cam at a premium. I remember how much my first WD HDD cost for 200Megs.  It isn't that way any more.  When TB are available for next to nothing (in audio terms) it is misdirected to do ANY compression whatsoever.  I have 6TB of audio data here.  This includes redundancy for backup.

Happy Belated Birthday, Dave!

Title: Re: Ripping CD to Server
Post by: P.I. on February 26, 2019, 06:35:08 PM

Quote from: Triode Pete on February 26, 2019, 03:14:08 PM

Quote from: P.I. on February 26, 2019, 11:59:36 AM

I use AIFF because of the superior metadata manipulation over other formats.

WAV is argueably better sounding, but the differences are very slight.  AIFF is basically a container for what is a PCM file that allows for additional data to be encoded for art, filing, etc.

FLAC sucks.  Lossless compression is an oxymoron at best.  Anytime a bit or byte is manipulated quality is lost.  There is no free lunch especially in a format that is as fragile as digital audio.

Apple Lossless also sucks.

FLAC audio is a tad hazy and flat sounding compared to WAV or AIFF formats.  Transients lose some impact compared to WAV or AIFF.

There was a time when storage cam at a premium. I remember how much my first WD HDD cost for 200Megs.  It isn't that way any more.  When TB are available for next to nothing (in audio terms) it is misdirected to do ANY compression whatsoever.  I have 6TB of audio data here.  This includes redundancy for backup.

Happy Belated Birthday, Dave!

Damn.  59 again... or not.  Thanks Pete.  You are one of my joys!

Title: Re: Ripping CD to Server
Post by: rollo on February 27, 2019, 12:48:58 PM

  Thanks Dave. Using WAV with no regrets. Hope you received my Birthday message. 59 eh , thought so. :lol:


charles

Title: Re: Ripping CD to Server
Post by: P.I. on March 15, 2019, 10:11:50 AM

 :rofl:

Quote from: rollo on February 27, 2019, 12:48:58 PM

  Thanks Dave. Using WAV with no regrets. Hope you received my Birthday message. 59 eh , thought so. :lol:


charles

Title: Re: Ripping CD to Server
Post by: bpape on March 23, 2019, 10:37:37 AM

Been a while - good to see the inmates are still here.....

WAV is it now that storage is so cheap.

Title: Re: Ripping CD to Server
Post by: JBNY on April 01, 2019, 08:01:38 AM

Charles, just rip to FLAC. FLAC and WAV are the same thing, and will sound exactly the same. FLAC give you the ability to add metadata (music tags) to the the songs, it is made for streaming so you can use seek functions without error, it is also the defacto standard as well as free to use.

AIFF is another uncompressed format just like WAV so the files sizes are just as large and was developed by apple but has since been made free like FLAC. It doesn't fully support streaming but seems to work most times. It does support tagging. If you primarily use apple products then you can use that, but I can't see another reason to use it with FLAC so much the standard at this point.

The idea that FLAC is someone how less fidelity than WAV is really just a lack of understanding of the FLAC format. It is a the exact WAV file in a transportable and streamable compressed file (think zip files). The sound file is not compressed in anyway like MP3 just the file is smaller. When the player gets the FLAC file it retrieves the uncompressed WAV and plays that. Meaning a WAV file and it's FLAC counterpart when played by the music player are the exact same file. So yeah it will always sound the same.

In the end it's your choice, as long as you don't use a compressed music format like pus, MP3, Vorbis, Musepack, AAC, ATRAC and WMZ and stick to any uncompressed music formats like FLAC, ALAC, and even AIFF or WAV you will be fine.