Truly lossless audio ripping?

[Darren S]

Right chaps. Bit of an unknown area this for me, but I'm after getting like-for-like rips of audio tracks for me to make my own CDs.

I've got a raft of original CDs, but like most people, just want the odd track off the album, here and there.

What's the best thing to use? Even Windows Media Lossless setting isn't exactly lossless as it still gets converted and manipulated from the original audio track. Hence, it never sounds as good as the original.

Even through the standard 182 speakers, I can definitely tell a difference between the original CD and the one that I've made myself.

Any feedback would be muchos goodos.

Cheers,
D.

 

[Mark One]

Right chaps. Bit of an unknown area this for me, but I'm after getting like-for-like rips of audio tracks for me to make my own CDs.

I've got a raft of original CDs, but like most people, just want the odd track off the album, here and there.

What's the best thing to use? Even Windows Media Lossless setting isn't exactly lossless as it still gets converted and manipulated from the original audio track. Hence, it never sounds as good as the original.

Even through the standard 182 speakers, I can definitely tell a difference between the original CD and the one that I've made myself.

Any feedback would be muchos goodos.

Cheers,
D.

Are you talking about a compilation you've made from pre-recorded Albums?
If so that's .cda > .cda and all the 0s and 1s are copied, so without meaning to sound a prick; No, you can't tell the difference, it's in your head.

Making Cds from 128kbps MP3s is a different matter.
Use 320kbps if it bothers you.

 

[McBunny]

use flack

 

[realnumber 1]

use flack

+1

 

[Mike_182]

Wave audio file - .wav - true lossless ripping is in this format, as it's the format it's stored in on CD.

 

[Darren S]

Balls - now I am confused. Is there the potential for the media to have any impact on the recording quality and stock volume?

I can chuck the original CD and happily have it on 10 or 11 on the 182's volume setting. But with the copied CD, it has to be 15 or 16 for a similar level and sounds more 'tinny'. The volume I can put down to the audio ripping software, but the lack of 'depth' to the sound doesn't make sense.

As you both say Point8 & Mike, I thought that being digital information that's recorded - it would be a true like for like. It must be all in my head - but I'm pretty much convinced that its not. Maybe there's a hidden audiophile in me - lol!

D.

 

[Darren S]

....I'll definitely give FLAC a try too - cheers guys.

D.

 

[darren_rallye]

The software that is most popular on audio forums is EAC - Exact Audio Copy.

You can also use dbPowerAmp and AccurateRip, which verifies your rip against a database to ensure it is perfect.

WAV is the default but won't support proper tagging.

Any lossless format - FLAC, Apple Lossless, WMA Lossless, etc - is lossless but the file is smaller, plus it supports tagging etc.

Think of it as a zipped WAV that is unzipped on the fly during playback.

I personally just use iTunes w/ error correction, ripping to Apple Lossless.

 

[Darren S]

Thread Revamp

This is now beginning to bug me somewhat! I don't know if I'm being a completely OTT audiophile or not, but as downloadable media is far more prevalent to physical media, I really am struggling to find tracks that are of good enough quality.

Take a trip to the usual iTunes and typically these can be 99p or more per track. However on downloading them, they are typically 5-6MB in size and regardless of what you do to them afterwards, the quality is still not on par with CD. The old adage of "crap in - crap out" really does applies in this situation.

Any algorithm will chop bits out. When a tune has been downloaded digitally, you can hear clipping in the background - especially during noisier sections of the track or where a large number of instruments are playing. The mathematical formula to minimise space, simply cannot handle the amount of data that it has to cope with and sounds like for the briefest of seconds, it all but gives up.

Space and download speeds might have been a consideration back in 2008. But seven years on, this really isn't a priority. Most people have 16GB or more of space on their phones and some even have 64GB and 128GB. Fibre broadband is everywhere and commercial download speeds mean that whole albums are downloaded in a matter of seconds. But why don't the likes of iTunes offer the ability to download a track of studio quality at circa 24-30MB in size - even if it costs more? I don't have thousands of tracks - literally a few hundred - but would love to hear them in the quality that they deserve - not crippled by some mathematician's work because he had a gun to his head back in 2002 when iPod's had about 256k of space.

I'm not on about the hissing and fizzing of vinyl tracks either. They are audio fallout from their production values. But I think I might give up on iTunes as a provider of music. Obviously I can (in theory) convert them with Apple Lossless to play on the iPod, but I just want high quality music to begin with.

Please point me in the right direction - somebody!

 

[Jack!]

If you can tell the different between 320kbps and .flac through the speakers in a 182, your hearing must be on par with dogs, if not greater.

I have a pair of decent studio monitors and can barely notice any difference between 320 and .flac/.wav.

Are you sure it's not something to do with Apple/iTunes? I don't download my music from iTunes, so not sure in that regard...

And one 5 minute song in .flac can be like 50mb, so even if you do have 16GB of space on your phone, you're going to fill that up with just a few albums - if that suits you then fine, but most people want to be able to have a large variety of their music with them.

 

[SharkyUK]

I find .flac to be very good for sound quality, and I like the fact that it's a standard supported by Windows and Android out the box. It's a shame Apple / iTunes don't use this format as I'm sure the resulting audio quality would be considerably better.

 

[Keydogg]

It wasn't until I replaced my wharfedale fronts in my living room with B&W Cm's that I could actually hear the difference between FLAC and 320kbps. No chance I could hear the difference in my car and that's got half decent speakers in it!