In What Format Should I Rip My Music?

I ran a test period for a whole week comparing wav, aiff, and flac before I started to rip permanently. I have somewhat of a different system than everyone else since my dac is ethernet based and has a large buffer which makes the decoding issue irrelevant. I frankly could not hear the difference. I ended up settling with flac as the tagging was more robust. My Linn Klimax DS also will scroll on the display the song, artist and album for each song with flac but could not with aiff or wav. In fact I was able to rip and listen to music at the same time with no adverse effect. I am a mac person to the core, but ended up buying a netbook for ripping purposes and used DB poweramp to rip. If I were running a different type of system I would have used aiff. Just thought I would contribute my experience as it is different than everyone else.

<cite> Just thought I would contribute my experience as it is different than everyone else.</cite><br />

Your experience is a very common one.<br />

I don't expect many to hear the difference between a lossless compressed and uncompressed formats<br />

If the small overhead needed to decompress has an audible impact, I do think it is a design flaw because it indicates that the quality of the sound card varies with system load. <br />

<br />

WAV is a problem as far as tagging is concerned. AIFF likewise as soon as you leave the Apple world.<br />

I think FLAC is a very good choice.

Hi,<br />

<br />

there are no technical reasons why using FLAC or ALAC would cause more jitter compared with other audio data formats. Jitter is completely a matter of the DAC process and with proper buffering after the FLAC decompression, you'll get as good results as with any other lossless data format.<br />

<br />

Esa

“. . . <strong>with proper buffering after the FLAC decompression,</strong> you'll get as good results as with any other lossless data format.”<br />

<br />

That's exactly where the problem lies: without dedicated re-buffering between the PC and DAC, on-the-fly decompression during live playback causes subtle degradation in many systems. Certainly it's audible on my MacBook via USB.<br />

<br />

The <strong>data format</strong> may be lossless, and therefore fine for archival – but the <strong>playback format</strong> can in fact be lossy.

Hi,<br />

<br />

if your Mac is loosing data during FLAC decompression, then that is a very bad thing ... I think.<br />

<br />

Typically a moden personal computer has GigaBytes of SDRAM for data buffering and FLAC decompression takes just a fraction of a procent of processor power i.e. if data is somehow corrupted, then there is something wrong in the system. <br />

<br />

Esa

Again, loosing data is the problem. It's not lost, it's just loose! <br />

<br />

To reiterate, any lossless data format is lossless: that means the file contains the same zeros and ones. You open it, you play it, you close it: the same binary data in the same order. You might compress that data in order to store it more efficiently (like LZW compression on a TIFF) but nothing gets lost. <br />

<br />

When you open a digital photo or a spreadsheet or a Word document, the data spools off the hard drive and arrives in the target application exactly as it was saved. Lossless.<br />

<br />

But – and it's a big but – playing music on the PC is still as much a 'live' event as it was spinning vinyl. The timing matters: really unlike a spreadsheet, the gaps between the zeros and ones matters. The playback format does matter. Although the data is the same, when you stop and think about what the PC is actually doing, playing FLACs is much harder work than playing AIFFs.<br />

<br />

iTunes plays AIFFs more prettily than ALACs. As I was trying to work out why it would matter, it occurred to me that of course AIFFs are better: the PC is doing less. It doesn't have to recode the file while playing it: it just delivers the data uninterrupted and 'perfectly' timed. You get better results when you don't ask a transformer to power both channels at once, and you get better results when you don't ask the PC to decompress and deliver a bitstream simultaneously. Surely that's common sense?<br />

<br />

Whatever the reason, and all this (in the finest research tradition) I've worked out to post-rationalise a real world phenomenon . . . On my MacBook and Mini, ALACs have a slightly smeared quality; everything sounds subtly overamplified and confused; by contrast, AIFFs are quieter, in the sense of being better timed and resolved, cleaner and more 'correct'. Once you've heard the difference, you won't go back to FLAC.<br />

<br />

Then again, every combination of hardware and software is different: my MacBook sounds much better than my Mini, and the Linux netbook sounds different again. It may be that a faster CPU, or even swifter memory, may not impose the same performance penalty.

I think we agree that lossless is lossless.<br />

Any format to be played has to be transformed to a format the sound card understands: PCM audio.<br />

If we assume that electrical activity inside a computer has impact on sound quality then:<br />

formats like AIFF/WAV hardly requires any processor activity at all but do require a lot of disk access so a lot of head movements (a linear actuator probably PWM driven?).<br />

A lossless compressed format like FLAC requires more processor power (2-4%?) but approximately only 60% of the disk access.<br />

What is more harmful, I/O or CPU?<br />

<br />

Is it hard work to uncompress FLAC?<br />

Not as much as uncompressing MP3.<br />

How much power is needed? Any cell phone or portable can manage it<br />

<br />

Timing: all most all I/O inside a computer is buffered, maybe we have to go back to the first generation of sound cards for real time streaming.<br />

<br />

My answer: a sound card is a sound device designed to work inside a PC.<br />

If the quality of its output fluctuates with system load, it is a very bad design.<br />

Like I said, I'm theorising post-rationally about what I hear. There is a pretty constant level of HD activity (ie spin speed) regardless of whether the source file is MP3, AIFF or FLAC: surely the difference here between AIFF and FLAC is negligible . . .<br />

<br />

But playing FLACs and ALACs invokes an entirely other, relatively processor intensive – and superfluous – process running simultaneously with PCM output. Surely the best we could hope for is that it doesn't get in the way? Surely the simplest, straightest 'signal path' has to be the most accurate in all things?

My too.<br />

But it is one of the many riddles: ALAC/AIFF/FLAC<br />

Are we talking different codecs (sure), but they all transform to 16/44.1 PCM (sure), Different drivers (FLAC on a MacBook?) Different hardware (Linux netbook)?<br />

What are you comparing? Different drivers on different hardware?<br />

Reading this thread with unbridled enthusiasm - incredibly pertinent to me at the moment; about to commence on a considerable music ripping undertaking (using Vista laptop PC with end interface Media Monkey). MUCH thanks, praise and respect for ALL comments!! )<br />

<br />

A few points / questions:<br />

<br />

(i) Rather than debate (joust) which is best - why not TRY them out [AIFF, WAV, FLAC] on one's OWN system and (personally) decide on which sounds (personally) 'BEST'(!)(?)(!). <br />

Variables including system, conditions, individual preference, room acoustics, ambience, one's current mood, type of music, one's own ears, auditory health and ability to 'listen', hell, even chaos theory (maybe) all combine to form personal opinion. (etc. etc. etc.)<br />

I say see (hear) what sounds most pleasing and satisfying, go with it and don't forget to ENJOY it! )<br />

<br />

That said - that nugget does not for a good discussion make - so PLEASE keep contributing!<br />

<br />

(ii) I would like to hear some thoughts / comments on using ExactAudioCopy (eac) http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/en/<br />

with reference to ripping cd's to computer. Any opinions out there on what constitutes appropriate considerations for accurate ripping? (particularly with regard to eac)<br />

<br />

(iii) I have a laptop with internal (albeit hot swappable) cd/dvd/bd combo drive. I am considering purchasing an external usb cd (or cd/dvd) for ripping purposes. Any thoughts or recommendations to this idea?<br />

<br />

My Current Thinking: Rip cd using exactaudiocopy (incorporating the 'correct' settings - need to do a bit of homework on this one) into FLAC. Tag and archive within FLAC and then consider converting to WAV / AIFF depending on personal preference and how well it 'plays' with media monkey (re: compatibility whilst maintaining tags etc).<br />

<br />

Any and all thoughts and responses appreciated and respected........<br />

<br />

polzyb

Use dbpoweramp instead. It supports a feature called AccurateRip, which compares each album/track against an online database. It will if and how many other rips matched yours bit for bit using a CRC check. The nice thing is dbpoweramp can be configured to do a quick rip, and if everything matches it just stops. If some tracks don't match then it drops to a more secure mode. EAC on the other hand can be configured to do only secure or non-secure, though it supports Accuraterip it doesn't use it for that sort of logic. What that means practically is that you would spend MANY more hours ripping with EAC, and it would also beat the hell out of your CDROM drive.<br />

<br />

EAC might be handy to keep around for badly scratched CDs that dbpoweramp can't get an Accurate or secure rip with - it has the option for a higher level of brute force ripping than dbpoweramp, that might have helped me out for one or two tracks if I recall correctly.<br />

<br />

Regarding formats, sound quality is best left up to the individual as you said. Regarding tagging, it would go something like this:<br />

PC:<br />

- FLAC is best for tagging<br />

- If you like uncompressed use WAV, but tags are limited<br />

<br />

Mac (itunes)<br />

- ALAC is best for tagging<br />

- AIFF if you like uncompressed

Forgot to mention about the external drive. Most consumer CDs are not perfectly balanced, and ripping at high speeds in a laptop drive can exacerbate this issue, in some cases damaging the CD. A full size external drive uses a different clamping mechanism, so it's less prone to this problem. Note the slim form factor external drives more commonly available today are just repackaged laptop drives, so one of those won't help much.

I am following this post with high interest and tried to have the AIFF format in the windows world, but in the end failed due to not supported well in windows.<br />

<br />

For this I opened the below mentioned post, with also some experiences I have made with AIFF, WAVE and FLAC in the windows world.<br />

<br />

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/node/1640<br />

<br />

This also covers some jitter measurement results, if some one is interested in, together with some hearing experiences.<br />

<br />

Have a nice day.<br />

<br />

Juergen<br />

The raison d'etre of a computer is to shunt data correctly: it's no trouble at all for our PCs to copy a file from one place to another. It will move a spreadsheet from HD to USB stick without changing any of the numbers. It will copy an image from a web site to a HD without changing any of the pixels. And it will just as easily copy an audio file to HD from CD without changing one bit of the music. Simple error-checking maths verifies absolutely that the source and destination files are identical. So any 'bit-perfect' ripping software (and I don't know any that aren't!) will do.<br />

<br />

The only thing that matters is whether you ask your app to compress the track. If you specify MP3 or AAC, it will squeeze it hard and destructively. If you specify FLAC or Apple Lossless, it will transfer the file exactly, but store it more efficiently on the hard drive to save space. That means you have to unpack it every time you play it. But if you save as AIFF, no such compression takes place, and no decompression is needed. Which may be why many hear a positive difference.<br />

<br />

On the plus side, compressed lossless files are 30-70% smaller (depending on how rowdy your music is), and they can be converted to AIFF and back again without loss. So FLAC and ALAC are great for archival, but not necessarily for playback.

Dear hubsand,<br />

<br />

Sorry for my bad Énglish, I did not mean loose as you noticed.<br />

<br />

All personal computers can decode FLAC files without any problems to SDRAM that is used as a buffer. This all happens without losing any data whatsoever so that the resulting data is exactcly the same as in the case of WAV or the Apple lossless format. There just is no difference there. FLAC decoding is a very simple process.<br />

<br />

And I think you are using a USB DAC? The data is transmitted over an unsynchronous USB interface and there is another data buffer in the DAC that should get rid off any jitter problems that your PC might (in your opinion) cause. Jitter characteristics comes from you USB DAC only.<br />

<br />

There are just no techncal reasons for your findings. Have you tried blind testing yourself?<br />

<br />

Esa<br />

<br />

idolse - Many thanks for your reply - very helpful and informative!<br />

<br />

hubsand - it would appear that there are several(!) million users disagree with you on the fact that the rip does not matter - check eac and dbpoweramp forums just for starters.......<br />

<br />

And if you are (one is) so concerned about end audio fidelity (and if not then why be here, right?) why not ensure (as much as possible) that every link in the chain is considered and otpimised? Have you actually done any real-world testing and A-B comparisons regarding ripping cd's - using different s/ware / h/ware / setting combinations - in relation to end audio outcome?<br />

<br />

As Chris point out - audiophiles will go to lengths to consider 0.1% end diffferences - keep an open mind, respect others opinions and sleep easy in the fact that AIFF is the right baby for YOU!<br />

<br />

I mean no harm or offense in this - we all have more or less knowledge in these matters. It is the synergy and synthesis of gathered (like) minds sharing their experiences that prevails and, ultimately, satisfies.<br />

<br />

polzyb<br />

<br />

Why should we have to choose among the AIFF, FLAC or WAV formats? All three should work and work well. The burden should be on the manufacturers and vendors to make it work and not on the consumers to choose. You’re never going to get everyone to agree to just one of these formats. We have long past the point of no return, so just accept and embrace all three.<br />

<br />

If MediaMonkey and XXHighEnd can play these formats why can’t Apple with all its resources and expertise develop iTunes with the same or greater functionality. When XXHighEnd didn’t support AIFF what did the developer do? He developed support for AIFF. Please don’t tell me that Apple is incapable of providing FLAC functionality within iTunes. Is it that Apple has a good reason for not providing what so many customers want? If anyone has doubts, we can quickly do customer surveys on several of the audio blogs/websites to confirm whether folks want iTunes to provide FLAC support. If tagging is less than perfect, then the consumers want the manufacturers and vendors to work on improving these functions.<br />

And don’t forget add the point, that it is far from user friendly, that someone has to close iTunes before playing a different sample rate, than to change the rate and finally reopen iTunes again.

Chris, Winamp plays FLAC too, so i dont see why playing FLAC on a pc is a non starter. You reccommend Winamp for ALAC, so im confusesd.

I miss-read you, chris. <br />

Sorry.

I am soon to embark on my ripping chore using a mac mini and an NAS with AIFF. It sounds like a separate cd transport is preferred to the internal drive of the mini. Any recommendations as to make and model? Thanks

Hi, Kevin...<br />

I'm using an LG super multi external drive. It was about 80 bucks. Not cheap but it has the advantage of ripping at an average 25x to 40x; almost double the speed of the internal drive on my Imac silver. Enjoy the time saved wisely!<br />

Lee

I know many people who swear by Plextor drives. They are very hard to find in the US but easier in China, Japan, and possibly the EU.

I'm afraid plextor isn't plextor anymore<br />

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=31a09b2522eec544856d67793fd721d4&showtopic=69996

Besides the file format, what sample rate should be used when ripping a CD to get the best quality? For example, in iTune, we can choose to use either 44.1kHz or 48kHz sample rate. Any suggestions?