2015_best ripping option for CD_XRCD on PC?

[eco_bach]

I haven't used my PC for a few years for audio playback or CD ripping. Whats the currently recommended best option for ripping high quality CD's and XRCD's?

[Skeptic]

XRCD is just a brand for CDs which went through a specific mastering process. The data on them is still 16-bit 44.1kHz audio without any need for special ripping/decoding. (HDCD should decode to a 20-bit 44.1kHz signal for example)

 

Personally, I prefer dBpoweramp for ripping CDs.

Once configured for secure ripping mode, it's practically automated and will guarantee you bit-perfect rips.

 

There are a number of useful tagging/conversion options with dBpoweramp too, which I find very convenient.

[songswelove]

I've found this online... maybe it'll help if you don't know much about it as I in ripping CDs. Since I still use my Adobe Audition for mixing sounds, I am trying to see if Audition can rip CD as good as dBpoweram can to save some $.

 

Convert CD Audio to MP3, WAV, WMA?

[Skeptic]

Use a proper CD ripper like EAC if dBpoweramp is too expensive.

[songswelove]

Use a proper CD ripper like EAC if dBpoweramp is too expensive.

 

I believe you that dBpowerAmp is the one. (Actually, it is not 'that' expensive.) But I am kind of old and lazy... learning a new software is kinda running out of time for me since I am preparing for a cross country auto trip and it just kicks me in the head that I want to listen to all my CDs when I'm away from my home.

 

I'm used to Audition so just wonder if Audition would deliver any close quality music (say, I don't care about all metatags, etc) that is ok to my car stereo. (with DAC+aux)

 

Following is a screen shot for what Audition 2.0 (yah, even this one I need an upgrade, but.... ) can do for me under "extract audio from CD". I am sure dBpoweramp is at the professional level.... sorry I'm like those students who won't move an inch until absolutely have to.. Thanks in advance for your reply!!!

 

[jhwalker]

I believe you that dBpowerAmp is the one. (Actually, it is not 'that' expensive.) But I am kind of old and lazy... learning a new software is kinda running out of time for me since I am preparing for a cross country auto trip and it just kicks me in the head that I want to listen to all my CDs when I'm away from my home.

 

I'm used to Audition so just wonder if Audition would deliver any close quality music (say, I don't care about all metatags, etc) that is ok to my car stereo. (with DAC+aux)

 

Following is a screen shot for what Audition 2.0 (yah, even this one I need an upgrade, but.... ) can do for me under "extract audio from CD". I am sure dBpoweramp is at the professional level.... sorry I'm like those students who won't move an inch until absolutely have to.. Thanks in advance for your reply!!!

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]16268[/ATTACH]

 

Any ripper will do a perfect job if all you want is to rip your CDs.

 

What EAC (and dBpowerAmp, etc.) bring to the table is bells and whistles (e.g., verification of an accurate rip against an online database, automatic re-ripping to ensure consistency, etc.) which (to me) makes it worthwhile to spend a little extra for peace of mind.

 

For quick and dirty, whatever you have on hand (including iTunes) is just fine, particularly if you have the opportunity / inclination to re-rip (or verify your existing rips) later with a more full-featured tool.

[songswelove]

Great...I will do a quick and dirty rip for now. Then, I will definitely use dBpoweramp when I reunite with my CDs again. The dBpoweramp reviews are just phenomena, almost guilty if I don't try it out in the future.

[jocar37]

I'm also interested in ripping XRCDs. There is something about the sonic signature of a good XRCD that I like better than any other format I've listened to.

 

The ripped files will be used through a hard drive, attached vis usb or networked to, my main sound system. My question is what format should I use? Storage is cheap any more, so I was thinking WAV, but read WAV doesn't support metadata well.

 

So then I was considering FLAC. But I'm concerned that if I go to FLAC I may lose something of the character of the XRCD that I enjoy. I understand that WAV is an exact copy. But I also understand that WAV and FLAC are both lossless forms, so theoretically there should be no difference. But theory and practice aren't the same. No doubt you all have read reviews of equipment that on paper are very similar, perhaps even identical, which sound way different when played in the same sound system.

 

So it would not be helpful to hear from people without actual XRCD ripping experience who can only tell me how there "should" (in theory) be no difference. My question is for those of you who have actual experience ripping XRCD. Do you find any difference in the sound of the XRCD when ripped to FLAC? Or in WAV? If neither sounds as good as the original XRCD(which would surprise me, but I want to cover my bases), which do you think sounded better?

 

While my primary goal is to get the best possible sound, I also want to be able to identify and choose tracks/playlists through my Squeezebox or BDP103. So if there is no or little sonic difference between WAV and FLAC, I'll may give up a modest degradation in sound for the convenience and go with FLAC. But if FLAC is not nearly as good as WAV, can anyone tell me if dBpoweramp - or another good ripping program - includes features or add-ons that allow you to attach metadata to WAV files, or that works with other programs that allow you to attach metadata?

[alfe]

Deleted

[kumakuma]

I'm also interested in ripping XRCDs. There is something about the sonic signature of a good XRCD that I like better than any other format I've listened to.

 

The ripped files will be used through a hard drive, attached vis usb or networked to, my main sound system. My question is what format should I use? Storage is cheap any more, so I was thinking WAV, but read WAV doesn't support metadata well.

 

So then I was considering FLAC. But I'm concerned that if I go to FLAC I may lose something of the character of the XRCD that I enjoy. I understand that WAV is an exact copy. But I also understand that WAV and FLAC are both lossless forms, so theoretically there should be no difference. But theory and practice aren't the same. No doubt you all have read reviews of equipment that on paper are very similar, perhaps even identical, which sound way different when played in the same sound system.

 

So it would not be helpful to hear from people without actual XRCD ripping experience who can only tell me how there "should" (in theory) be no difference. My question is for those of you who have actual experience ripping XRCD. Do you find any difference in the sound of the XRCD when ripped to FLAC? Or in WAV? If neither sounds as good as the original XRCD(which would surprise me, but I want to cover my bases), which do you think sounded better?

 

While my primary goal is to get the best possible sound, I also want to be able to identify and choose tracks/playlists through my Squeezebox or BDP103. So if there is no or little sonic difference between WAV and FLAC, I'll may give up a modest degradation in sound for the convenience and go with FLAC. But if FLAC is not nearly as good as WAV, can anyone tell me if dBpoweramp - or another good ripping program - includes features or add-ons that allow you to attach metadata to WAV files, or that works with other programs that allow you to attach metadata?

 

Comparing the sound quality of an XRCD to the ripped data is impossible as different playback chains are involved.

 

Have you considered using AIFF rather than FLAC? It is a lossless format that handles metadata well.

 

Have you tried ripping to both WAV and FLAC formats to see if YOU can hear the difference with YOUR ears on YOUR system?

[jocar37]

Kumakuma - I haven't tried ripping them yet. I'm waiting on the arrival of a new computer and wanted to find out about software/metadata solutions before it arrived. You make a good point about comparing the XRCD to ripped data. But it would still be helpful to have comparisons between WAV and FLAC. And I'm a PC guy. Isn't AIFF for Apple systems?

[jocar37]

Regarding the play back chain issue, do you think it would be better,worse or no differnt if, instead of the computer's internal cd/dvd drive, I used a high quality external cd player connected to the computer via coax/optical cable?

[kumakuma]

Kumakuma - I haven't tried ripping them yet. I'm waiting on the arrival of a new computer and wanted to find out about software/metadata solutions before it arrived. You make a good point about comparing the XRCD to ripped data. But it would still be helpful to have comparisons between WAV and FLAC. And I'm a PC guy. Isn't AIFF for Apple systems?

 

AIFF was originally developed by Apple but is supported by all music players I know.

 

Another option would be uncompressed FLAC. One possible reason why compressed FLAC files may sound different than an uncompressed format like WAV is the extra processing that the computer has to do to uncompress the file. Shouldn't be a problem on any modern computer but the only way to tell for sure is to listen for yourself.

[kumakuma]

Regarding the play back chain issue, do you think it would be better,worse or no differnt if, instead of the computer's internal cd/dvd drive, I used a high quality external cd player connected to the computer via coax/optical cable?

 

An external CDP should sound better than the internal drive for playback but I don't think you can use it to rip CDs.

[jocar37]

Another option would be uncompressed FLAC. One possible reason why compressed FLAC files may sound different than an uncompressed format like WAV is the extra processing that the computer has to do to uncompress the file. Shouldn't be a problem on any modern computer but the only way to tell for sure is to listen for yourself.

 

I didn't even know there was both compressed and uncompressed FLAC. The more I learn, the less I know. I'm curious if you know whether HDTracks used compressed or uncompressed FLAC.

[kumakuma]

I didn't even know there was both compressed and uncompressed FLAC. The more I learn, the less I know. I'm curious if you know whether HDTracks used compressed or uncompressed FLAC.

 

Last time I purchased from HDTracks, I downloaded in compressed FLAC to save time/bandwidth and then converted to AIFF before adding to my library. BTW, you can easily convert between any two lossless formats (compressed/uncompressed FLAC, AIFF, WAV, ALAC) with no loss in quality. I use XLD for this on my Mac. Not sure what the PC equivalent is.

[jocar37]

I may have my answer: dBpoweramp's FLAC Lossless Uncompressed | AudioStream

[kumakuma]

I may have my answer: dBpoweramp's FLAC Lossless Uncompressed | AudioStream

 

Looks like it would do the trick. The article also seems to contain solid information.

[Skeptic]

I'm also interested in ripping XRCDs. There is something about the sonic signature of a good XRCD that I like better than any other format I've listened to.

XRCD is a brand for a mastering process.

The end result is a standard 16-bit 44.1kHz Red Book Audio disc.

You rip them exactly the same way as any other regular CD.

The only CD-based format which requires additional steps when ripping are HDCDs.

 

I also understand that WAV and FLAC are both lossless forms, so theoretically there should be no difference. But theory and practice aren't the same.

Both in theory and in practice, uncompressed and lossless audio formats all produce identical results on playback.

FLAC is the preferred lossless codec for a number of reasons. (primarily; it is the most robust lossless format)

 

If you want to use an uncompressed format, there is always Uncompressed FLAC or AIFF which should support metadata, rather than WAV.

 

Uncompressed FLAC is a ridiculous format in my opinion. There is absolutely no reason to avoid FLAC's lossless compression which saves a minimum of 40% disk space when storing the file, or bandwidth if you stream it to networked devices.

 

If you absolutely insist, for whatever absurd reason, on using an uncompressed format; FLAC would still be my recommendation.

 

Regarding the play back chain issue, do you think it would be better,worse or no differnt if, instead of the computer's internal cd/dvd drive, I used a high quality external cd player connected to the computer via coax/optical cable?

Using a computer CD/DVD/BD drive to rip the disc will give you a 1:1 copy of what is on the disc if you use a secure ripping tool, such as dBpoweramp/EAC/XLD.

 

Recording the S/PDIF output from a CD player at 1x is a bad idea.

The best possible outcome would be that you end up with the same results as a secure ripping tool, while taking 20x as long.

In all likelihood you would not end up with a 1:1 copy of the disc.

 

The exception is that you may want to do this with HDCDs, as there is no software I am aware of which will decode the full HDCD featureset, and HDCD-capable DACs are rare these days.

 

An external CDP should sound better than the internal drive for playback but I don't think you can use it to rip CDs.

Only if you are comparing real-time playback.

If you rip the disc, the PC will be better every time.

The best possible outcome from a real-time player is to match the output of a secure rip.

[alfe]

Sorry again deleted

[jocar37]

If anyone else is interested in format comparisons, I just found this link: Free Compare Formats.