Optimal Settings for Ripping CD

[ttan98]

Hi,

I am trialing the DbPoweramp for ripping my CDs collections. All my Cds(>100) are still in their boxes and I have not ripped them as yet because I have not decided which is the best technique(flac, wav etc) to rip them. Over the past few years I ripped some CDs to Wav outputs because I want to retain most if not all the info from the original CDs. I think now is the time to rip them to Flac. I think this question has been answered before, those who has expertise can direct me to threads on this forum.
My queries are mainly on this questions:

1. Optimal settings on Flac e.g. setting at 6 or greater
2. Metadata that can be extracted and displayed
3. Any particular way for setting the Dbpoweramp so that I maximise audio data extraction from my CDrom.
etc.

Any other factors which I should be looking out for before I commence ripping my CDs, I like to perform this task once and not to go back repeating it if I found output to be less than satisfactory.

Many thanks for your help.

[Oubadah]

Re: Optimal Settings for Ripping CD

Hi,

I am trialing the DbPoweramp for ripping my CDs collections. All my Cds(>100) are still in their boxes and I have not ripped them as yet because I have not decided which is the best technique(flac, wav etc) to rip them. Over the past few years I ripped some CDs to Wav outputs because I want to retain most if not all the info from the original CDs. I think now is the time to rip them to Flac. I think this question has been answered before, those who has expertise can direct me to threads on this forum.
My queries are mainly on this questions:

1. Optimal settings on Flac e.g. setting at 6 or greater
2. Metadata that can be extracted and displayed
3. Any particular way for setting the Dbpoweramp so that I maximise audio data extraction from my CDrom.
etc.

Any other factors which I should be looking out for before I commence ripping my CDs, I like to perform this task once and not to go back repeating it if I found output to be less than satisfactory.

Many thanks for your help.

flac retains exactly the same amount of data as wav, it's just compressed in a lossless way. Like when you put stuff in a zip file; the zip file is smaller than the original data, but when you extract it none of the data is missing. There's no point using wav unless you have some ancient playback device that doesn't support any other lossless formats. You'd only be wasting space using wav.

Flac levels 0-8 only mean compression level, the levels have nothing to do with sound quality. A level 0 flac is identical in quality to a level 8 flac, the 8 just takes longer to encode and is marginally smaller. In reality, the time difference between encoding level 8 and 0 flac is utterly negligible, so it seems like there's no reason not to use 8 and to get slightly smaller files. However, I personally used 0 because I read somewhere that some low power playback devices might struggle to decode high level flac files. Just as level 8 flac takes more effort to encode, it also takes more effort to decode. The encode doesn't matter, because we're all using powerful PCs for that, but the decode might. These days I doubt many people are still using the types of devices that would struggle, but since the size difference between 0 and 8 is so small, I used 0 just to be safe.

Metadata isn't extracted, it gets downloaded from the internet. You have to double check it before you rip each album, because it's often wrong and needs some manual editing.

If you're ripping to a lossless format like flac, "audio data extraction" is "maximised". Every bit of data in the tracks is being copied from the CD, unless there is an error from damage etc. and AccurateRip will let you know if that happens.

[mville]

Re: Optimal Settings for Ripping CD

Any other factors which I should be looking out for before I commence ripping my CDs, I like to perform this task once and not to go back repeating it if I found output to be less than satisfactory.

These factors will depend on what you plan to do with your audio library, which has not been mentioned in this thread.

I suggest you concentrate on ripping (and re-ripping) 4 or 5 CDs (include a various artist album, a multi-disk album and a classical album) until you are happy with the file/folder structure created, the metadata tags and your playback setup. Once you are happy, go ahead and rip your entire collection.

[Oubadah]

Re: Optimal Settings for Ripping CD

These factors will depend on what you plan to do with your audio library, which has not been mentioned in this thread.

I suggest you concentrate on ripping (and re-ripping) 4 or 5 CDs (include a various artist album, a multi-disk album and a classical album) until you are happy with the file/folder structure created, the metadata tags and your playback setup. Once you are happy, go ahead and rip your entire collection.

That's definitely a good idea. Deciding on a tagging convention is a nightmare, and no matter how many trial runs you do, you'll probably still end up making some edits later. It's impossible to predict how some playback software will behave. For example, why does Microsoft's Groove app ignore the disk number tag? It orders tracks from a two disk album like 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3... instead of 1, 2, 3... 1, 2, 3... It seems like the only way to stop this is to have the separate album tags for each disk ("Album Name (CD 1)" and "Album Name (CD 2)" instead of "Album Name" for all).

[Jailhouse]

Re: Optimal Settings for Ripping CD

I personally used [FLAC level] 0 because I read somewhere that some low power playback devices might struggle to decode high level flac files. Just as level 8 flac takes more effort to encode, it also takes more effort to decode.

That's not the case. All the extra effort happens during encoding; the result is a standard FLAC file in any event, and decoding takes the same effort whether a file is encoded with level 0, level 8, or anything in between.

[Oubadah]

Re: Optimal Settings for Ripping CD

That's not the case. All the extra effort happens during encoding; the result is a standard FLAC file in any event, and decoding takes the same effort whether a file is encoded with level 0, level 8, or anything in between.

That doesn't make much intuitive sense to me, but it looks like you're absolutely correct. I'd read that misinformation on multiple occasions. I guess that makes level 8 a no-brainer for CD ripping.

[Jailhouse]

Re: Optimal Settings for Ripping CD

Ripping to FLAC level 8 does take longer--it takes a lot to squeeze out those extra bits--and could be an issue when using older, slower and/or rickety computers. For what it's worth, I rip to level 6 FLAC as a nice compromise between rip time and file size. When I replace my nine-year-old PC, I'll see how the new machine handles level 8.

[Oubadah]

Re: Optimal Settings for Ripping CD

Ripping to FLAC level 8 does take longer--it takes a lot to squeeze out those extra bits--and could be an issue when using older, slower and/or rickety computers. For what it's worth, I rip to level 6 FLAC as a nice compromise between rip time and file size. When I replace my nine-year-old PC, I'll see how the new machine handles level 8.

On a 6700K, encoding a single album from wav takes 3 seconds for level 8 flac and 1.5 seconds for level 0, so definitely looks like a non-issue for modern machines. Even on old machines, I found that the actual reading of the disk was such a bottleneck that the encoding could usually keep pace.

[Michael Sargent]

Re: Optimal Settings for Ripping CD

That doesn't make much intuitive sense to me, but it looks like you're absolutely correct. I'd read that misinformation on multiple occasions. I guess that makes level 8 a no-brainer for CD ripping.

And with higher compression, you use less "disk" space, which means less I/O during playback (and "disk" I/O is one of the slowest things happening in a modern computer). Less I/O can only help you (yet, I never see anyone mentioning this).

Mike

[Jailhouse]

Re: Optimal Settings for Ripping CD

On a 6700K, encoding a single album from wav takes 3 seconds for level 8 flac and 1.5 seconds for level 0, so definitely looks like a non-issue for modern machines. Even on old machines, I found that the actual reading of the disk was such a bottleneck that the encoding could usually keep pace.

This thread is about ripping from CDs as opposed to transcoding from files stored on hard drives or SSDs. The only real worry in the latter scenario is getting the tags right.

The optical drive is indeed the main determiner of how long it takes to rip CDs. But there are still some very old PCs out there that might take longer to process a level 8 rip than their users would find tolerable.

[Jailhouse]

Re: Optimal Settings for Ripping CD

And with higher compression, you use less "disk" space, which means less I/O during playback (and "disk" I/O is one of the slowest things happening in a modern computer). Less I/O can only help you (yet, I never see anyone mentioning this).

Music playback isn't demanding enough to be an issue unless one is running other software with really intensive disk access.

[ttan98]

Re: Optimal Settings for Ripping CD

Hi,

Many thanks who take the time to comments, I will read all these comments in detail and come back if I have further questions.