Ripping in .wav versus .flac

[Dat Ei]

Re: Ripping in .wav versus .flac

Yes, I compared two .wav files in real time and not in real time and of course, the one made in real time has slightly more details. This is based on what me and several friends hear in good speakers. I'll try with md5sum, thank you

I've asked you if you did a comparison of the digital content of the files, not an audio test. Ripping a CD is nothing more and nothing less than a digital read out of the data which is stored on the CD. As long as the data can be read without errors, it doesn't matter if you read out the data in real time or faster. So the files of a real time read out and a faster read out are identical bit for bit, as long as no read errors occur. dBpa takes care about the error messages produced by the drives, checks the results for multiple reads and compares the results with an online database.

Can you explain why the content of a music file should depend on the read out speed of a CD drive, while any other file type (i.e. a word file) does not?


Dat Ei

[garym]

Re: Ripping in .wav versus .flac

I've asked you if you did a comparison of the digital content of the files, not an audio test. Ripping a CD is nothing more and nothing less than a digital read out of the data which is stored on the CD. As long as the data can be read without errors, it doesn't matter if you read out the data in real time or faster. So the files of a real time read out and a faster read out are identical bit for bit, as long as no read errors occur. dBpa takes care about the error messages produced by the drives, checks the results for multiple reads and compares the results with an online database.

Can you explain why the content of a music file should depend on the read out speed of a CD drive, while any other file type (i.e. a word file) does not?


Dat Ei

And with many drives it seems that FASTER reading/ripping actually produces less errors that slow reading of the same CD. Spoon has mentioned this before too when people ask about throttling the speed of the ripper because of some incorrect notion that slower ripping speeds will lead to better rips.

[Jailhouse]

Re: Ripping in .wav versus .flac

[T]he author's last statement regarding the notion that a lossless file can still have some "glare" etc. as compared to the original CD is complete nonsense.

I've been reading the author's posts for a few years, and it's clear that he has a pronounced bias for analog sources, i.e., vinyl. Anything he says regarding digital sound needs to be taken with a grain of salt and subsequently ignored.

[Juicebox]

Re: Ripping in .wav versus .flac

Here’s another post of somebody else even claiming that wav sound better than flac https://serato.com/forum/discussion/1541194
i have no problem with how flac sound so it really isn’t much of a big deal to me but it has to be a reason why few people are claiming to hear a difference between lossless and uncompressed
myself including but it could just all be an imaginary hearing lol

[Johnisis]

Re: Ripping in .wav versus .flac

Did you get AccurateRips for both the flac and wav rips? Do the flac and wav files contain any ReplayGain tags?

Yes, I got AccurateRips for both .wav and .flac files. I didn't check these ReplyGain tags.

[Johnisis]

Re: Ripping in .wav versus .flac

I've asked you if you did a comparison of the digital content of the files, not an audio test. Ripping a CD is nothing more and nothing less than a digital read out of the data which is stored on the CD. As long as the data can be read without errors, it doesn't matter if you read out the data in real time or faster. So the files of a real time read out and a faster read out are identical bit for bit, as long as no read errors occur. dBpa takes care about the error messages produced by the drives, checks the results for multiple reads and compares the results with an online database.

Can you explain why the content of a music file should depend on the read out speed of a CD drive, while any other file type (i.e. a word file) does not?


Dat Ei

OK, I will do a test again using maximum speed and the lowest I got, which is 4x in my case. Perhaps my assumption of having a higher quality by ripping at a lower speed it's influenced by my past experiences of burning CDs. Then, there was a real difference between using different speeds.

[Johnisis]

Re: Ripping in .wav versus .flac

You didn't answer my earlier question:
How are you comparing the flac and wav files, what hardware/software are you using when comparing?

I used the same hardware and software to rip .wav and .flac files then, I listened to both files from the same computer->DAC->amp->speakers

[mville]

Re: Ripping in .wav versus .flac

OK, I will do a test again using maximum speed and the lowest I got, which is 4x in my case. Perhaps my assumption of having a higher quality by ripping at a lower speed it's influenced by my past experiences of burning CDs. Then, there was a real difference between using different speeds.

You are mistaken. The reading and writing of digital audio files to hard disk or optical disk has absolutely no influence on the audio quality.

[mville]

Re: Ripping in .wav versus .flac

I used the same hardware and software to rip .wav and .flac files then, I listened to both files from the same computer->DAC->amp->speakers

Which computer platform/OS and which player software?

[Oggy]

Re: Ripping in .wav versus .flac

OK, I will do a test again using maximum speed and the lowest I got, which is 4x in my case. Perhaps my assumption of having a higher quality by ripping at a lower speed it's influenced by my past experiences of burning CDs. Then, there was a real difference between using different speeds.

Yes, in the early days of disc burning, you could create many a coaster burning CDs too fast.

Here we are talking, digital audio extraction. Set the speed to maximum, and the CD drive (with the aid of some rather clever software!) will slow down automatically, if it needs to. A confirmed AccurateRip, has every last frame, bit perfect. You can rip as slow as you want, but the end result will be the same.

Spoon actually recommends ripping at maximum speed. There would be no reason to suggest this if results don't back it up: there is no better result than an AccurateRip!