Ripping in .wav versus .flac

[Johnisis]

I was reading what Forum members say about ripping .flac at different levels of compression and decided to rip few tracks that I usually use when I make little changes on my system like, different cables, diffusers etc. Then, I listened to the same tracks ripped in .wav format. I think that the .wav still have more life, more 3D and slightly more details as well. The difference is small but audible on sensitive speakers. I wanted to share this.

In ripping in .wav I still have to find that mysterious setting that allowed me to do a ripping in real time as opposed to 15-20 minutes which is the usual time of ripping ia CD in my case. After ripping in real-time, the quality was even better. One day I hope I will find out how it happened.

[Dat Ei]

Re: Ripping in .wav versus .flac

Have you ever compared the two different wav files (real time vs. non real time ripping) bit by bit with classic os tools or md5sum?


Dat Ei

[mville]

Re: Ripping in .wav versus .flac

I was reading what Forum members say about ripping .flac at different levels of compression and decided to rip few tracks that I usually use when I make little changes on my system like, different cables, diffusers etc. Then, I listened to the same tracks ripped in .wav format. I think that the .wav still have more life, more 3D and slightly more details as well. The difference is small but audible on sensitive speakers. I wanted to share this.

More details please.

Did you rip the flac and wav files from the same CD, using the same software, with the same settings i.e. same DSPs etc?

How are you comparing the flac and wav files, what hardware/software are you using when comparing?

In ripping in .wav I still have to find that mysterious setting that allowed me to do a ripping in real time as opposed to 15-20 minutes which is the usual time of ripping ia CD in my case. After ripping in real-time, the quality was even better. One day I hope I will find out how it happened.

There is no rip in real time setting. Also, CDs without errors, should rip faster than 15-20 minutes, so you have something not setup correctly.

[Johnisis]

Re: Ripping in .wav versus .flac

More details please.

Did you rip the flac and wav files from the same CD, using the same software, with the same settings i.e. same DSPs etc?

How are you comparing the flac and wav files, what hardware/software are you using when comparing?



Johnisis: Yes, I ripped the same tracks from the same CD of course. Also, with dBpoweramp with the same CD-ROM and with the same settings



There is no rip in real time setting. Also, CDs without errors, should rip faster than 15-20 minutes, so you have something not setup correctly.

Few times I ripped CDs that took real time or at least, close to real time but still don't understand how that happened. The reason the ripping it takes more than 15-20 with is that I use a CD-ROM that uses a low speed like 4x. It does make a difference as opposed to higher speeds. Otherwise, I use the settings recommended here

[Johnisis]

Re: Ripping in .wav versus .flac

Have you ever compared the two different wav files (real time vs. non real time ripping) bit by bit with classic os tools or md5sum?


Dat Ei


Johnisis: Yes, I compared two different .wav files and of course, the ones ripped in real time have more details but didn't compare with the tools you suggested. This is what I and several friends hear in good speakers. I will try md5sum. Thank you

[Johnisis]

Re: Ripping in .wav versus .flac

Have you ever compared the two different wav files (real time vs. non real time ripping) bit by bit with classic os tools or md5sum?


Dat Ei

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

[mville]

Re: Ripping in .wav versus .flac

Yes, I ripped the same tracks from the same CD of course. Also, with dBpoweramp with the same CD-ROM and with the same settings

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

[mville]

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?

[Juicebox]

Re: Ripping in .wav versus .flac

Lossless sound good but compare to uncompressed pcm
the quality is a lil bit dull so uncompressed is more superior
unless in the near future lossless quality improved!

[garym]

Re: Ripping in .wav versus .flac

Lossless sound good but compare to uncompressed pcm
the quality is a lil bit dull so uncompressed is more superior
unless in the near future lossless quality improved!

I assume you must not realize that both the decoded lossless file and the uncompressed pcm file are presented to the DAC as the exact same data. What sort of tests have you done to test the differences you hear? (Single-blind, double-blind, ABX, etc.) If there is a problem with your software or hardware in decoding a lossless file, the problem won't present itself as subtle differences in sound quality. Rather, there will be pops, clicks, dropouts, etc.

Another test one can perform is to record the output from the DAC from the different filetypes and then compare with audio diffmaker.

http://libinst.com/Audio%20DiffMaker.htm

[mville]

Re: Ripping in .wav versus .flac

Lossless sound good but compare to uncompressed pcm
the quality is a lil bit dull so uncompressed is more superior
unless in the near future lossless quality improved!

garym is correct in that the lossless and uncompressed pcm digital audio, when decoded is identical.

So, please provide some evidence or more info to backup your statement the quality is a lil bit dull so uncompressed is more superior.

[Juicebox]

Re: Ripping in .wav versus .flac

garym is correct in that the lossless and uncompressed pcm digital audio, when decoded is identical.

So, please provide some evidence or more info to backup your statement the quality is a lil bit dull so uncompressed is more superior.

Take a look at this article https://www.cnet.com/news/does-lossl...ee-good-sound/

[Jailhouse]

Re: Ripping in .wav versus .flac

The article doesn't concern itself at all with the matter being discussed here.

[garym]

Re: Ripping in .wav versus .flac

Take a look at this article https://www.cnet.com/news/does-lossl...ee-good-sound/

I agree with the point that a good quality mp3 can sound identical to a lossless file/CD. This has been extensively tested. See, for example, an excellent example of quality work using good methods:

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2013/02/high-bitrate-mp3-internet-blind-test.html

But the 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. The DAC doesn't "know" that the zeros and ones are being fed to it from a CD versus some other source. So long as the data stream is bit perfect back to the original, the DAC will handle it in the same way. If there's a problem in the playback chain, it will NOT be represented with subtle sound changes like "glare" (whatever that is....another meaningless audiophool term I suspect). This reminds me of a series of articles in "The Absolute Sound" a few years ago that said that a lossless file would sound different if the file was created on different operating systems, even though the different files were exact duplicates and even though played back through the exact playback chain. Wow, just wow. Of course there was no scientific test of such a bizarre statement. The lack of understanding displayed on the internet and in certain "audiophile" publications of the science and technology underlying digital music reproduction is embarrassing.

[mville]

Re: Ripping in .wav versus .flac

Take a look at this article https://www.cnet.com/news/does-lossl...ee-good-sound/

Good grief.

Please don't be taken in by this rubbish (last prargraph flac/alac vs wav/CD)