Saving CDs on PC

VintageNut

Super Member
Hey guys. When ripping an original CD onto my PC, is there any advantage to saving it as a WAV file versus mp3, or the many other choices that windows media player and realplayer allow? Like if I save it as a MP3, and then later born a copy, will that copy be worse than if I had saved the CD originally as a WAV file?
Thanks
 
The advantage to saving it in WAV format is that it is a virtual clone of the data on the CD. That means it is uncompressed. MP3 is lossy. RealPlayer is lossy. Windows Media Player LOSSLESS format has no loss, but regular WMA format loses data. The disadvantage that WAV files has is that they're huge, roughly 10 MB per minute of data.

Tom
 
That's what I was thinking, best to use WAV format if space is not a problem. I have close to 500 GB of total hard drive available. Good thing space is cheap these days. I have been using real player to rip, with my default settings of WAV as the format to save as.
 
lossless

To save a little space you can convert the wavs to flac or shorten. They are both a form of lossless compression (kind of like a zip file). File size won't be as small as an mp3, but it will be smaller than just leaving it a wave.

shorten

flac

Make sure you get a player also.
 
VintageNut said:
That's what I was thinking, best to use WAV format if space is not a problem. I have close to 500 GB of total hard drive available. Good thing space is cheap these days. I have been using real player to rip, with my default settings of WAV as the format to save as.
if you record it at 196 kb/s in mp3, your not going to notice a difference in sound quality compared to a WAV, and it will be considerably smaller.
 
Oldkardon...don't be so sure about that! There are a lot of folks who would debate that point with you.

Use of a compressed format almost always means you are losing some of the original information... and the differences can be detected.

There are a few lossless compression algorithms that avoid this problem, but the degree of compression achieved is much less as a result.

If one is concerned about not losing ANY of the original information content, then compressed mp3 would not be an acceptable format.

Use of compression is always a compromise!

Note that I'm not putting down mp3's... it is very useful and convenient format for many applications... but it is not suitable for high quality archival of original CD audio data.
 
Last edited:
True. MP3's at any bit rate will still sound less like the CD - it's plain mathematics. But a lot of people either don't care about the difference or they can't hear the difference due to other reasons (hard of hearing, use the music in noisy enviroments, etc). WAV files are CD clones, but they are huge!! FLAC files are bigger than mp3's, but smaller than WAV's and have "almost" the same sound as CD's. I say almost because I happen to be one of the people who can hear a difference - albeit a very small difference with FLAC. I hear it in the "air" and "quality" to the music. Oh well, whatever. FLAC is still the best sounding format to use when you store your music onto your computer. I have my music mostly in mp3 format @ 320 kps simply because it's the most widely accepted format around - ANY music program, streamer, media server, etc will recognize mp3's, not many will recognize FLAC files.
 
Jimmy,

Bet you $1 you can't tell the difference in a FLAC file versus a WAV file in a blind ABX comparison.

John
 
Been there, done that. Where's my $1?

Let me say that I do not believe in blind A/B/X tests. Yeah, go ahead and say "See, that's because you're scared to try it". Actually, I like to "feel" the music as much as "hear" it. I feel nothing when listening to FLAC, mp3, WAV, etc. But drop in a good CD or record and play it thru my system and I get goosebumps. Have you ever got any goosebumps listening to a file? I didn't think so.

But then again, that's just me. My opinion is not for the masses, it's simply mine. :thmbsp:
 
Last edited:
No $1... sorry you must complete the test for it. If you really are hearing a difference in a FLAC versus a wav file, it is your hardware, not the FLAC file.

I have goosebumps right now listening to Wire's Pink Flag. It is in FLAC. Sounds perfect to me :)

John
 
No $1... sorry you must complete the test for it. If you really are hearing a difference in a FLAC versus a wav file, it is your hardware, not the FLAC file.
That is probably the cause. I have read that Winamp and some other programs have a hard time playing Flac. I have also read that Foobar2000 gets it right. I use Phatnoise Media Manager and it sounds great to me.

In my experience, the music is what gives me the chills not the format it comes in...unless it is vinyl. :smoke:

Let me say that I do not believe in blind A/B/X tests.
I don't either. Every time I take a A/B/X test I fail. However, when I know what is playing, I can definitely hear a difference! :naughty: :thmbsp:
 
Good for you John. If I had a dollar for every test I won that somebody made me take to prove to them that nothing sounds as good as an original I'd have me a complete McIntosh set! :D That's a lot of dollars and even more people proved wrong. Bottom line is if all these forms of lossless compression were so good, they would be the holy grail of audio storage, yet no major manufacturer or studio wants to have anything to do with them - unless it's for downloading music over the internet! Pure audio is still pure audio - and nothing beats vinyl for "quality and air" in playback. CD would be next, but it too leaves a lot to be desired, as proven by the constant upgrades like hardware and software - CD to SACD/DVD-Audio.

No major manufacture takes compression serious - unless they gear it towards the ipod masses. When Electra and Atlantic, and Virgin start releasing FLAC music CD's, then I'll be convinced it's a viable format and I will eat my own stinky leather sandal!! :yuck:
 
Last edited:
yet no major manufacturer or studio wants to have anything to do with them - unless it's for downloading music over the internet!
What is your point? Every major studio is tied into one of the service providers to provide the masses with compressed music. That would indicate that they are taking it seriously.

In other words, you contradicted your own statement.

Apple and Microsoft have both developed lossless compressed formats for their customers. They apparently want something to do with them!
 
When Electra and Atlantic, and Virgin start releasing FLAC music CD's, then I'll be convinced it's a viable format and I will eat my own stinky leather sandal!!
The reason they don't release CDs in FLAC format is because our CD players will not have the ability to play that format. We would have to burn them to our computers first and then burn them back to a CD for our CD players to play them. Not really a winning proposal.
 
Flac

i'd use Flac if i didnt already use apple lossless. everything i've heard about FLAC has been good and heard a local DJ playing flac formatted music and it sounded just fine to me. its free too, isnt it?
:thmbsp:
 
uofmtiger said:
What is your point? Every major studio is tied into one of the service providers to provide the masses with compressed music. That would indicate that they are taking it seriously.

In other words, you contradicted your own statement.

Apple and Microsoft have both developed lossless compressed formats for their customers. They apparently want something to do with them!


I meant component manufacturer and record company, ie Denon, McIntosh, Pioneer, etc producing FLAC players and record companies dropping the bloated CD format for FLAC discs. That ain't gonna happen. Compressed is compressed. Even FLAC lossless uses some form of altering the original bits of the music for a different, albeit smaller version. In my opinion, you mess with the originality of the music and you comprimise the quality. That's what ANY computer media does so far to music - it compromises the originality of it.

Hey, you like FLAC, so do I. I just don't call it the originals original!
 
dbwinger said:
FLAC = free lossless audio codec.


It's a conversion. Any conversion of the music = not original music. :no:

Hey man, I don't write and distribute these "free lossless audio codecs", I just listen to them. And I don't like what I hear. You like them - good for you. But I'm not going to say that they sound EXACTLY like the original source. :no: We all hear different and I, like many other people, can hear the difference in these formats. Does that make them bad? No. Does it make me bad? No. Does it make you bad for not hearing a difference? No. Frankly I don't care what you can and can't hear. But compression/conversion will NEVER replace the source. :thumbsdn:
 
Back
Top Bottom