Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Considering re-ripping to flac; been using 320kbps mp3 (Read 7895 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Considering re-ripping to flac; been using 320kbps mp3

I've pulled up and read quite a bit from your site over the years, so I'll start off with a "thank you"!

With help from your guides I was able to set up EAC and LAME and turn a (then) 900+ CD collection to 320kb MP3s. This allowed me to reclaim a whole heck of a lot of wall space!

Time marches on and finally Creative and Android 2.2 open up the possibility that I can move to FLAC. Hence, my return to digging through your site.

I've come away less confident this time, however. The FLAC sites seem outdated; quite a number of "how-to"s that I've googled are outdated as well. The whole issue of CUE sheets has me baffled, and I'm looking at AutoFLAC vs MAREO to fix it.

So here are my questions that I just can't seem to pull out of aether to my satisfaction.

FLAC is still the go-to codec, right?

Do I care about CUE sheets enough that I need a front end to get past the .flac.flac problem with EAC? Part of the joy of having the music is owning the original format. If my garage burned down (with all the CDs), I don't know that I'd want to recreate the original. Is this the only thing that CUE sheets are important for - the recreation of the original disk?

Lastly - since I did rip at 320, is it worth it to re-rip in FLAC?

I do notice the difference between 192 and 320 on my home system - not so much once I go portable as then it needs to be a song I know _very_ well. I should also say my home system is by no means audiophile'ish; I'm running Creative's PCI, external box, card and I listen with wireless cans - so I'm not at the high end by a long shot. I seem to just be sensitive to the "missing" parts of sounds. I ripped late; couldn't abide the difference between an high quality mp3 and my denon cd player until Creative came out with the crystallizer. Then I said - well, still a problem for a portion of my cd's - but over all okay. I'd still love the sound of the memory of what listening to the CD directly was.. so if FLAC can get me there, I'll happily recode the whole thing. I've lost track of the CD count - it's 215GB of music, not too bad.

T.I.A.

Considering re-ripping to flac; been using 320kbps mp3

Reply #1 –
If it were me, I would start reripping to flac a few CDs at a time, whenever I had a little spare time. It might take some time to do all of them, but in the end you would have ripped them for the last time, since from flac you can convert losslessly to any future format.

Considering re-ripping to flac; been using 320kbps mp3

Reply #2 –
Quote
I do notice the difference between 192 and 320 on my home system
In a double-blind test, as per ToS#8, I trust?
Besides, the general recommendation is to compare lossy encodes to their source, not to each other.

Quote
I seem to just be sensitive to the "missing" parts of sounds.
If this can be proven in such tests, you might become an asset to future listening tests here on HA.

Quote
I ripped late; couldn't abide the difference between an high quality mp3 and my denon cd player
Do you mean you couldn't stand the former? If so, see above.

Quote
until Creative came out with the crystallizer.
I recently purchased a Creative portable, but that fact doesn't preclude me from being almost certain that the Crystalliser's (and other X-Fi) 'intelligent restoration' technology is nonsense, nothing more than a renamed multi-band EQ and compressor / very annoying marketing gimmick.

Quote
Then I said - well, still a problem for a portion of my cd's - but over all okay. I'd still love the sound of the memory of what listening to the CD directly was.. so if FLAC can get me there, I'll happily recode the whole thing.
FLAC is lossless, so of course the audio data therein will be exactly the same as on the source CD (assuming accurate extraction). Couple this with perceptually equivalent equipment and you'll have the 'feeling' you're after, assuming the placebo effect doesn't distort the reality for you--as it may have done if you have not conducted double-blind tests to obtain evidence for assertions such as the above.

Considering re-ripping to flac; been using 320kbps mp3

Reply #3 –
Quote from: pdq on
If it were me, I would start reripping to flac a few CDs at a time, whenever I had a little spare time. It might take some time to do all of them, but in the end you would have ripped them for the last time, since from flac you can convert losslessly to any future format.



Oh yes! The first time around was a frenetic push to get it all in the box. This time around it's more like a refinement.

But I'm not even there yet. I'm still dithering about my choices; so if someone knowledgeable could vet my direction, I'd sleep easier. The questions I posted have me in "deer-in-headlights" mode. :P

Considering re-ripping to flac; been using 320kbps mp3

Reply #4 –
dv1989 -

Yeah. This is why I hesitated to post here. I'm far from an audiophile.

The point of my last paragraph in my original post was to give the reader an idea of my perceptions of the listening experience since my last question is subjective. Not to state absolutes.

I don't know if my sensitivity can be proven. I was told about it from a sound engineer that was torturing me with recording samples. The ones I hated all had the tops cut off or muted channels or something like that. It literally hurt my ears; I'd rip the headset off my head. He narrowed it down to a sensitivity to missing parts. To be honest it was decades ago with reel-to-reel and I didn't really understand what he was saying.

I'm sure you're correct and the Crystallizer/X-fi is just what you say it is - but I remember all the cardboard cut outs for my EQ player for songs and fiddling with the sliders to the point that it was totally fu-bared and returning to norm and then everything sounds flat.. I'm thrilled that Creative put out a product that gets it right for me most of the time. Prior to that, mp3s sounded horrid in comparison. (Cd system: midrange amp, denon cd changer, koss cordless Computer: Audigy card, EAC 320 rip, same cans)

I took into account that the mind gets used to things - that's why even though it did not sound as clear to me (after adding the X-fi card), it was close enough and I desperately needed the space. I knew that after 6 months of listening to the mp3s, I'd begin to perceive it as normal. I still have a problem in listening to new CDs in the car - always reminds me what I'm missing, but other than that I'm happy.

I can't afford to listen to CDs. In one night of listening I will tap, on average, 91 CDds. That's my smallest playlist. (not the full cd, but tracks from) I want to not hear a difference. I want to be computerized. I love gadgets, and CDs along with my vinyl are so yesterday. (j/k)

However, your words have caused me to focus down a bit more and so my added question is this: Can a computer rig with a PCI Creative SB X-fi mimic my old mid-range system? I can't answer that literally, I no longer have the system or the original cans. So best guess. Which is why I came here. I was betting that your best-guess would pan out against my hey-I-think-this.

If I understand what you're trying to get at - once I've encoded to lossless, then it will boil down to system reproduction. Correct?

Considering re-ripping to flac; been using 320kbps mp3

Reply #5 –
Quote
If I understand what you're trying to get at - once I've encoded to lossless, then it will boil down to system reproduction. Correct?
Perhaps. More so that unless you have conducted double-blind tests and verified the differences that you report, you cannot be sure that they actually existed. If you know which source you are listening to, your perceptions may be clouded by the placebo effect, expectation bias, etc. I'm not saying you're lying, but we can do nothing with subjective reports (which Tos#8 proscribes).

Considering re-ripping to flac; been using 320kbps mp3

Reply #6 –
dv1989 -

I don't think you're implying that I'm lying.  I understand expectation bias.

Can you answer my question about CUE sheets? That would at least allow me to configure my system and rip a track to FLAC and have that "OMG this is great" or "NUTS there's no difference" moment.

Considering re-ripping to flac; been using 320kbps mp3

Reply #7 –
I don't know what you mean by the "flac.flac problem" (I vaguely recall something along those lines, but memory doesn't serve), but: Cue sheets are only absolutely necessary if you want to preserve extra information from the CD* such as non-01 INDEXes, per-track ISRC codes, the disc's CATALOG number, etc. They don't affect the audio, so if you aren't worried about such extra information and would prefer to rip to single FLAC tracks, that would be fine; most other metadata can be stored therein, as you know from MP3.


* Even a cue sheet can't guarantee a totally accurate copy of an entire CD (not just the audio), since one must worry about subchannel data, which is usually reconstructed from the table of contents and audio, but which just might be different in certain cases. For those who (edit: for some reason ) want to preserve every single bit of a CD, it's a minefield out there!

Considering re-ripping to flac; been using 320kbps mp3

Reply #8 –
Perfect! I'll rip just like mp3, just use FLAC instead. I'll post back with my totally subjective reaction later!! Stay tuned for the fascinating results from a stranger! <laughs>

Thank you again!

Considering re-ripping to flac; been using 320kbps mp3

Reply #9 –
Quote from: dv1989 on
since one must worry about subchannel data, which is usually reconstructed from the table of contents and audio
Sub-channel data is found in the data stream, not in the TOC.  Beyond what can be stored in a CUE sheet, one needs to take offsets into account in order to make the most identical copy.

Quote from: forthright on
I'll post back with my totally subjective reaction later!!
We do not want subjective reactions about sound quality as expressly stated in our Terms of Service!  Please read it and then come back and give us a topic title that is compliant with #6 ("Quick rundown?" is not).

About the .flac.flac problem, it was when creating compressed single-file images with an extension that was not three characters with older versions of EAC.  If you are creating single-file images you will need a CUE sheet in order to know the locations where  the image is divided into tracks.

Considering re-ripping to flac; been using 320kbps mp3

Reply #10 –
I meant subchannel data is usually generated from the ToC aka CD layout (indices, ISRC, CD-Text, etc.) Having checked I concede it doesn't hold audio checksums as I implied.

Considering re-ripping to flac; been using 320kbps mp3

Reply #12 –
Argh. I should've specified that. I meant (correct me if I'm [still] wrong) subcode data is usually not ripped, but reconstructed from data stored elsewhere (e.g. cue sheet)...but I explained that badly by referring (probably erroneously with the possible exception of the Q subchannel) to the ToC. Apologies for any error and confusion that this has caused.

Considering re-ripping to flac; been using 320kbps mp3

Reply #13 –
The CUE sheet contains information found in either the disc's TOC or in the disc's sub-code (sub-channel, if you will).  Some information may be written to either place and in these instances EAC only pulls it from the TOC (specifically pre-emplasis and CD-TEXT, if I am remembering correctly).  An example of data that is not in the TOC is non-01 index information which is only found in the sub-code.

Note that I am writing this from the perspective of what is on a factory-pressed CD rather than data kept in a CUE sheet that is burned to CD-R/RW as appears to be your perspective (though this really should not matter, other than to illustrate some of the things can can cause a burned copy to differ from a factory-pressed CD).

Considering re-ripping to flac; been using 320kbps mp3

Reply #14 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: forthright on
I'll post back with my totally subjective reaction later!!
We do not want subjective reactions about sound quality as expressly stated in our Terms of Service!  Please read it and then come back and give us a topic title that is compliant with #6 ("Quick rundown?" is not).


My apologies. It was just a joke, as I don't think anyone cares if I like FLAC or not, since I just joined the forum. I'll keep my demeanor much more serious from now on. (no sarcasm. no joke)

I did read your TOS. I just wanted a quick rundown on FLAC, and made the mistake of asking a subjective question at the end of my post. I'll be redoing 215Gb of music, so I'm nervous and looking to those more experienced in the field for reassurance. If I edit it to read Quick rundown on FLAC, would that be acceptable?

Quote from: greynol on
About the .flac.flac problem, it was when creating compressed single-file images with an extension that was not three characters with older versions of EAC.  If you are creating single-file images you will need a CUE sheet in order to know the locations where  the image is divided into tracks.


Ah. Thank you. This clears up my confusion about CUE sheets. Your "EAC and FLAC" article is why I am here. It explained the problem, but does not reflect that this is no longer an issue. Which is normative as I pulled many EAC + FLAC articles from various sources that have not been updated in quite a bit.

That led to my hesitancy in proceeding, and then to here as this site has some of the clearest guides for the clueless.

Anyway, let me know if the title edit is acceptable and I'll keep my posts in the future to direct interface questions. Thank you again.


Considering re-ripping to flac; been using 320kbps mp3

Reply #15 –
Quote from: forthright on
It was just a joke, as I don't think anyone cares if I like FLAC or not, since I just joined the forum. I'll keep my demeanor much more serious from now on. (no sarcasm. no joke)

Well it looks like I'm the one who owes you an apology, so please accept my apology for taking you seriously.

Quote from: forthright on
If I edit it to read Quick rundown on FLAC, would that be acceptable?

It seems a bit vague and would make someone wonder why it wasn't posted to the dedicated flac forum instead of to General Audio forum.  I'll see what I can do about the title, so don't worry about it.

Quote from: forthright on
Your "EAC and FLAC" article is why I am here. It explained the problem, but does not reflect that this is no longer an issue. Which is normative as I pulled many EAC + FLAC articles from various sources that have not been updated in quite a bit.

I'll see what I can do about that.

Quote from: forthright on
this site has some of the clearest guides for the clueless.

Thanks, that's nice to hear!

Considering re-ripping to flac; been using 320kbps mp3

Reply #16 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: forthright on
If I edit it to read Quick rundown on FLAC, would that be acceptable?

It seems a bit vague and would make someone wonder why it wasn't posted to the dedicated flac forum instead of to General Audio forum.  I'll see what I can do about the title, so don't worry about it.


A little off topic, but upon closer inspection, I can answer that.

When you select the General Audio forum the guide/shortcuts at the top say: "Hydrogenaudio Forums > Hydrogenaudio Forum > General Audio"

I must have left the page there. When I went to post, I clicked on the second option: "Hydrogenaudio Forum". That took me to a page that does not display the other forums. The banner reads: "Hydrogenaudio Forum Subforums" Not seeing any sub-forums that fit other than General, I clicked back into General and posted.

Took me a while to figure it out. I only see your full forum listing if I click on the first "Hydrogenaudio Forums", something that I did not know to do, having bookmarked this thread and not needing to nav. I can also see the rest of your forums if I enter through the portal page.


Hope this helps. I'll post any further questions in the dedicated FLAC forum.



Considering re-ripping to flac; been using 320kbps mp3

Reply #17 –
Just for consideration: a new version of EAC is supposed to be released in the next couple of weeks (don't know for sure, just according to this post). It might suit you to wait for that version before doing mass ripping. I'd personally wait, at least for the AR 2 fix. But it depends on how familiar with EAC you are and what some of the issues mean to you.. in general you should still be just fine with the current version.
 

Considering re-ripping to flac; been using 320kbps mp3

Reply #18 –
Quote from: Brand on
I'd personally wait, at least for the AR 2 fix.

This bug is minor if not insignificant.  A match is a match is a match.

EAC's ripping engine has not changed for several years now.