Which way to go for lossless music from CD's?

[Zaphod]

First of all let me appologize if this has been covered before, but by skimming the threads I haven't found anything close to what I was looking for. If there is, please post the link to the correct thread...thanks.

Now with that aside, since storage has come down considerably from a few years ago and disk space has significantly increased as well, I am now looking to try to ween my way from the monster we call iTunes and try to go with lossless rips from CD's that I own. I have over 600 CD's and want to convert them to a lossless file that I can put on my Windows Home Server, and then access those files through my PS3 and Xbox 360.

Now I know there are many different lossless file formats, but which one is going to give the highest quality audio? Also which program is the best to rip without any errors or anomalies? I had started using the Apple iTunes WAV ripper (44.1 kHz/16-bit), then I thought there might be a better way and a higher quality way to get the best digital copies. Space is not a concern, so compression is not a determining factor. All I want is the best quality digital file and a true (if you can call it that) accurate representation of the actual CD music.

I have searched the many threads on different forums, and all give conflicting information, so I hope some of our fine members could steer me the right way.

Thanks, and as always, look forward to the insight.

[richteer]

Quality wise, you're not going to improve on WAV, because that's essential the on-disc format anyway. I'd recommend FLAC (Free Lossless Audio CODEC), though, because it's lossless and non-proprietory.

[kefrank]

Agree with rich - FLAC is the format you want. EAC (Exact Audio Copy) is the freeware software you should use to rip.

[Hammie]

I know you said that you wanted to get away from iTunes, but I use ALAC (Apple Lossless Audio CODEC) and stream through an Apple TV.

You get lossless and still use iTunes for your iPod and Apple TV.

Just my two cents.

[benricci]

Why use a compressed format at all if you said space was not an issue?

Simply copy the WAV files that are on the actual CD to your hard drive. There is no way to improve upon them, quality-wise. And if space isn't an issue, save yourself the step of ripping them.

[richteer]

Originally Posted by benricci

Why use a compressed format at all if you said space was not an issue?

Simply copy the WAV files that are on the actual CD to your hard drive. There is no way to improve upon them, quality-wise. And if space isn't an issue, save yourself the step of ripping them.

My understanding is that WAV files do not contain song metadata (like the title, artist, and so on), so that would be a good reason to rip them.

[naturephoto1]

Originally Posted by richteer

My understanding is that WAV files do not contain song metadata (like the title, artist, and so on), so that would be a good reason to rip them.

Rich,

I am not sure about that. I could have sworn that when I burned some CDs with Roxio Creator 2009 that they were WAV files. But, maybe they weren't. As I remember when I would play the CDs while on-line with as I recall Windows Media Player I thought that the player indicated the Artist, CD, Track Title, Time, etc.

Rich

[Johnny Vinyl]

Originally Posted by naturephoto1

Rich,

I am not sure about that. I could have sworn that when I burned some CDs with Roxio Creator 2009 that they were WAV files. But, maybe they weren't. As I remember when I would play the CDs while on-line with as I recall Windows Media Player I thought that the player indicated the Artist, CD, Track Title, Time, etc.

Rich

I use MediaMonkey and I know that they don't include the metatags.....maybe this is a software-dependent issue.

John

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by richteer

My understanding is that WAV files do not contain song metadata (like the title, artist, and so on), so that would be a good reason to rip them.

That is correct. It is why FLAC has become very popular. The advice to use EAC as the ripper and then convert the files to FLAC is the most recommended method.

[yourstupidgame]

I have a related question. I'd like to listen to music on my home stereo through the BDP-1400. Is there a way to burn WAV files or other lossless files to a DVD-R that will play in this player (or other players for future reference). I know it can play CD-Rs and DVD-Rs with mp3 files. I'm hoping to fill a few discs of my favorite artists' complete collections and maybe a couple of compilations for a higher quality listening experience than my current iTunes/Bose computer speakers setup.

[Hammie]

Originally Posted by yourstupidgame

I have a related question. I'd like to listen to music on my home stereo through the BDP-1400. Is there a way to burn WAV files or other lossless files to a DVD-R that will play in this player (or other players for future reference). I know it can play CD-Rs and DVD-Rs with mp3 files. I'm hoping to fill a few discs of my favorite artists' complete collections and maybe a couple of compilations for a higher quality listening experience than my current iTunes/Bose computer speakers setup.

Not sure if you can do it on DVD-R's, but even Windows built in feature will allow you to burn music CD's. Another alternative is Apple TV and stream your music to your HT system. That is what I do and is wonderous.

[Zaphod]

Thank you for everyone's insights.

[krazeyeyez]

How exactly are you supposed to be listening to your cd's so their is no processing? I hear about two channel music systems all the time but they always seem to include a sub, yet when i use the direct mode on my receiver i get the two towers but no sub action, why is this?

It seems the only way i can get the sub involved is to matrix (PL2 etc..) or use all channels. Is there a way to naturally have a 2.1 system?

Side note but when you use an IPOD, even if the file is lossless/uncompressed are you only getting one channel of info since your using the mic spot on the ipod with a l/r splitter on the other end, or does it still distinguish the two channels and send them out properly.

[Johnny Vinyl]

Originally Posted by krazeyeyez

How exactly are you supposed to be listening to your cd's so their is no processing? I hear about two channel music systems all the time but they always seem to include a sub, yet when i use the direct mode on my receiver i get the two towers but no sub action, why is this?

It seems the only way i can get the sub involved is to matrix (PL2 etc..) or use all channels. Is there a way to naturally have a 2.1 system?

Side note but when you use an IPOD, even if the file is lossless/uncompressed are you only getting one channel of info since your using the mic spot on the ipod with a l/r splitter on the other end, or does it still distinguish the two channels and send them out properly.

I don't know where you read that most 2-channel listeners include a sub, because that just isn't so.

As to the second part....NO.

2-channel is 2-channel. It is NOT 2.1!

John

[naturephoto1]

Originally Posted by John72953

I don't know where you read that most 2-channel listeners include a sub, because that just isn't so.

As to the second part....NO.

2-channel is 2-channel. It is NOT 2.1!

John

Presently I normally listen to the bare front L & R for 2 channel listening. However, when I move to the new house and listening room/home theater I will wire the new Mirror Imaged Line Stage towers (that are being built) low frequency terminals directly to the 2 subwoofers. Using the switch on the back of the subs, I will be able (when wanted) to listen to the subs in 2 channel and switch back to LFE when I want to use the subs with the whole Home Theater system.

Rich

[krazeyeyez]

Originally Posted by John72953

I don't know where you read that most 2-channel listeners include a sub, because that just isn't so.

As to the second part....NO.

2-channel is 2-channel. It is NOT 2.1!

John

so on musical tracks that delve into the sub bass range you just lose those levels? this is the part i do not understand?

and as to the IPOD part does it distinguish between the two channels the engineers lay down, or does it just matrix in an attempt to mask.


p.s. quoted from.... http://www.hometheatermag.com/hookmeup/206hook/

this is one of the first things i came across when i was looking into how to enable my sub because it just seems you would lose quite a bit of music otherwise, which is why i assumed 2 channel was always in fact 2.1 and this seemed to confirm

"Before I'd even finished my train of thought, he'd offered to send me a complete two-channel system, show me how easy it would be to hook up, and I'd then offer my thoughts on how a beginner could become a two-channel person.

A few weeks later, the system was delivered. It consisted of two Schonberg tower speakers ($2,500/pair) from Sumiko's Vienna Acoustics line, an REL Q Series Q108E subwoofer ($749), the Primare CD21 CD player ($1,295), the Primare I21 integrated amplifier ($1,495), and the Pro-ject Debut III manual turntable ($329), along with all of the necessary cables. That's a grand total of $6,368 for the entire system, which is far less expensive than I would have expected. All of the components are of impressive build quality and craftsmanship."

[Johnny Vinyl]

Originally Posted by naturephoto1

Presently I normally listen to the bare front L & R for 2 channel listening. However, when I move to the new house and listening room/home theater I will wire the new Mirror Imaged Line Stage towers (that are being built) low frequency terminals directly to the 2 subwoofers. Using the switch on the back of the subs, I will be able (when wanted) to listen to the subs in 2 channel and switch back to LFE when I want to use the subs with the whole Home Theater system.

Rich

Having the ability to do so still doesn't make it right IMO.

John

[Johnny Vinyl]

Originally Posted by krazeyeyez

so on musical tracks that delve into the sub bass range you just lose those levels? this is the part i do not understand?

You don't lose any of the levels, unless you have a system that can't interpret the intent of the recording.

When you have a system that lacks the ability to reproduce an intended low end you will look for alternatives...a subwoofer is one of those.

John

[Hammie]

As noted above, 2-channel is just that 2 speakers only. Most good high-end towers will reach down into the mid-low 30Hz's. This is usually good enough for most music.

Personally, I like a sub to offset the low's. maybe I'm just "new school." I have my Denon set to Stereo. This allows 2-channel music to go to only my fronts and sub. This setting by default enables the Audyssy calibration. I can select to turn off the calibration as well. I think this will give me similar results as a Direct or Pure Direct setting. I haven't tested, so I'm not 100% sure.

As far as the iPod question, the headphone jack is stereo, so it outputs a stereo signal, so no matrixing is occurring.

EDIT: As another note (and thought), Direct and Pure Direct sets your fronts as full range, so they are getting all frequencies, nothing is being thrown out. You speakers will be the limiting component in the equation.

[Johnny Vinyl]

Originally Posted by louhamilton

As noted above, 2-channel is just that 2 speakers only. Most good high-end towers will reach down into the mid-low 30Hz's. This is usually good enough for most music.

Personally, I like a sub to offset the low's. maybe I'm just "new school." I have my Denon set to Stereo. This allows 2-channel music to go to only my fronts and sub. This setting by default enables the Audyssy calibration. I can select to turn off the calibration as well. I think this will give me similar results as a Direct or Pure Direct setting. I haven't tested, so I'm not 100% sure.

As far as the iPod question, the headphone jack is stereo, so it outputs a stereo signal, so no matrixing is occurring.

Thanks Lou for addressing that one, because I can't. Is that really music?

John