[cloudbaseracer]

I am fairly confused on this whole media server thing.  I just got a Duet, which does not want to consistently work right, and wish to rip my music to my hard drive. I have heard almost every high end review talk about having files in FLAC format.  Almost all talk mention using EAC stating that it is the best program.  My limited experience with EAC seems like it is very confusing and hard to get set up correctly.  I want the best quality files I can get but also don't want to futz with the software.  I have many questions but at this time I mainly want to know why I should go FLAC over WAV?  I think FLAC is a little smaller but with disk space relatively cheap, why not just keep everything in WAV?  Can you guys give me the pros and cons of each?

Of course getting the Duet to work is an issue as well but I figure if it does not workout I will still want all my ripping to be done correctly.  I really hope something better is released at CEDIA.  Squeezebox seems to have too many issues!

Thanks,

James

[Gordy]

Hi James,

I'm a newcomer as well and, after ripping a lot of my collection to wave, I was convinced by Richidoo to use flac for one big reason, wave does not support meta data tags (might not be the proper terminology).  At the moment this mainly means to me that it doesn't support album art, whereas flac does.  The smaller footprint (about 65% of wave) really does add up as I was able to add an easy 600-700 cd's to my 1T drive.

As for EAC, I agree, It's a pita!  dbpower is much easier to use, auto downloads album art from the net and processes to flac much quicker than I experienced with EAC.  Though I haven't a/b'd them, many have stated that dbpower files sound better than EAC's as well.

Gordy

[DSK]

I have to agree that EAC is a bit fiddly to setup, though once it is setup you don't need to play around with it. I have been running it for the last couple of years and haven't bothered to update it as it works fine and there seems no need to. However, I believe that the current version is easier to setup and FLAC is better integrated.

FLAC sometimes takes longer as it re-reads data as many times as necessary during the rip to satisfy itself that it has obtained a perfect copy. On poor discs, it may sit re-reading particular bits many times and take many minutes before moving on to the next bit. IIRC dbpoweramp is far less intensive in its error detection on the fly but will go back at the end if it doesn't get the expected result. It is typically much faster as a result as it won't need to go back on the majority of discs.

...As for EAC, I agree, It's a pita!  dbpower is much easier to use, auto downloads album art from the net and processes to flac much quicker than I experienced with EAC.  Though I haven't a/b'd them, many have stated that dbpower files sound better than EAC's as well.

Gordy

IME the question has always been whether the faster dbpoweramp, with less intensive error detection/correction can obtain rips of as high quality as EAC. I have seen a number of people ask this and the general answer seems to be "yes" based on listening tests (where no difference could be heard) or opinion based upon how each performs the rip.

However, I have never seen anyone suggest that the dbpoweramp rips actually sound BETTER than EAC rips and would be extremely dubious. I would be very interested to know where I can read these opinions. Gordy?

[JEaton]

IME the question has always been whether the faster dbpoweramp, with less intensive error detection/correction can obtain rips of as high quality as EAC. I have seen a number of people ask this and the general answer seems to be "yes" based on listening tests (where no difference could be heard) or opinion based upon how each performs the rip.

However, I have never seen anyone suggest that the dbpoweramp rips actually sound BETTER than EAC rips and would be extremely dubious. I would be very interested to know where I can read these opinions. Gordy?

99.999% of the time you'll get exactly the same digital image for every track, so there's little point in wasting your time doing listening tests.  Alll you need to do is compare the decoded WAV output of the Flac files.  If you don't get exactly the same files, then you've got a mystery on your hands.

[Tabascosauce]

I just started ripping my CD's to flac on a new laptop.

I downloaded the latest EAC, and from memory, it had a pretty foolproof set up.  You need to specify what type of compression to use (flac).

Somewhere in the process, I configured freedb to add tags in the format I wanted (artist - album - track no. - track name - I'm not bothered about storing artwork).  This was also quite easy.

After that, just load in a CD.  EAC will recognise it.  Click on the database tab (I think, I'm at work so can't check), then "alt G", and all CD info is automatically loaded via the internet.

Click on the MP3 button on the left hand side (it is wrongly named MP3, it should be called "compression" as it will compress your CD to flac or whatever other method of compression you specified during set up).  Click on the file you wish to save it to, and away it goes.

I am using Foobar for playback. 

[Gordy]

...However, I have never seen anyone suggest that the dbpoweramp rips actually sound BETTER than EAC rips and would be extremely dubious. I would be very interested to know where I can read these opinions. Gordy?

I'm not naming names    There was a thread here on AC from about 6 months ago (?) that discussed various ripping software and IIRC, two or three people stated they felt it was the best sounding of the programs they used.  I'll try to find it and post a link later today.

I was using an earlier version of EAC and perhaps I wasn't using it correctly as it would rip a cd then do all the compression at once.  My LT would get extremely hot!  With dbpower it compresses each song as it rips it while continuing to rip the next song simultaneously, no overheating problems what-so-ever. 

I too use foobar for now, so the images do me no good at the moment.  I do see myself moving on to J.Rivers or ? in the future though, so the meta data will be greatly appreciated then.

[bpape]

EAC USED to be tougher to set up.  Now they have the configuration wizard that makes it pretty well bullet-proof.  If you just follow the prompts, it will set up everything for you.  I've been running my instance of EAC for about 2.5 years now including a couple updates and I've never, ever had to do any 'fiddling' with it once it was set up properly. 

FLAC conversion is set via the wizard to happen automatically and the WAV files are deleted after the FLAC is created and verified using AccurateRip (automatic).  If you're running a dual core processor, it will start ripping the next song while running the FLAC encoder for quicker turnaround.

Bryan

[DSK]

...
I'm not naming names    There was a thread here on AC from about 6 months ago (?) that discussed various ripping software and IIRC, two or three people stated they felt it was the best sounding of the programs they used.  I'll try to find it and post a link later today.

Hi Gordy, I wasn't interested in names, more the context of what was said as I read all threads on this area and have certainly seen people say they feel dbpoweramp rips just as well (and more quickly) than EAC but I have never seen anyone claim that these rips actually sound better than EAC rips ... I can't understand how they could given the measures that EAC goes to in ensuring a perfect rip. Sound as good? Sure! Sound better? I need convincing. 

...I was using an earlier version of EAC and perhaps I wasn't using it correctly as it would rip a cd then do all the compression at once.  My LT would get extremely hot!  With dbpower it compresses each song as it rips it while continuing to rip the next song simultaneously, no overheating problems what-so-ever...

That's exactly what EAC does. I have it set up with FLAC and Accurate Rip and the compression is never more than one track behind the ripping on a C2D 2.6ghz CPU. However, on my previous P4 3.4ghz it would sometimes be up to 3 tracks behind and the CPU temp would get reasonably high.

[Philistine]

I too have been using the EAC/AccurateRip/FLAC package the last 2.5 years and, after installing it again recently, it has become easier to setup and use.  There are a few tutorial links on past threads.  Once its been setup the first time then its basically an automated process for subsequent rips.

Regarding FLAC vs WAV - I'm using FLAC because this is what I started with and recommended at the time.  The metada issue is very relevant but, at the same time I've never seen a convincing argument on the sound quality of FLAC vs WAV.  Some believe WAV is superior but have yet to back this up with a convincing comparison - it may be so - but until I see a strong reason to do so I will continue to use FLAC.  While you're ripping you may want to do both?

The majority of the issues I've had with the SB/Duet/TP have been network issues.
If you want a more robust and simpler process then the Sonos is probably the next least expensive option.

[Dan Driscoll]

I have heard almost every high end review talk about having files in FLAC format.

I think FLAC is a little smaller but with disk space relatively cheap, why not just keep everything in WAV?

A FLAC files is 50-65% the size of the same song stored as a .WAV file. That's not a big deal when you're just talking about 50-100 cds, but it is when you have 300, 500, 1000 or more. And as someone alsready mentioned, FLAC supports mete-tags, .WAV does not.

Of course getting the Duet to work is an issue as well but I figure if it does not workout I will still want all my ripping to be done correctly.  I really hope something better is released at CEDIA.  Squeezebox seems to have too many issues!

I can't speak specifically about the Duet, but my Squeeze Box 3 is probably the simplest network device I've ever set-up. And no, I am not a network or even a computer expert, just a routine user.

[Gordy]

My memory is like a steel trap... a very rusty steel trap     Here's the thread I was thinking of: http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=49745.0

Thank you Bryan, it seems EAC set-up has really improved, though I'll stick with dBP if only for the auto cover art feature!

[Rashiki]

...wave does not support meta data tags (might not be the proper terminology)...

Not entirely true. The wave format is really just a version of the RIFF format, which does support metadata, and SqueezeCenter does support reading RIFF metadata from wave files. However, I don't know of any CD ripping tools that support RIFF metadata tags straight out of the box. EAC allows you to use a script to do the conversion from raw wave data extracted from the CD to whatever destination format you want, so I had written a script that just added the appropriate RIFF metadata to the wave file.

So, you can have wave files with metadata that is compatible with SqueezeCenter, it's just that you have to work for it. If you want metadata, you're going to have a much easier time of it with FLAC.

 -Rob

[JEaton]

If your targeted player is a Squeezebox then there's no reason to use WAV for your library storage.  You can have the server decode the Flac files and stream WAV to the player.  Then you have the benefits of Flac tagging and drive space savings, as well as any sonic benefits you might perceive from playing back WAV instead of Flac.

[bpape]

Or, reduce the network traffic and stream the smaller FLAC files since the SB has a firmware FLAC decoder onboard.

Bryan

[JEaton]

Or, reduce the network traffic and stream the smaller FLAC files since the SB has a firmware FLAC decoder onboard.

Yep.  That's another advantage to Flac, although with a wired network connection it will make virtually no difference.  It's most helpful if you stream wirelessly, particularly if you have a bunch of Squeezeboxes on your wireless network.  Streaming Flac instead of WAV also effectively makes the fixed-size memory buffer in the Squeezebox larger, so that wireless network disruptions have less of a chance of causing dropouts.

A lot of people, though, have been convinced by others that WAV sounds better.  If you've been convinced of this (or if you actually think you hear a difference) then streaming Flac (or Apple lossless, or APE or any other lossless codec) as WAV will yield identical sonics as storing the files as WAV on the server.

[JEaton]

By the way, the way to force SqueezeCenter to stream Flac files as WAV is to go into Settings > Advanced > File Types and under the File Format 'FLAC' change the Stream Format line on the right next to FLAC to 'Disabled'.

Leave the WAV line set to 'flac'.  This is telling SqueezeCenter to decode Flac files to WAV using the flac program.  With FLAC streaming disabled, the server will fall back and use WAV streaming.

You can leave the MP3 line alone.  It won't be used unless you configure bitrate limiting on some player.  You might use this if you ever want to stream Flac transcoded to Mp3 for playback on a remote player such as a software player (Softsqueeze or Squeezeslave) at your office.

[DSK]

My memory is like a steel trap... a very rusty steel trap     Here's the thread I was thinking of: http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=49745.0 ...

Hmmmm... OK, so ONE person thinks dbpoweramp/AccuraRip rips sound better than EAC/AccurateRip rips. That doesn't quite equate to "many" as per your earlier post and it will take more than that to urge me to get off my fat ass and test it for myself