CD Ripping software

I am interested in ripping my CD collection to .WAV files. Not concerned about FLAC or other formats.

I know Windows Media Player will rip .WAV files from CD, but has anyone used dBpoweramp or EAC software instead? The rippers in this software have claimed advanced error detection strategies that I guess WIN MP does not have?

Would it not ber easier to pre-scan the CDs for C1/C2 errors in advance and use Win MP for simplicity?

Showing 7 responses by aplhifi

No it's not a must. A FLAC file has the same data.

Sure, theoretically FLAC has the same data. In practice, there is an audible difference between all lossless formats, and comparing them to uncompressed WAV or AIFF, at least to my ears in my system.

Best wishes,
Alex Peychev
Try ripping to WAV with J.River Media Center 16 in "Secure x4 max" mode.

J. River offers 30 days fully functional trial, so there is nothing to loose.

Hope this helps!

Alex Peychev
I'm not sure why you are insisting on WAV

If closest to original audio quality is required, WAV is a must. For convenience, any lossless will do. My favorite is APE or WMA. The latter is FBR, so it sounds best, IMO.

Alex Peychev
If you are really hearing audible differences I'd say there was something wrong with your playback chain, not with the format.

Something wrong with my playback chain? Are you serious? :-)

I think Robin Whittle explains it well:

"Audio files contain a certain amount of information - "entropy" - so they cannot be compressed losslessly to any size smaller than that. So it is not realistic to expect an ever-increasing improvement in lossless compression algorithm performance. The performance can only approach more closely whatever the basic entropy of the file is. No-one quite knows what that entropy is of course . . . I think that would require understanding the datastream in a way which is exactly in tune with it's true nature. For instance a .jpg image of handwriting would appear to contain a lot of data, unless you could see and recognise the handwriting and record its characters in a suitably compressed format. The true nature of sound varies with its source, physical environment and recording method, and a lossless compression program cannot adapt itself entirely to the "true" nature of the sound in each piece of music. Therefore it is not surprising that different algorithms work best on different kinds of music."

Lossless? Not that I think so! :-)

Best wishes,
Alex Peychev
The text you quote doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

Sure, and a Radio Shack $49 CD transport is the best, but you need a Super Clock installed! :-)

Let me say this again; there is a good sound quality difference between "lossless" formats, and WAV is best, meaning it is closest to the original. Still there is no computer audio I am aware of that beats a well done CD transport.

For the record, I have used various PC and Mac systems ranging from Pentium 4 to Core i7, both desktops and laptops.

I hear what I hear, sorry! If this can help someone, I am happy. If not, that is fine too. Everyone is right, just avoid "lossless" if best possible is desired! :-)

Best wishes,
Alex Peychev
FLAC is as exactly as close to the original as WAV is. They both produce the same exact PCM data. What other criteria for "closeness" do you have?

And so is a $49 CD player from Radio Shack with a clean disk, right? The "closeness" is exactly the way you read it; closer audio quality to the original as if played on a well done CD transport.

But you don't seem to have any more insight into how these systems work than anyone else here.

Sure, I don't even know how to operate a computer, not to talk about being aware of the insights. :-)

Let me ask you this again; are you serious? :-)

Best wishes,
Alex Peychev

Thank you! This is exactly my point. FLAC sounds thin, bright and lifeless, IMO, regardless of computer type and operation system. Apple lossless MP4 sounds a lot better, so is WavPack and Monkey's Audio (APE). The latter was my favorite, but WMA lossless is what I like best, most likely due to the fact that, unlike the others mentioned, it is a fixed bitrate lossless compression, not variable.


Sorry, what I meant was that even a $49 CD player is absolutely bit-perfect and there are no losses, you can compare the output data with a high-end CD transport, and you will find out it is exactly the same. But how it sounds? What will really impress you is the fact that, even if you change DAC input format, you will still hear a sound quality difference, and that is with everything else the same.


I have installed a SB based upgrade to many customers inside their NWO Esoteric based players. I went to the extent of building linear power supplies (including removing the switching power supplies under the mini wi-fi card), four new low jitter clocks, sample rate converters, high speed buffers, etc. Sound improved by still nowhere near the VRDS-NEO transport on A-B test with the same disc. This is the reason adopting Marco's HiFace that is also highly upgraded (with its charge pumps removed too) and built into the NWO player and the DAC-S. The sound is much closer to the VRDS-NEO and much better than SB or Transporter with even the wildest upgrades installed.

Again, if someone has a benefit from this information, I am happy, if not, that is fine too!

Best wishes,
Alex Peychev