CD Ripping software

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

"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."

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?

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

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

I've been using dBpoweramp which was pre-installed on a SoundScience Music Vault. As one of your concerns is simplicity, I must say that dBpoweramp is relly quite simple for ripping and I have been most pleased with the results on well over 1000 ripped cd's. The accurate rip feature has also proven most helpful on less than perfect discs.

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

Alex,

Thanks! I had done some .wav vs. FLAC comparison on my Cowan portable player (a sonically auperior alternative to iPod) a few years ago using several different earphones ranging from Shure SE530 to Sennheiser HD 650. I was trying to determine which format to rip all my CDs into. I ripped a sample of tracks in both formats and put them on shuffle mode. I could always tell which format was playing for each song. The FLAC files sounded bright, lean, edgy, and harsh, in comparison to .WAV files. I did the comparison for a week and had no trouble identifying the format each time a song comes up..

I don't pretend to understand fully the technical part of the lossless format, but I am familiar with the concept as I have been using similar application to reduce large AutoCAD drawing files at work for transferring via discs, emails for years.

I had posted my findings a few years ago, but received the same type of responses that it is not possible to hear any difference between the two formats. But one person had indicated that this might be due to how the particular decoding program or the DAC respond to FLAC files. I see a lot of parallel between this debate and the "a bite is a bite" debate 20 years ago with digital. It turned out that jitter and how the pit is read on a disc impacts greatly on the digital sound quality. So there might be some elements here that is contributing to the sonic differences. It may be the few nanoseconds that the computer needs to reconvert the files?

FrankC