Lossless for archive, converting to mp3 for portable suggestions? Options

[zbarnes]

Hello,

I've been ripping my cd's to mp3s using EAC and Lame for a while. Since I've finally gotten enough storage, I would like to take the plunge into lossless.

Basically, for you guys that do this, can you tell me how you do it?

1. I want to rip the cd's to lossless for playing on my computer.
2. Encode to MP3 (or maybe ogg) whenever I want to put on an mp3 player, or whatever.

There are so many lossless codecs, I don't know for sure which one to pick. Basically, I don't care about how long it takes to encode, and I don't care that much how big the final file is. I just want to be able for it to be easy enough that my girlfriend can do it, and to be high quality. (I've got her using EAC with lame, and she's doing fine) I definately need to have a GUI, I dont' want to have to type in my parameters all the time.

Should I use FLAC with EAC, then use EAC to transcode to mp3 whenever I need it?

EDIT: ok, I thought you could use EAC to transcode somewhere in there, but I can't find it. So, I probably got mixed up. I use winamp for listening, the media library layout is why I don't switch to any other program. Should I go with foobar just in order to have an easy to use GUI to convert lossless to mp3?

This post has been edited by zbarnes: Nov 9 2006, 05:26

[Synthetic Soul]

The two most popular codecs are WavPack and FLAC. I would suggest that you take a look at the comparison in the wiki and choose from there.

The easiest way to get both lossless and lossy is to use an app like REACT or MAREO with EAC. These apps let you encode to multiple files at the same time, which saves you manually having to create the MP3s (in foobar) afterward.

FYI: I use WavPack and REACT. Many people use FLAC and MAREO.

I think your GUI requirement is irrelevant considering the necessary EAC implementation, so I'm ignoring it. One thing I would say is that REACT can automatically configure EAC for you, so all you would need to do to get your girlfriend up and running is edit the paths in your REACT ini and config files, and put them in the right folders on her machine.

This post has been edited by Synthetic Soul: Nov 9 2006, 10:16

[zbarnes]

Thanks, those two codecs are really the ones that I'm having trouble deciding between. Sounds like I'll be using EAC after all, with one of those two programs depending on the codec.

What in particular reason do you use wavpack over FLAC?

Also, I've been running this through my head. I'm thinking about ripping all my cd's to lossless, and burning a copy of the each cd.

What is the best way to do this? I could rip the image of the cd, then burn it to a blank cd. Then I could mount the image and rip it to lossless, then delete the image.

I guess I could rip to lossless and burn the lossless files (but this would probably change the original material somewhat).

However, I'm going to do this on about 100 CDs at once, so if there is a way to kill any two birds with one stone in the above equation, I'd be glad to know.

[Gow]

http://users.pandora.be/satcp/tutorials.htm

Coaster Factory EAC Setup tutorial, because once EAC is setup to rip with 100% accuracy than you have the exact same audio image file that have on the disc in lossless form on the hard-drive.

A lossless image rip using EAC will be the same as the original source material if it includes the cuesheet with pre-gaps if present and other gaps.

[zbarnes]

I think I'm starting to get the hang of it. Instead of ripping the tracks as seperate files, or ripping the entire CD as a regular image, I can rip it as a lossless image which I can burn to a cd directly, and also use it for playing on my computer. Here's what I don't understand: if you have an lossless image on your computer, how do programs like winamp recognize the seperate songs within the image?

Also, I need to do some more research but if anyone wants to field this question, be my guest: I have a NEC 3550a dvd burner right now. Are the audio rips going to be significantly slower or less quality than with a different drive? If so, which drive?

This post has been edited by zbarnes: Nov 10 2006, 08:51

[Synthetic Soul]

What in particular reason do you use wavpack over FLAC?

There are various reasons, some of which are practical and some that are purely speculative. The main two are that I can achieve 1% better compression at three times the encoding rate, and that at the time of my choice I saw that David was visibly and rapidly improving WavPack.

Also, I've been running this through my head. I'm thinking about ripping all my cd's to lossless, and burning a copy of the each cd.

What is the best way to do this? I could rip the image of the cd, then burn it to a blank cd. Then I could mount the image and rip it to lossless, then delete the image.

I guess I could rip to lossless and burn the lossless files (but this would probably change the original material somewhat).

I think I'm starting to get the hang of it. Instead of ripping the tracks as seperate files, or ripping the entire CD as a regular image, I can rip it as a lossless image which I can burn to a cd directly, and also use it for playing on my computer.

I actually rip to WavPack image for archiving and MP3 tracks for listening. IMHO, if the lossless is mainly for archiving/burning to CD, having an image is the easier option. REACT will let you do this. EAC cannot burn Wavpack or FLAC images, so if you plan to burn to CD as well you may need to retain the WAVE image temporarily, or use Burrrn.

I would not recommend burning your lossless to CD and then deleting your lossless file. Better to store the lossless file on a hard drive, or DVD discs. By all means burn to CD as well, but the lossless file is by far the better backup.

Here's what I don't understand: if you have an lossless image on your computer, how do programs like winamp recognize the seperate songs within the image?

I use foobar, which handles cuesheets+images really well. I have no idea what Winamp supports. If this is a major concern I would suggest doing some testing before choosing between a lossless image and separate tracks.

Also, I need to do some more research but if anyone wants to field this question, be my guest: I have a NEC 3550a dvd burner right now. Are the audio rips going to be significantly slower or less quality than with a different drive? If so, which drive?

I would suggest that you raise this in a new thread. I think that we have enough to contend with on this thread getting you the right lossless format, interim application, lossless filing convention, and then getting you set up in EAC.

[sundance]

Synthetic Soul,

The main two are that I can achieve 1% better compression at three times the encoding rate

Just out of curiosity, what encoding parameters do you actually use with WavPack?

.sundance.

This post has been edited by sundance: Nov 10 2006, 12:49

[Synthetic Soul]

I really don't want this getting into a settings or FLAC vs Wavpack thread , however:

WAVPACK.EXE -hm

If you check my TAK tests you will see the figures:

CODE

FLAC -8        66.028%     9x
WavPack -h     64.487%    28x

This post has been edited by Synthetic Soul: Nov 10 2006, 13:01

[tycho]

FYI: I will be releasing REACT 2.0 very soon, maybe tonight. This is much simpler to use, as it only has one configuration file that takes care of all formats (flac, wavpack, mp3, neroAac, and vorbis supported), and you can simply pick and choose which formats you want to create by editing a few characters in the config file. It uses exclusively image mode for extracting, but can create an compressed image and/or split to tracks while encoding via ACDIR. It also fixes bugs and shortcomings reported by users, and has built in support for starting CoverDownloader\albumart.exe <artist> <album> <path>\folder.jpg when hitting F10. It adds the cover to MP3s via my new tool metamp3.exe and to FLACs with flac113b. metamp3 also scans for RG and writes them as ID3v2.3 tags, which Winamp (and foobar) will read.

I use foobar, which handles cuesheets+images really well. I have no idea what Winamp supports. If this is a major concern I would suggest doing some testing before choosing between a lossless image and separate tracks.

Using CUE_Player plugin for Winamp works fine. It is not broken with WA 5.3x as some have reported. CUE_Player requires an external cuesheet file (not embedded). As mentioned, Winamp also understands RG tags written with metamp3.exe (in REACT 2.0).

[zbarnes]

Alright, I need to get some stuff downloaded and try it out.

I actually rip to WavPack image for archiving and MP3 tracks for listening. IMHO, if the lossless is mainly for archiving/burning to CD, having an image is the easier option. REACT will let you do this. EAC cannot burn Wavpack or FLAC images, so if you plan to burn to CD as well you may need to retain the WAVE image temporarily, or use Burrrn.
....
I use foobar, which handles cuesheets+images really well. I have no idea what Winamp supports. If this is a major concern I would suggest doing some testing before choosing between a lossless image and separate tracks.

Hmm, I'm thinking if I'm going to go through all the trouble of ripping everything as lossless, I should enjoy the benenfit of its unpillaged sound. So after I get everything set up, I'll rip a couple discs as images with cuesheets, and see how that winamp plugin manages them. If its pretty straight forward, that's how I'll do it.

So is it advisable to use Burrrn to burn those images, or should I use the waves if I have them?

Plus, I think I'll look at foobar again. A couple years ago, when I tried it, I didn't really like it. I'm sure its improved since then.

[Synthetic Soul]

Hmm, I'm thinking if I'm going to go through all the trouble of ripping everything as lossless, I should enjoy the benenfit of its unpillaged sound. So after I get everything set up, I'll rip a couple discs as images with cuesheets, and see how that winamp plugin manages them. If its pretty straight forward, that's how I'll do it.

Makes sense.

So is it advisable to use Burrrn to burn those images, or should I use the waves if I have them?

The benefit of using EAC to burn (if it supports your burner) is that you can burn with the write offset. If you are not too concerned with offsets then Burrrn is an easy alternative.

Edit: LMAO. Just saw this topic. Cue X-Files theme...

This post has been edited by Synthetic Soul: Nov 10 2006, 17:36

[bhoar]

Edit: LMAO. Just saw this topic. Cue X-Files theme...

Ah, so you're the one crowding my wavelength.

-brendan