I've been reading through the forum for a while, and have found lots of great info. I was confused on a couple of points, and was hoping for some enlightenment. I'm just starting to rip all of my CD's into lossless format, after which I plan to convert them as I want to load onto my iPod. I'm turned off by the whole ALAC thing, and don't want to re-rip everything in a couple of years.

Q1: Does a program like FLAC handle playback, or do I use some other program for that? (and do the different codecs require different playback progs?)

Q2: Does EAC compress at all? (I couldn't find a straight answer to this, and it wasn't on the comparison charts I found.)

And, lastly, Q3: Should I go with FLAC? I know, I know...there are plenty of threads about all the ins and outs of the choices. A lot of the stuff started going over my head. FLAC seems to have a good balance of compression %, speed, and quality, as well as playing nicely with others.
Thanks for all the help!!! Glad I found this site before ripping too many CD's into crappy quality.

Err.. Lossless is losselss, so you can't go wrong in terms of quality. If you want to load the tunes into the iPod, you have to use ALAC.

It's super easy to convert between lossless formats, so you don't need to re-rip if you want to convert to another format.

Check out the FAQ at http://flac.sourceforge.net/

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "handle playback"...
FLAC is an audio codec, and does not play audio files. A FLAC file (like any other audio file) needs some kind of media software to be played... Foobar, WinAmp, JetAudio, and others will all play FLAC files.


EAC rips the audio from a CD into a WAV file, and can then call a codec (like FLAC) to compress the WAV, if it is configured to do so.


Here's a good one...

FLAC is my codec of choice for CD rips, because it will play on my Karma!
(I use WavePack when recording with Adobe Audition because it supports RIFF chunks; FLAC doesn't.)

Lossless is lossless, so quality is not so much of an issue as compatibility. Just make sure the codec you choose has the features you need and can be played on the hardware/software you use.

~esa

Q1: FLAC is simply the codec. It doesn't playback your flac files. Once you have to codec installed many different players can play them back though - my fav is foobar2000 but it works fine with many others like Winamp.

Q2: EAC is a ripper, but once you have the flac codec installed you can configure EAC to encode your files to flac for you. There are many write-ups about configuring this.

Q3: My suggestion is to go with flac. Like you already stated, it plays well with others. In fact, it plays VERY well with others and IIRC is the most commonly used lossless format now. It's easy to use and has many tools for working with/converting to/from other formats.

On the topic of quality and Lossless encoders, I spent a good half an hour the other day trying to convince a colleague of mine that lossless codecs were mathermatically lossless, and did not differ from the original file. He's a crzed Mac zealot. Anyway, we got in an argument, then we talked about why Apple switch to Intel is not that big off a deal (because to him dual G5's on water is God, and he would, quote "take a dual G5 system over a 5,000,000Ghz Intel system anyday"). Finally, I tried to explain to him why DVD-A/SACD were a waste of time, and consumer's money, but he's a recording engineer and that was it... it all ended in tears...

Ontopic...

1) As has been said, you need a player. foobar2000 is a pretty popular player (aahh aliteration) around here.

2) EAC extracts audio from a CD into a PCM audio file, contained inside a WAV container (that's the ".wav" after the filename). You can instruct EAC to then load external programs desinged to 'process' the WAV file and compress it.

3) Personally, I use Monkey's Audio for various reasons, but if you're looking to use your lossless collection for playing music (as apposed to purely an archival type situation) then I would recommend FLAC for it's decoding speed, and fast seeking.

BTW, welcome to HydrogenAudio.org

Where I'm coming from: I'm a linux guy with all of my cd's in flac format. I convert to mp3 directly onto my mp3 player whenever I want to load it with new stuff. That's enough to tell you I have zero experience with iPods and ALAC.

But what's wrong with ALAC? I agree that lossless is lossless (else it's not "really" lossless) and that, if you want lossless on your iPod, it seems that you're stuck with ALAC and might get somewhere asking about that here. If you're a Mac and/or iTunes user, it seems even more advantageous to stick with their format. I'm sure there are other users. If you only want lossless for your collection, but transfer some lossy format to your iPod (like I do to my NEX iA), then it really doesn't matter which you choose. I like flac, but then it is almost the only lossless game in town for us Linux geeks.

Flac comes with plugins for many players that allow them to playback flac files. The flac program itself just compresses and decompresses, usually to/from wav files. The resulting wav files can then be compressed to mp3 (programs like the foobar mentioned here do all of this behind your back and you don't even necessarily need to know that flac->mp3 is actually 2 steps that may happen somewhat simultaneously).

Mark

Wow, thanks for the quick replies! Just what I was looking for. Glad to see I wasn't too confusing.
I realize lossless is just that, and by "quality" I was more referring to how easily I can use the files in the future. That's why I'm not going with ALAC, as I'm afraid that when my iPod dies, should I switch to another type of player, that I'll have a lot of Apple files that don't work anywhere else.

A followup question: should I use EAC with FLAC, or use FLAC some other way? I used to use EAC a few years back, especially when I had a problem CD with skips, etc. If my CD's are ok, any reason to use EAC? It seems like it takes some extra work to get the wav files with EAC and then have it compress them with FLAC (correct me if I'm wrong here)

Thanks again!!

Even if your CD's look ok, you should rip them in EAC's secure mode to (help) ensure that they are ripped correctly.

Lossless files can be converted to whatever you want without losing quality. You're never going to be "stuck" with unusable files in the same way as if you were using, say, ogg vorbis.

One last question...
What kind of speeds should I expect for going from a CD to a wav to a Flac compressed file? And I'm assuming I can tell EAC to use Flac, and it will do so automatically each time?
(OK, 2 questions technically)
thanks!

That depends greatly on your hardware.
With my setup (P4 2.8GHz, 1G RAM, Plextor drive), I average between 5-7 minutes per disc (if the CD is not damaged and in need of error correction).
I just ripped Peter Gabriel's "Up" CD; it took ~6:10 to rip and compress 66:43 minutes of music.

Yes.

Most HA folk would agree that using lossless on your portable player is an overkill. It's not only a waste of space, but because portable players do not have top quality hardware the losses arising from other factors will likely dominate. The only other reason to use ALAC might be that you love iTunes. Otherwise ALAC has no advantages and has low compression ratio.

If I were you I would make a choice between WavPack and FLAC. Check Lossless codec comparison. Monkey's Audio is also good, but as far as I know it is x86 centric and its error resilience is not so good (there are some threads here with corrupted ape file stories).

It has pretty much the same ratio as FLAC

Yeah, and it's still low.
The main point is ALAC lacks some of FLAC's feature, and still has no benefits in compression ratio and such.

My opinion:
Compatibility: FLAC
Efficiency: Monkey's

If you're using an iPod you're going to have to use ALAC if you want lossless.

I agree, plus:
Flexibility: Wavpack

OptimFROG is pretty efficient for me too; useful for storage.

~yeah,youCanKickMeForUsingIt...

See the link in my sig below for an easy to follow EAC / FLAC guide

I recommend you reading and following the High Quality Audio Archiving Tutorials, guides about EAC, Lossless like FLAC, WavPack, Monkey's Audio APE etc, or lossy small MPC Musepack
My personal flac setting during encoding : -8
my personal wavpack switch: -x -m
though -h -m or -hx -m are ok, too, if you have fast PC.

And yes, EAC offers you a 1 step way:
Ripping from CD, Encoding to Lossless format of your choice, and tagging, all in 1 step.
If you use mareo.exe as external encoder, you could even rip/encode to several formats in 1 step !eg. 1 Lossless, Musepack & mp3 for your portable ! --> all in 1 step, all tagged, automagically !

I was referring to efficiency in a CPU time/compression context. OptimFROG compresses well, but is quite slow.

Hmmm, gonna have to look into Mareo, as I am looking to have 2 copies of things, 1 lossless for storing and plaiying at home, and one lossy for the ipod. I'll probably use mareo, flac, and some lossy codec.
Although judging by the guides, I have a bit of reading to do (ie the whole -8, -12, -V, etc)

With the V0.95 Beta 2 of EAC, do I want the CDRDAO package, if I'm using mareo?

thanks!

EDIT: Is Flac -8 much better than FLac -5? The table at http://flac.sourceforge.net/comparison.html
shows it taking 4X as long? Is WavePak High a better and quicker option that either Flac?
So many choices...

flac -8 ist not "better" than -5.
-8 encoded flac files are a little bit smaller than -5 = default flac files, in this respect they are better of course.
For the size, the encoding time is a little bit slower, but even with P3 -600-800 MHz PCs not any time problem.

Don't compare wavpack high with flac.
you can compare wavpack -x (extra) with flac.
Because wavpack -m and wavpack -x -m have same/similar DEcoding speeds like flac -5 or -8.
But wavpack -x -m wins in size.
even normal wavpack should be better in size than flac, iirc.
wavpack -h -m(high mode) is even better in size than -x -m, but -h has as disadvtantge, that decoding speed is only half than speed of wavpack, wavpack -x, or flac-8, -5.

The EAC package with Cdrdao included, is meant for people that wan't to burn with EAC,
but have drives that aren't supported by EAC's internal writing engine... -Martin.

I've been following the set-up guide @ http://www.phantomfox.com/music-setup.html
I'm configuring fb2k, in preferences>diskwriter, and the instructions say:

Next, under the "Output presets" box, select "Commandline Encoder : LAME --alt-preset-standard"

I don't have this option, only 2 WAV (PCM) options. I've downloaded LAME.exe and put it in the fb2k folder, but nothing.

any ideas?
thanks!

In Diskwriter preferences click Add new, choose Commandline Encoder, as Encoder find your Lame.exe, in Extension type MP3, in Parameters type:
--preset standard - %d
Format is lossy
Highest BPS mode supported 24
Tag default
Leave everything unticked and in Display name type whatever you want.

When I click "Add New", the only options it gives me are:
WAV fixed point
WAV floating point
Legacy 0.7 Output

?????

Reinstall Foobar2k, and select ALL components for the easy way.

OR

Select custom install, and under Optional Components > Diskwriter outputs > CLI encoder, check the CLI encoder box.

That did the trick, thanks!

Is it neccesary to type in the name of the fodler you want EAC to extract to, or can you tell it to name the folder automatically by artist and album name?

In the "EAC options", you set the location for the ripped files under the "Directory" tab.

Then you can set the "naming scheme" under the "Filename" tab.

For example, my rip directory is set to "F:\Music",
and my naming scheme is set as "%D\%C\%N %T".

This results in files being ripped as:
F:\Music\Artist\Album\## Title.flac

It is all described and even given in downloadable EAC profile at High Quality Adio Guides & Tutorials about Exact Audio Copy EAC, Musepack, Lossless FLAC, WavPack, Ape, Optimfrog, Shorten