I was updating my Xbox Media Center software and played a few WAV files instead of my usual 320 MP3's and was blown away by the sound. So...it's time to re-rip my library.

Here's what I want to wind up with...a FLAC of each track along with a high-quality MP3 version for my iPods.

Right now, I'm thinking of using EAC and AutoFLAC to rip my FLACS. I'll set up EAC so that it will not delete the WAV files after compression. Then I can use LAME to create my MP3's.

I've consdiered using the Samba VFS module to transcode on the fly, and I still may wind up doing that, but I'm not currently running a Linux server on my network and I'd rather not dedicate a machine to it just now.

Any ideas? Thanks in advance.

Flacattack or it's successor Wack might be what you're after. Personally, I use EAC with Flacattack to produce FLAC images with embedded cuesheets. I can then convert the images to just about any other format "offline" later on with ACDIR.

Can you elaborate on what you had in mind for the Samba VFS module? It sounds like something I've been trying to achieve.

I used Wack to do this some time back. Wack allows you to rip to any number of formats. In my case I ripped to Wavpack (4.2) and MP3 (LAME 3.96). My MP3 files are VBR (ABR is about 224kbps) and the WavPack files are about 3 times the size of the MP3 files. I chose WavPack as I was told that more players can read teh .wv files it creats.

I wished I had ripped a uncompressed version as well. I would like to rip my CDs to my hard disk in CDA format but with Tags. Any one have any idea how to do this?

Hmm. A small percentage of people can tell LAME 320 CBR files from the original, and even then only on a small percentage of tracks. If you were "blown away" by the difference either your MP3s are shash, or I'm tempted to say that it was purely placebo.

NB: You may want to add REACT to the list of potential apps, alongside FLACAttack and WACK.

navin, long time, no see. Can I ask why you feel the need for another lossless copy? Really, you should be able to do anything with the WavPack files that you need.

i would personally try MAREO ... www.webearce.com.ar

I have heard the MP3 version and the .WV version and there is a very noticible difference between the 2. Now I dont consider my self some golder earned audiophile and my audio system is quite average (DIYed amps and speakers) so I figured that there might be a difference between wavpack and CDA format as well.

Besides my old hard disk was 400GB today my harddisk is 750GB. I am quite sure that by the time I get down to doing this ripping my system administrator will upgrade it to something much bigger so space is no longer so much of a problem.

Once I have my CDs ripped and Tagged I can then lock away my CD collection. No need to get up to change CDs ever. Everytime I get a new CD I'd rip it and lock it away. Boy am I lazy or what. Used to be a time we used to get up from our chairs to flip albums over every 20-35 minutes! :-)

Besides ginve that hard disks are more mechaincally stable than CD drives I belive that given proper DACs, filters etc..that the next generation of Hard disk equipped CD players will compete with the better CD players on sound quality as well. Many of these players have USB ports allowing one to add external hard disks.

navin, WavPack is a lossless audio format. There is no difference.

Your MP3s are lossy files, and therefore it is possible that they sound inferior to your WavPack copy.

Nothing else that you said leads me to believe that you need a WAVE (there is no such thing as a CDA file really) copy as well as the WavPack.

Actually, I may be missing the point. Are you saying that you want a physical CD Audio backup of the disc, i.e.: you want a secondary disc to play while you store the original? If so, you may have a point. If not, I would stick with your WavPack file.

Also, I should check: I cannot remember your exact circumstances; I assume the WavPack is a lossless version (i.e.: not a hybrid lossy)?

I am no expert on this but if wavpack is lossless why do my wavpack files only occupy about 1/3 the hard disk space a my CD originals. I have not compared the sound of my WavPack files vs my CD originals as they are not on the same system. However I see many CD-Harddisk players coming into the market now and maybe one day this will be the norm. My DVD recorder for example has a 200GB hard disk and a DVD writer and was quite cheap.

My intention was to have all my CDs on my hard disk so I dont have to getup to change disks. Besides I am begining to see that the someday harddisk based players will outperform CD players.

my settings for my MP3 and WavPack files are as follows.

[MP3-ID3]
EXEPATH=D:\lame-3.96.1\lame.exe
ARGUMENTS=--preset extreme --id3v2-only --pad-id3v2 --ignore-tag-errors --scale %x --ta "%a" --tl "%g" --tn "%n" --tt "%t" --ty "%y" --tg "%m" %s %d
FILEPATH=D:\mp3\%a\%g\%n - %t
EXTENSION=.mp3
FILETYPE=1
APPLYREPLAYGAIN=false ;;;;;;;;;; mp3gain stores it's information in APEv2 tags.
REPLAYGAINEXEPATH= ;;;;;;;;;; Using mp3gain with ID3 tags will cause the tags
REPLAYGAINARGUMENTS= ;;;;;;;;;; to disappear on some players (ie, Foobar).

[WAVPACK]
EXEPATH=D:\wavpack-4.2\wavpack\wavpack.exe
ARGUMENTS=-hm -w "Artist=%a" -w "Album=%g" -w "Track=%n" -w "Title=%t" -w "Year=%y" -w "Genre=%m" %s %d
FILEPATH=F:\wav\%a\%g\%n - %t
EXTENSION=.wv
FILETYPE=1
APPLYREPLAYGAIN=false
REPLAYGAINEXEPATH=
REPLAYGAINARGUMENTS=

If you rip a CD to WAVE it will generally be around 400-500MiB (off the top of my head). The compression that WavPack, and other lossless codecs, can achieve is down to the type of music. If the music is quiet (classical, etc.) or in mono they can achieve tremendous compression. With my type of music I get around 65% compression, which means a 500MiB WAVE will shrink to 325MiB. In tests I have done the compression has varied between 50% and 80%.

Your WavPack settings (-h) are producing a lossless copy, so no worries there.

Perhaps you should perform a listening test to assuage your fears?

or better yet, do an md5 comparison of the audio.

Maybe I should. My 600CDs took about 180GB of hard disk space. It contains a mix of classical, jazz, pop, rock, blues and some regional music as well. It is just that my hard disk is not connected to my stereo system. I would be willing to consume thrree times the hard disk space if it gives noticeable difference in the sound. Hard disks have become awfully cheap today.

Mangix,
what is MD5?

navin, you will gain nothing by switching from WavPack to WAVE, but you will lose the ease of tagging.

The type of music you list will compress well, and some of the older stuff is no doubt in mono.

Using MD5 hashes is a common way of checking whether two or more files are bit-identical. This is a more logical way of testing your WavPack decompressed WAVEs to the original WAVEs; however your concern about your WavPack files, given that they are lossless, is illogical, which is why I suggested a listening test instead. Logically, you should ript to WAVE, encode to WavPack, decompress the WavPack file, and bit compare the two WAVEs to prove to yourself that they are exactly the same. They will be. Alternatively, play the WavPack and WAVE files using the same setup and hopefully your brain will accept the fact that they are identical. I don't mean this to be patronising or sarcastic, i just think that you need to find your own way of feeling at peace with your files.

See, this is what is really confusing me. These two statements are not related. Using WAVE instead of WavPack will not suddenly let you use your stereo to listen to the files. You will be in the same situation but just with bigger files that can't be tagged easily.

If you want to play on your stero then you will need to burn to CD. Either that or you start using a PC/server as your stereo (a subject which I know very little about).

Oh ofcoruse I do exect that my next CD player will have an integrated hard disk. I have already seen a few of these machines in India. My DVD recorder has an integrated hard disk so why not a CD player/recoerder?

I also believe that hard disks are more mechanically stable than CD drives. That is why Ipod dont skip as easily as portable CD players. Now givne that Hard disk is more stable it might also lead to players that have better resolution once they are equipped with the better DACs, filters, power supplies, shielding, etc... that the good CD players today have.

In any case allt his is mute (I agree with you totally on this) untill i ABX my WavPack files against my CD player. Till then my WavPack output should suffice. Thank you for all your time and advice.