Ripping CD collection

[ThatM1key]

There's only 1 reason to use WAV (Playback), it would be its already decoded for you. WAV is perfect for CPU's that cannot handle FLAC, but that's about. I remember seeing threads talking about how FLAC Level 4 to 5 is good enough but I crank it to Level 8 and all my equipment can decode it just fine.

Here's an example of a modern device that has decoding limitations.

 

[Waxx]

Flac is often as good as wav, that is true, but i try to keep it in the original format and for redbook cd's that is 16bit 44.1kHz .wav. I did not run out of space on my NAS yet, so i can do it.

And wav means also that my media player computer has to work less hard, so... why not.

Btw: i got also a lot of flacs of files i bought digitally, it's not that i'm against it.

 

[elvisizer]

And wav means also that my media player computer has to work less hard, so... why not.

because wav is huge (with no advantage over flac or alac from the increased size) and doesn't support standard tagging.
if you want to use wav it's really nbd but those are the reasons most people don't.

And wav means also that my media player computer has to work less hard, so... why not.

Yes, decoding wav is 'simpler' than flac but the difference is so minor as to be a distinction without a difference these days- either operation is trivial for a modern computer.
Also, reading the larger wave file actually means your media computer has to work HARDER on the filesystem i/o side of things than with a flac file- there's more data to be read in the same amount of time, so throughput has to be higher. Again here the difference is so minor as to not matter at all, but since you're talking about things on this level I thought I'd point it out.

 

[Waxx]

in Jriver you can still tag wav's, so that is not an issue for me. But there may be a day i need disk space on my NAS and i convert them to flac. I got the system for it to do it anyway so. But i don't feel the need for it. If you do, use flac.

But it's not that i buy many cd's, i buy mostly digital files (.flac) or vinyl. CD's is only direct from the artists at concerts because i know they earn money on it, more than on digital sales.

 

[TheBatsEar]

Well if you have the space and you have the meta data, why not indeed.

 

[krabapple]

There's only 1 reason to use WAV (Playback), it would be its already decoded for you. WAV is perfect for CPU's that cannot handle FLAC, but that's about.

What CPUs cannot handle FLAC? The 'decoding limitations' you showed are pretty forgiving. Who is storing PCM at >192/24?

Flac is often as good as wav, that is true, but i try to keep it in the original format and for redbook cd's that is 16bit 44.1kHz .wav. I did not run out of space on my NAS yet, so i can do it.

In terms of audio quality, FLAC is *always* as good as WAV. That's what lossless means.

 

[somebodyelse]

What CPUs cannot handle FLAC? The 'decoding limitations' you showed are pretty forgiving. Who is storing PCM at >192/24?

It's probably more about MCUs than CPUs, or perhaps old hardware designs being kept on life support. For example:

// On ESP8266 you might need to re-encode FLAC files with max '-2' compression level
// (i.e. 1152 maximum block size) or you will run out of memory. FLAC files will be
// slightly bigger but you don't loose audio quality with reencoding (lossles codec).

https://github.com/earlephilhower/E...mples/PlayFLAC-SD-SPDIF/PlayFLAC-SD-SPDIF.ino

 

[elvisizer]

in Jriver you can still tag wav's, so that is not an issue for me.

RIght . . .those aren't standard tags though and there's no guarantee that other playback software can read them properly.
That's why I said wav doesn't support standard tags instead of saying it doesn't support tags full stop.

 

[elvisizer]

It's probably more about MCUs than CPUs, or perhaps old hardware designs being kept on life support. For example:

// On ESP8266 you might need to re-encode FLAC files with max '-2' compression level
// (i.e. 1152 maximum block size) or you will run out of memory. FLAC files will be
// slightly bigger but you don't loose audio quality with reencoding (lossles codec).

https://github.com/earlephilhower/E...mples/PlayFLAC-SD-SPDIF/PlayFLAC-SD-SPDIF.ino

sure- but that's a chip you'd find in a raspberry pi or an arduino board, not a full size computer.

 

[somebodyelse]

sure- but that's a chip you'd find in a raspberry pi or an arduino board, not a full size computer.

Back in post #101, which you replied to, it was about limited devices, not full size computers. The ESP8266 is an extreme example, but the ESP32 made it into at least Polyvection's DAC32 within the last couple of years and is getting marginal once you hit 192kHz. That puts it in the same ballpark as @ThatM1key's modern device with limited capability. It's significantly less powerful than any Pi but the Pico.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

What CPUs cannot handle FLAC? The 'decoding limitations' you showed are pretty forgiving. Who is storing PCM at >192/24?

DXD?

 

[elvisizer]

Back in post #101, which you replied to, it was about limited devices, not full size computers.

whoops I thought this was about normal PCs! don't see anything in post 101 about pi's and whatnot but I'll take your word for it.

 

[ThatM1key]

What CPUs cannot handle FLAC? The 'decoding limitations' you showed are pretty forgiving. Who is storing PCM at >192/24?

If I recall, when MP3 was just coming out, home computers had a hard time decoding MP3s. I can imagine some time after that some CPU's couldn't handle decoding FLAC.

Sure 192/24 is overkill but is still a limitation for that specific device (A Brand New $400 4K Blu-ray Player). There's a few reasons that people get media in 96/24 or higher. Downscaling DSD albums, recording vinyl, albums mastered in that frequency, etc.

 

[krabapple]

DXD?

Then the question becomes, as it always does for DSD related things, for god's sake why?

 

[krabapple]

If I recall, when MP3 was just coming out, home computers had a hard time decoding MP3s. I can imagine some time after that some CPU's couldn't handle decoding FLAC.

Sure 192/24 is overkill but is still a limitation for that specific device (A Brand New $400 4K Blu-ray Player). There's a few reasons that people get media in 96/24 or higher. Downscaling DSD albums, recording vinyl, albums mastered in that frequency, etc.

Recording vinyl or mastering albums (PCM) at anything higher than 192/24 is beyond ridiculous (since 192/24 is ridiculous). This is a fantasy-based 'need' that shouldn't be encouraged.

 

[ThatM1key]

Recording vinyl or mastering albums (PCM) at anything higher than 192/24 is beyond ridiculous (since 192/24 is ridiculous). This is a fantasy-based 'need' that shouldn't be encouraged.

I wasn't encouraging. In my post #101, I was saying that there is CPU's out there that still have limitations even if what's currently doing is overkill. (Like 8K Gaming).

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Then the question becomes, as it always does for DSD related things, for god's sake why?

A good question but the only answer is that it was recorded and delivered to me in that format.

 

[krabapple]

A good question but the only answer is that it was recorded and delivered to me in that format.

Fortunately that is easily remedied. Convert it from utterly ridiculous PCM (352.8/24 aka DXD) to just moderately ridiculous PCM (88.1/24 or 96/24).

.

 

[oceansize]

I don't understand the CD's deteriorate with time thing. I haven't run into one yet anyways..

Lol

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Fortunately that is easily remedied. Convert it from utterly ridiculous PCM (352.8/24 aka DXD) to just moderately ridiculous PCM (88.1/24 or 96/24).
.

Sure but I can play it as-is and storage space is not an issue.