# Best Ripper for FLAC



## GarySeven

Now that I've discovered hi-res Amps/DACS and bought the X5 and ATH-MSR7 headphones I'm looking for recommendations for ripping my CD's to FLAC 96/24.  So far I've tried dBpoweramp, foobar2000, JRiver, Exact Audio Copy and a few other.  So far I'm leaning towards dBpoweramp.  EAC seems good, too, but it appears I'd have to customize the FLAC commands to rip in 96/24.  I work in IT, so I can do it, but if it's not worth the time I'd rather just write the check for dBpoweamp.
  
 Any thoughts would be appreciated.  I have 100's of CD's to rip all over again, so I don't want to go down the wrong path.
  
 Thanks in advance.


----------



## Music Alchemist

Hi-res is a gimmick. The only thing that matters is the recording and master. Different formats and higher resolution of files have no audible benefit whatsoever.
  
 Read this: https://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
  
 CDs are 16-bit / 44.1 kHz. Ripping them to higher res only fills the files up with empty space, making them bigger, but not sounding any different. Just rip normally and don't worry about it. I use dBpoweramp. Exact Audio Copy is good as well. Or you could just use whatever, like foobar2000, iTunes, etc.
  
 Oh wait. Your CDs are already ripped to lossless? Then you don't need to rip them again.
  
 Also, 256 kbps AAC is indistinguishable from lossless. You could convert your files to that for portable use.


----------



## GarySeven

I was going to state up front that I didn't want any arguments about formats.  I probably should have.  I've done all the research, read all papers and will be ripping at 96/24.  I could argue the point, but I'm not interested.
  
 I'm not trying to be difficult.  I'm just looking for recommendations about which software is best to get me where I've chosen to go.
  
 All due respect, of course.


----------



## Music Alchemist

If you insist upon doing it (even though it's physically impossible for it to sound better), dBpoweramp can do it. But you would be wasting a huge amount of your time and energy. At least rip just one CD to 24/96, then convert it to 16/44 and listen. There is no difference in sound. Oh, and, by the way...if you already have lossless 16/44 files, there's no reason to rip the CDs again even if you wanted them in 24/96. You could just convert the 16/44 files to 24/96, since the 16/44 files are an exact replica of the information on the CD. dBpoweramp can do this as well, but so can foobar2000, which is free.


----------



## bgentry

garyseven said:


> I was going to state up front that I didn't want any arguments about formats.  I probably should have.  I've done all the research, read all papers and will be ripping at 96/24.




"Format" is ok to not argue about. You want to use FLAC. Awesome. You want lossless files, which is also awesome.

But you say you want to rip CDs to 24/96. That's a problem. Why? Because there are only 16 bits per sample, sampled at 44.1kHz on a CD! There is no other data there. You can't create data from nothing. So all you would be doing is inserting a bunch of ZEROS into the bottom 8 bits. Then you'd be resampling all of the 44100 samples per second into 96000 samples per second. That's a bigger problem. Because resampling can introduce problems of it's own because THERE IS NO DATA to put in those other samples. It has to be interpolated.

Stick to 16/44.1, lossless as FLAC. You'll be a really happy guy with that setup. Then if you really want to, you can experiment with a player that upsamples to 96kHz. If you really want to.

Brian.


----------



## m-i-c-k-e-y

I prefer EZ CD Audio Converter to EAC. It has more or less the same error correction capabilities (drive offsets, crc check etc.) with more options (drive pre spin-up, cover/metadata search)  and ease.
  
 Using it for more than a decade now.


----------



## GarySeven

Funny, I didn't find EZ CD during my searches.  Very nice.  The layout, options and interface are well done.  Whoa, the rip of a 17 song CD was the fastest I've seen.  Thank you!
  
 To the other points about 24 bit rips, I will also be ripping in source formats, to preserve the original audio.  I get the point about 16 to 24 bit ripping, but I have songs where the dynamic range sounds better to my ears at 24-bit, such as some of the live recordings I've tested with.  Whether it's due to the introduction of noise, or spreading the audio across a larger word length and dynamic range is beyond me, but they sound different.
  
 One question I forgot to ask was about compression. 
  
 Is there any reason to rip loss-less files uncompressed, or is the final quality the same at compression levels of 5-6?


----------



## Music Alchemist

garyseven said:


> To the other points about 24 bit rips, I will also be ripping in source formats, to preserve the original audio.  I get the point about 16 to 24 bit ripping, but I have songs where the dynamic range sounds better to my ears at 24-bit, such as some of the live recordings I've tested with.  Whether it's due to the introduction of noise, or spreading the audio across a larger word length and dynamic range is beyond me, but they sound different.
> One question I forgot to ask was about compression.
> 
> Is there any reason to rip loss-less files uncompressed, or is the final quality the same at compression levels of 5-6?


 
  
 Describe this test with 24-bit in more detail. Because if you just downloaded a 24-bit file, chances are it was just a different master. To compare the formats, you have to isolate the variables. In this case, you would need to simply convert the 24-bit to 16-bit. I have done every test you can imagine. There is absolutely no audible difference, I can assure you. 16-bit is capable of more than all the dynamic range human ears can hear. 24-bit just adds more dynamic range, but there's nothing more to add in terms of anything we can hear.
  
 Lossless is lossless. It works like a Zip archive. There is no loss of data no matter how many times you compress or uncompress it. (As long as you don't convert to lossy.)


----------



## Roseval

> Is there any reason to rip loss-less files uncompressed, or is the final quality the same at compression levels of 5-6?


 
  
 It is. FLAC’s “compression” level is a permanent source of confusion.
 All it says is the amount of resources the PC might spend on finding the best possible lossless compression.
 In the past an issue. Today any decent CPU can do the job.
 Others already pointed out that ripping to 96/24 is not a good idea.
 Hi-res is about recordings made with a bit depth of 24 and a sample rate > 44.1
 If you rip a CD to 96/24 you don’t get hi-res, you do get up-sampling.
 Ripping a CD to 96/24 is a bit like converting MP3 to FLAC.
 People read on the forums that FLAC is better than MP3 hence they start to convert.
 What they don’t realize is that what is lost in the lossy compression to MP3 won’t be recovered when you convert  it to a lossless format.


----------



## GarySeven

music alchemist said:


> Describe this test with 24-bit in more detail. Because if you just downloaded a 24-bit file, chances are it was just a different master. To compare the formats, you have to isolate the variables. In this case, you would need to simply convert the 24-bit to 16-bit. I have done every test you can imagine. There is absolutely no audible difference, I can assure you. 16-bit is capable of more than all the dynamic range human ears can hear. 24-bit just adds more dynamic range, but there's nothing more to add in terms of anything we can hear.
> 
> Lossless is lossless. It works like a Zip archive. There is no loss of data no matter how many times you compress or uncompress it. (As long as you don't convert to lossy.)


 

 I ripped J. Geils Blow Your Face Out at both 44/16 and 96/24 with dBpoweramp and EZ CD.  Didn't notice any difference in sound between the rippers, but in both 96/24 files I can hear Pete's voice more prominently on Where Did Our Love Go at the 40-60 second mark.  For grins I compared wave forms and there were subtle differences between them.  I don't disagree that there should be no difference, so I think it's just an artifact of up-sampling.
  
 Doesn't matter.  I'm going to follow everyone's advice and rip my whole collection using the original source rates.  I came hear for advice, so after listening and researching further I'm not going to ignore good direction.
  
 Thank you, good sir.


----------



## GarySeven

roseval said:


> It is. FLAC’s “compression” level is a permanent source of confusion.
> All it says is the amount of resources the PC might spend on finding the best possible lossless compression.
> In the past an issue. Today any decent CPU can do the job.
> Others already pointed out that ripping to 96/24 is not a good idea.
> ...


 
 Understood on all points.  I don't plan on up-converting at all.  I'll be tossing my .mp3s (well, I'll keep them around for my wife's devices).  My goal is to rip to the best quality possible as an audio archive for my X5.
  
 Many thanks.


----------



## Roseval

If it is about the best possible rip the answer is simple.
 By design bit perfect ripping of audio CD’s is not guaranteed.
http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/KB/Ripping.htm
 However in practice most rippers when set to secure mode do a good job.
 The trick is to compare the result of your rip with the rip of others. If they are the same it is very likely the rip is bit perfect. That is what AccurateRip does.
 dBpoweramp supports AccurateRip, in fact they invented it.
 I believe Foobar does it too, JRiver don’t.
 I’m a dBpoweramp fan boy
 It is fast, reliable, accuraterip and excellent meta data.
 Also a reliable format converter.


----------



## JeremyW

m-i-c-k-e-y said:


> I prefer EZ CD Audio Converter to EAC. It has more or less the same error correction capabilities (drive offsets, crc check etc.) with more options (drive pre spin-up, cover/metadata search)  and ease.
> 
> Using it for more than a decade now.


 
 Hi,
  
 Can you help with optimal FLAC ripping settings? I'm new to EZ CD Converter. Seems great so far. I'd like to get the best out it - It'll be FLAC rips on my Synology NAS playing over the network to a Chromecast Audio / Chord Mojo / Musical Fidelity A1000 / Neat Motive SX2 speakers. I notice the mysterious numerical setting which is set to '5' (default), tempted to set that to '8' (Best) but I don't what it's for! Other settings are at Auto.
  
 Thanks in advance.
  
 Jeremy


----------



## m-i-c-k-e-y

FLAC is like ZIP or WinRAR. These are compression settings. More compression smaller file, more time/cpu to compress and play.
  
 Personal experience, I leave it alone at default (5). File size difference are minimal.
  
 Have Options and DSP settings to and Replay Gain, .CUE sheet or .M3U playlist.
  
 Be sure to go to Program Settings (upper right corner) to:
  
 - configure internet disc database lookup
 - Audio CD ripper settings
 - Drive settings (esp drive offset, error detection, verify)
 - Audio Converter (# of threads/processors used)
  
 Depending on your preferences....


----------



## JeremyW

I'm finding that the level is a tad high when playing back. Is this something to do with the Replay / Gain settings? Should I be checking the 'Calculate Replay/Gain Metadata' option for example? Or setting something manually...?


----------



## m-i-c-k-e-y

IDK..don't add replay gain settings. Wan't them as is. Am more particular on the Metadata info and the integrity/accuracy of the rip. 

If a tad high for you, then by all means. Storage today are not that limited as before..


----------



## JeremyW

So, in your view, what settings are best to ensure the integrity of the rip? Or will default settings do it?


----------



## m-i-c-k-e-y

I'm mobile right now... 

Under program settings > drive settings, I ticked everything
- error correction
- drive spinup (5 sec) 
- drive offset
- verify audio
- verify data 

Surely more options more time consuming. Don't know of you priorities. 

What I liked also is that it has a nice meta editor. You can edit/correct/download Album art, Artist/Album info etc.


----------



## JeremyW

Yes, I like the meta editor as well. Nothing else seems to touch it. I've seen lots of damming reviews (as well as good ones) for EZ CD, so I'm hesitating at the moment. But then it's doing a great job tonight ploughing through a mountain of CD's! Question: Is it worth paying for? Have you done so?


----------



## m-i-c-k-e-y

Happy with it. 10yrs have been using it.

Thing that sold me:
- can customize/edit/control the whole ripping process. 
- properly edit Metadata (esp. album art, album/artist/track info etc.)

Wanted more than just a program that tells me an accurate rip has been done. 
Its not just the good sound. But when playing or searching, I see all the info there. 

With ease of use, speed, I never changed to other similar. This works for me.

Hoping it will do to your needs also.


----------



## f4phantom2500

fwiw, with computers these days typically the longest part of the cd ripping process is the pulling of the data from the cd. the increased resources for higher levels of flac compression, and while i use eac and haven't used ez cd, i only assume that the extra options in ez cd add an insignificant amount of time to the ripping of each disk. hell, flac level 8 takes exponentially longer than 5 with only a very slight decrease in file size, but it's worth it to most to just rip at 8 because it really amounts to only a couple extra seconds for a cd.


----------



## m-i-c-k-e-y

With large amounts of storage availability today. I think flac compression is not an issue anymore (esp. on the size/processing /time benefit it offer). 

Each have its own priorities on ripping. Amount of integrity, time, options they want to have. 

On ripping I want to be in control on what I do, not just tell me I have an accurate rip. 

But what Poikosoft's EZ CD stands out is Metadata editing/look up. 

Give it a whip: https://www.poikosoft.com/audio-converter

Here is a sample. of its Ripper layout:


----------

