If you are backing up CDs you may want to look at this wiki page, which details using FLAC directly from Exact Audio Copy
IIRC the wiki article is based on ripping to tracks, and westgroveg's article is based on ripping to image (one file for the whole CD).This thread has some info on the differences, although there are probably better ones. Many members here rip to single tracks, and many rip to image. It mainly comes down to whether you will be playing the files regularly, or whether your are simply archiving.If you are archiving, which is suggested by the fact that you are burning to DVD, I would say that ripping to an image with cuesheet is the easiest way of creating a good backup. This ensures you maintain gaps, INDEX 00 entries and hopefully TRACK 01 INDEX 00 hidden tracks if your ripping drive is up to it. Here's a good thread on that subject.I would also suggest that you look at REACT, to make the whole process easier.Welcome to the exciting world of CD archiving.
Thanks, can you please tell me why you support Wavpack over Flac?
Dude, read the forums...
Quote from: Badass01 on 21 April, 2006, 02:03:09 PMThanks, can you please tell me why you support Wavpack over Flac?Quote from: skamp on 21 April, 2006, 03:00:49 PMDude, read the forums... It's probably worth looking at the comparison in the wiki and making your own conclusions.
Obviously I cant do much with FLAC just yet on portable players due to nothing supporting the format.
If Im encoding to seperate files, there isn't really a need to make a cue sheet is there? I can always do with using the cuesheet to display and play playlists though... hmmm.
I believe that some hardware players do play FLAC. Check the FLAC website.
Just read around and see what suits you best.
Similarly, this is why I pointed him to the comparison, rather than attempting to force my preferences on him... I don't see any point in persuading people away from FLAC when it's obviously a good codec.
So it all comes down to personal preference?
FLAC is probably better as it has more hardware and software support so why do you choose WAVPACK over it?
Ive read the wiki comparison and the only con wavpack has is limited hardware support.
So then it has to be better than FLAC as it supports RIFF Chunks as well and encodes and decodes faster?
Ill definitely give REACT a go What I don't really understand is the point about INDEX 00/02+ entries. What are they?
When ripping this way, then the gaps will be perfectly extracted(exept hidden tracks in track one's pre-gap), but they will just not be marked when burned to disc(INDEX 00). Like Synthetic Soul explained, this will have the effect that their won't be displayed a negative countdown in the CD players display between tracks(if their is a pre-gap present). Another minor thing that will occure is that when playing the tracks in random order(programmed play), then the pre-gaps are played, even though they actually should be skipped. These two things isn't enough of a reason for me to make cuesheet's.
So then it has to be better than FLAC as it supports RIFF Chunks...
I've never seen an INDEX 02 or higher entry. (...)
PERFORMER "Berio, Luciano (1925-2003)"TITLE "Laborintus 2"FILE "Range.wav" WAVE TRACK 01 AUDIO TITLE "Première partie" PERFORMER "Berio, Luciano (1925-2003)" INDEX 01 00:00:00 INDEX 02 04:18:52 INDEX 03 06:34:07 INDEX 04 09:19:50 INDEX 05 12:41:07 INDEX 06 14:34:42 INDEX 07 17:08:37 TRACK 02 AUDIO TITLE "Deuxième partie" PERFORMER "Berio, Luciano (1925-2003)" INDEX 00 19:05:25 INDEX 01 19:10:20 INDEX 02 27:56:50
PERFORMER "Bach - Glenn Gould"TITLE "Goldberg Variations BWV988"FILE "Range.wav" WAVE TRACK 01 AUDIO TITLE "Aria & 30 Variations" PERFORMER "Bach - Glenn Gould" INDEX 01 00:00:00 INDEX 02 03:01:10 INDEX 03 04:11:70 INDEX 04 05:01:47 INDEX 05 06:32:17 INDEX 06 07:22:57 INDEX 07 07:59:35 INDEX 08 08:39:47 INDEX 09 09:55:47 INDEX 10 10:49:60 INDEX 11 11:49:10 INDEX 12 12:53:22 INDEX 13 13:46:72 INDEX 14 15:24:72 INDEX 15 18:03:22 INDEX 16 19:07:60 INDEX 17 24:09:72 INDEX 18 25:48:35 INDEX 19 26:42:35 INDEX 20 27:45:47 INDEX 21 28:48:72 INDEX 22 29:38:72 INDEX 23 31:51:47 INDEX 24 32:54:72 INDEX 25 33:52:60 INDEX 26 35:36:47 INDEX 27 41:39:60 INDEX 28 42:32:07 INDEX 29 43:53:35 INDEX 30 44:56:60 INDEX 31 45:58:35 INDEX 32 47:28:47