Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Understanding Quality Difference (Read 3265 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Understanding Quality Difference

I usually download FLAC albums, convert it to WAV, burn it to CD and then rip it in iTunes in 256kbps(VBR) AAC.
So is it OK if I directly convert the WAV files using iTunes in 256kbps(VBR) AAC, without having to burn it again and again?
Will I get the same quality in both cases?
or burning it to CD and ripping it is better?

Understanding Quality Difference

Reply #1 –
Actually burning to CD and ripping might give you less quality (errors)...

Converting FLAC >> AAC is the best option (or FLAC >> WAV >> AAC, make no real difference).
 

Understanding Quality Difference

Reply #2 –
No need to convert to WAV in any of those cases.

'I usually download FLAC albums'?? I take it you mean paid for downloads?

Understanding Quality Difference

Reply #3 –
All i want to know is, which is better -

Ripping CD to AAC  or converting FLAC to AAC?


or is it same in both cases

Understanding Quality Difference

Reply #4 –
Quote from: spoon on
Actually burning to CD and ripping might give you less quality (errors)...

Converting FLAC >> AAC is the best option (or FLAC >> WAV >> AAC, make no real difference).


I actually don't understand how? Can you please explain it a little?

and what do you mean by "errors"?

Understanding Quality Difference

Reply #5 –
Quote from: paperskyline on
Quote from: probedb on
No need to convert to WAV in any of those cases.

'I usually download FLAC albums'?? I take it you mean paid for downloads?

What would you say if I don't pay for it?
I wouldn't say anything, where you download albums from is irrelevant to your actual question.[/s]

What spoon is saying that by burning and ripping you can introduce errors if your CD burner either creates them on a burn or introduces them when you rip.

You don't need an intermediate convert to WAV stage because any conversion or burning software will do that for you.

Understanding Quality Difference

Reply #6 –
Will converting from FLAC to AAC give me the same quality as ripping from a CD? Or does the quality differ when music is not ripped from CD's?

Understanding Quality Difference

Reply #7 –
FLAC to AAC will give you the same or better quality than FLAC to CD to AAC.

Understanding Quality Difference

Reply #10 –
Quote from: paperskyline on
Quote from: pdq on
FLAC to AAC will give you the same or better quality than FLAC to CD to AAC.


Mind explaining me please why is that?

The process should be lossless, however, since it involves writing to CD, it actually may introduce a few errors, due to errors in writing process, read process, or media degradation itself. It is rather unlikely, and more of an audiophile myth.

Understanding Quality Difference

Reply #11 –
Hmm, possible introduction of gaps because the burning software adds 2 seconds of silence by default, or the tracks are not aligned on frame boundaries (which will result in inexact length, even if the burning software actually handles this gracefully without adding gaps by not padding silence), those pesky offsets?

No it isn't "more of an audiophile myth" not even if you only focus on the possibility of ripping errors. The process of transferring to and from red book does not have the same level of reliability.