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: Does Extraction Method Affect Sound Quality? Ripping In Wav With Paranoid Mode (Read 1326 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Does Extraction Method Affect Sound Quality? Ripping In Wav With Paranoid Mode

Does it? If so, should I just use burst mode or secure mode?

I read somewhere on this site that it does. Will be ripping in wav only

Re: Does Extraction Method Affect Sound Quality? Ripping In Wav With Paranoid Mode

Reply #1 –
Long story short:

* This isn't vinyl. You don't gradually improve, a bit is 0 or 1.
* If your rip verifies the CUEToolsDB or AccurateRip, then it is bit by bit the same as someone else's, and you are good to go.
So you can use burst first, and set the problem discs aside to be re-ripped.
* If then the secure rip equals the burst rip, you are as fine as you could be, although people like myself then often resort to a different physical CD drive.

Also, .wav is just a waste. FLAC is saves space losslessly (just like compressing and decompressing files), and it offers checksumming against errors, and tagging support.

Re: Does Extraction Method Affect Sound Quality? Ripping In Wav With Paranoid Mode

Reply #2 –
Quote from: Porcus on
Long story short:

* This isn't vinyl. You don't gradually improve, a bit is 0 or 1.
* If your rip verifies the CUEToolsDB or AccurateRip, then it is bit by bit the same as someone else's, and you are good to go.
So you can use burst first, and set the problem discs aside to be re-ripped.
* If then the secure rip equals the burst rip, you are as fine as you could be, although people like myself then often resort to a different physical CD drive.

Also, .wav is just a waste. FLAC is saves space losslessly (just like compressing and decompressing files), and it offers checksumming against errors, and tagging support.
Thanks for answering. I've been using paranoid mode even on brand new, factory sealed cds. I also just prefer wav over flac. I use wav on songs I really love and flac on long songs that are 6+ minutes long or I don't care for.

Re: Does Extraction Method Affect Sound Quality? Ripping In Wav With Paranoid Mode

Reply #3 –
If someone told you that .wav sounds better than .flac, avoid whatever snake oil they are peddling.
The WAVE format has no error detection, so in case your system starts doing weird things, you don't know what files are destroyed. I've had that. A hardware error caused partial overwrites. FLAC? Problems can be found by mass scanning: it would scream at the corrupted ones (could be retrieved from backup). MP3? Uh-oh dirty job. WAVE? Luckily I don't use WAVE.

Sure I have had my ripping overnight on a stubborn CD, but the point about the databases is that two CDs are better than one. You got the data pressed to two physical CDs ripped on two different computers, and if they match that is better than one rip no matter how paranoid mode was used. I have a major release (Pink Floyd: Pulse) where a six-sample glitch has found its way into a great number of pressings. In a way that no level of single-rip paranoia can ever detect, because is is not a pressing defect, it is a "glass mastering" defect at some stage, and apparently that has been digitized (ripped!) and re-used.

Re: Does Extraction Method Affect Sound Quality? Ripping In Wav With Paranoid Mode

Reply #4 –
Quote from: Wickedfox on
I also just prefer wav over flac. I use wav on songs I really love and flac on long songs that are 6+ minutes long or I don't care for.
I guess you haven't looked into exactly what FLAC is and does. @Porcus has already answered, but to reiterate, FLAC is lossless, just like WAV (and AIFF) is lossless. There is no audio sound quality difference. And yet - as Porcus says - there are significant benefits in using FLAC over WAV for storage/archive and playback.

Re: Does Extraction Method Affect Sound Quality? Ripping In Wav With Paranoid Mode

Reply #5 –
FLAC is much less widely supported than WAV and it can be really problematic. I had problems with it even in Foobar2000. WAV can be preferred for these reasons. And, for error detection, there's Parchive which can actually correct the errors beyond detecting. Of course, using FLAC still makes sense in many cases (assuming PCM data is required), but I wanted to say that this is not always the case. And, I also prefer WAV in cases that require PCM (so-called lossless) data for above reasons.

Re: Does Extraction Method Affect Sound Quality? Ripping In Wav With Paranoid Mode

Reply #6 –
@Klymins what cases will you use WAV in preference to FLAC?

If it's for editing etc in a DAW or the like (like Audacity etc) then they will usually convert to PCM-encoded WAV or AIFF. Which makes sense, but for playback and archival purposes I see no reason to not use a lossless format like FLAC or Wavpack etc.

I get that maybe Apple products will be less happy using FLAC, but then they'd also prefer AIFF over WAV afaik (never owned any Apple products so can't attest to personal experience).

In 24 years of using FLAC I can't remember having had any problems with a FLAC file. Maybe I'm lucky.

Re: Does Extraction Method Affect Sound Quality? Ripping In Wav With Paranoid Mode

Reply #7 –
I've had portable devices that would play WAVE but not FLAC. Back in the day where they had so little memory that you wouldn't use them with lossless. There was a reason portables were called "mp3 players".

(As for AIFF, it was widespread in processing long before WAVE, and besides it can be used beyond audio. WAVE - and FLAC for that matter - can only handle integer Hz, while AIFF can be used with data sampled daily if you want.)

Re: Does Extraction Method Affect Sound Quality? Ripping In Wav With Paranoid Mode

Reply #8 –
Quote from: jaybeee on
@Klymins what cases will you use WAV in preference to FLAC?

If it's for editing etc in a DAW or the like (like Audacity etc) then they will usually convert to PCM-encoded WAV or AIFF. Which makes sense, but for playback and archival purposes I see no reason to not use a lossless format like FLAC or Wavpack etc.

I get that maybe Apple products will be less happy using FLAC, but then they'd also prefer AIFF over WAV afaik (never owned any Apple products so can't attest to personal experience).

In 24 years of using FLAC I can't remember having had any problems with a FLAC file. Maybe I'm lucky.

For experimenting purposes and feeding programs.

Many web browsers, media player softwares, encoders, programs that include encoders, portable music players (as Porcus said), and car music players support WAV but don't support FLAC or have problems with it,

Quote from: Porcus on
I've had portable devices that would play WAVE but not FLAC. Back in the day where they had so little memory that you wouldn't use them with lossless. There was a reason portables were called "mp3 players".

(As for AIFF, it was widespread in processing long before WAVE, and besides it can be used beyond audio. WAVE - and FLAC for that matter - can only handle integer Hz, while AIFF can be used with data sampled daily if you want.)

Thanks for information.

Re: Does Extraction Method Affect Sound Quality? Ripping In Wav With Paranoid Mode

Reply #9 –
sure, I know of some limitations with old hardware and very old software.
For portable use just use lossy (whatever is supported - prob mp3 covers 99% of things). But in 2024 I'd say most people have hardware and software that can handle many other formats than raw audio like wav.

For CD ripping, archiving and playback on a computer say, then there's more benefits to compressed lossless formats like flac and wavpack etc than wav. Tagging and error detection to name two.

Would seem silly for a website to use WAV unless very specific reasons.

This is useful: Formats supported by different web browsers .

Anyway, ymmv

Getting a bit off topic now tho lol.

Re: Does Extraction Method Affect Sound Quality? Ripping In Wav With Paranoid Mode

Reply #10 –
Lossless compression is always preferred for storage. Yes, that is also the case if your player doesnt support it. Thats the beauty of flac. You can just switch back and forth.
Do studios not have the nerve to do this when their DAW doesnt support it? Yes, propably... Would they benefit from it anyway? Yes also.
And so, with digital, computer was put into place, and all the IT that came with it.

Re: Does Extraction Method Affect Sound Quality? Ripping In Wav With Paranoid Mode

Reply #11 –
Here's what I found:
WAV files are UNCOMPRESSED copies of the original audio file, so they offer the highest possible sound quality. They are the best choice for applications that require critical audio quality, such as music or sound production. However, WAV files are larger in size, so streaming them requires more bandwidth and can be slower.

FLAC files are COMPRESSED using a lossless COMPRESSION method, so they don't lose any audio quality during the compression process. FLAC files can be up to 70% smaller than the same WAV file. They are considered the more suitable format for streaming because they are smaller in size and don't require as much bandwidth. However, FLAC files require MORE processing power to decompress.

The best choice between WAV and FLAC depends on several factors, including your specific requirements, the condition of your devices, and the platforms you use for streaming.
 

Re: Does Extraction Method Affect Sound Quality? Ripping In Wav With Paranoid Mode

Reply #12 –
Here is a test for you. Open each text file, and for each of them, and answer the simple question therein.
It is supposed to read: "Can you tell from this text whether it has been compressed or not?"

What are the quality differences between them?