Hi everybody,
I'm new to this forum, but seeing other posts when Googling for my question convinced me this was the place to go.
My question is this: Is there any loss in quality if you create a WAV or FLAC file from an audio CD, and then rip another WAV/FLAC file of that copy? In other words, is a WAV of a WAV of a WAV of lesser quality than the first WAV file created?
I'm in the process of backing up a couple hundred discs of live recordings, and in some cases I have 2 or 3 generations of copies -- for those cases, I'm wondering if it makes more sense to back up the original disc from which other copies were made, or if there's no difference at all.
In advance, many thanks!
Gregor
I'm new to this forum, but seeing other posts when Googling for my question convinced me this was the place to go.
My question is this: Is there any loss in quality if you create a WAV or FLAC file from an audio CD, and then rip another WAV/FLAC file of that copy? In other words, is a WAV of a WAV of a WAV of lesser quality than the first WAV file created?
I'm in the process of backing up a couple hundred discs of live recordings, and in some cases I have 2 or 3 generations of copies -- for those cases, I'm wondering if it makes more sense to back up the original disc from which other copies were made, or if there's no difference at all.
In advance, many thanks!
Gregor
Dithering to 16-bit does reduce some quality, whether this is audible or not it is debatable. Mastering engineers have a rule that says "only render to 16-bit once", so if you're using 24 or 32 bit there is DEFINITELY zero quality loss.
Maybe I am using the wrong terminology. I'm copying audio files (mostly bootleg recordings on CDR, but also official CDs) so I can back them up onto a 2TB external hard drive. I've been using a program called Exact Audio Copy which copies everything as a WAV file, 44.100 kHz, 4-bit stereo, Microsoft IMA ADPCM CODEC.
I guess the larger question is am I doing the right thing to keep them as lossless files for the long term? After going through about 100 discs in the above manner, I'd hate to have to start all over again, but if that's what it means, so be it -- I just want the audio to sound as good as it can, say, 10 or 15 year from now (I'm into things sounding the way they should be heard, though I'm not one of those $5,000 needle audiophiles).
Many, many thanks!
Gregor
I guess the larger question is am I doing the right thing to keep them as lossless files for the long term? After going through about 100 discs in the above manner, I'd hate to have to start all over again, but if that's what it means, so be it -- I just want the audio to sound as good as it can, say, 10 or 15 year from now (I'm into things sounding the way they should be heard, though I'm not one of those $5,000 needle audiophiles).
Many, many thanks!
Gregor
CD's are 16 bit/ 44.1kHz, not 4 bit.
16 bit is a max theoretical 96dB Signal to Noise ratio.
4 bit files will have max 24dB S/N ratio.
Last edited:
And it's not recommended to use WAV either. But you can always make MP3s out of those...
Anyway, yeah, time to re-rip. ADPCM will either add hiss (if it's dithered) or add "grunge" due to the volume quantization (if not dithered). Either way it'll sound quite a bit worse than the original. I find the quantization artifacts more tolerable than low bitrate MP3, but it's not an optimal format.
Use FLAC, end of story. I have no problems with the maximum compression level, ripping with error correction takes more than compressing anyway.
I'd go for flac myself, and not worry too much about the compression level settings as this generally only very slightly further reduces the file size and results in a much slower conversion. (I typically use a compression setting of 6) EAC incidentally can now rip directly to Flac with no intermediate steps and this is how I would go.
You definitely do not want to use proprietary codecs, for future proofing I think Flac is really the way to go given your long term archival goals. You can copy it an unlimited number of times without quality loss. (I've used Flac files for over 5yrs now and have encountered no problems playing them on a number of devices. Note also that Rockbox supports Flac playback on a number of portable devices so if you have sufficient storage on said device I would use Flac there too..)
Last edited:
(I've used Flac files for over 5yrs now and have encountered no problems playing them on a number of devices. Note also that Rockbox supports Flac playback on a number of portable devices so if you have sufficient storage on said device I would use Flac there too..)[/QUOTE]
Portable players will ALWAYS be reading from the memory card/ harddisk. Wich means they consume alot of energy. Normally 15mb is read and stored in the RAM and played, over and over again. But because FLAC is so big your player will always be reading. I'm talking about iPod, my video with a 400mAh battery dies very fast if I play FLAC.
Try to use AAC, next-gen MP3 format. Better quality and smaller. When I'm on the bus I'm unable to notice the difference between a FLAC file and 320kbps mp3 files. So FLAC on an iPod is a bit overkill if your on the move for my opinion.
But overall, if you want to store music, use a lossless format.
Portable players will ALWAYS be reading from the memory card/ harddisk. Wich means they consume alot of energy. Normally 15mb is read and stored in the RAM and played, over and over again. But because FLAC is so big your player will always be reading. I'm talking about iPod, my video with a 400mAh battery dies very fast if I play FLAC.
Try to use AAC, next-gen MP3 format. Better quality and smaller. When I'm on the bus I'm unable to notice the difference between a FLAC file and 320kbps mp3 files. So FLAC on an iPod is a bit overkill if your on the move for my opinion.
But overall, if you want to store music, use a lossless format.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.