Computer based Hifi - Page 9

Sharkythefrog · 10th October 2009, 03:12 PM

Youre ringht about tHe bad things about WAV, the grat amount of space that it needs and the missing of tags.
The first one I can live with as bytes are getting more and more cheap to buy.

The cure to the tag problem is to make EAC name the file in a usable way and they will how in media players as "unknown" but all in alphabetic order such as f ex: Green day - Bullet in a bible - Basket case - Punk rock - Punk rock - 1999 or how you like to set up EAC.

Key · 10th October 2009, 03:16 PM

Really I have ripped a large amount of CDs to .wav for another reason entirely. Trust me there is absolutely no reason for you to do this if all you are concerned about is playback.

File names are fine but you need TAGS for true organization. You can use EAC to automatically tag your collection with FLAC you can not with wav. I am done trying to convince you - you will just have to find out the hard way I guess.

Sharkythefrog · 10th October 2009, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Key

There is no such thing as "more lossless" or "less lossless". Lossless is Lossless is lossless. By definition there is NO LOSS. If there was a file format that was "less lossless" then by definition it would become "lossy". You accomplish nothing by ripping to .wav except wasting twice as much hard drive space and using a file format which does not let you lable the files.

Also use windows explorer to look at a CD before it's ripped. Do you see any .wav files? Nope. Wav is not the native format of a CD. It is a container for PCM.

I would abolutely say that there are more or less loss. WAV, FLAC, MP3, WMA etc are all digital containers of analogue soundwaves. Every one of them with different ability to store the sound as close to the original as possible, where MP3 and WMA are losing more information on the way based on the conversion. Like a TV signal or a HDTV signal - more or les information for each second of sound/picture.

From what I´ve learned WAV is the bitstream of the CD, then you can put them into different containers as you said. If you look on different CDs you will see them appearing different in your windows explorer depending on used container.

Sharkythefrog · 10th October 2009, 03:30 PM

Sorry to hear that you are done convincing me that what others been writing that I have taken for correct is wrong. Because if You are right about this I be glad (and not - as I that case need to rip all my CDs again to FLAC)

Key · 10th October 2009, 03:36 PM

Really I don't know what more to say to you. You are being superstitious if you believe .wav is closer to the original than flac.

You can convert a file back and forth from wav to flac an infinite number of times and the underline PCM will still be bit-identical to the original. They will cancel eachother out with an inverted cancellation test. There is NO reason to rip to .wav except if you are planning on using them in a program that does not accept lossless formats.

Sharkythefrog · 10th October 2009, 03:36 PM

I´ve now found a swedish thread about bitstreams on CD. This thread is from 22 Aug this year and is the firt one I´ve seen that are talking about lossless and PCM close as to what You do. What is then happening is a compressing to something like FLAC - which is lossless the write. But how could it? Compressing is always losing information. MP3 is also compresing, but just to a format with more compressing and more loss of information.

I think I have to read more . . .

Sharkythefrog · 10th October 2009, 03:39 PM

OK!

I sounds like you are truly sure about this.

So the mext question from me would, is it possilbe to convert WAV to FLAC and automatically getting some sort of usabel tag on the way?

Key · 10th October 2009, 03:40 PM

Look up the definition of "lossy" (mp3 ogg, wma), "lossless" (flac, wavpack, apple lossless), and "uncompressed" (.wav .aiff)

That's all you need to read. It's pretty elementary to tell you the truth - this is why I feel like I am wasting my time with you.

billyk · 10th October 2009, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sharkythefrog

I´ve now found a swedish thread about bitstreams on CD. This thread is from 22 Aug this year and is the firt one I´ve seen that are talking about lossless and PCM close as to what You do. What is then happening is a compressing to something like FLAC - which is lossless the write. But how could it? Compressing is always losing information. MP3 is also compresing, but just to a format with more compressing and more loss of information.

I think I have to read more . . .

Well one thing to think of is there is a lot of redundant information in the wav file. If you could find a way to write the duplicated information once and refer to it instead of writing it many times you would not be "losing" anything and you would be saving space. This is very oversimplified, but it should start you thinking.
If you use a tool like the dbPoweramp converter, it has a batch process that will convert all your wav to flac in one shot.

Sharkythefrog · 10th October 2009, 04:11 PM

Yes I do know what you mean. There is a lot of such things in the computer world, especially when it comes to picture format and picturehandling for example (TIFF, JPEG, PDF etc). Different algoritms for storing redundant information etc.

I guess the forums and individuals that stated that WAV was the Format to use and nothing else when I was starting my ripping 4-5 years ago was wrong.

New times new thruths . . .

Sorry if I look stubborn about this in my earlier posts. It took me a few hours to reconstruct my believes and truths that has been put there years ago with the help of people just as shure as you are now.

And this new thruth just gave me a few hundred hours of ripping to do on my shoulders . . . . .

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

New To Site?	Need Help?
Register to Participate Search Privacy Statement Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read


	Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you. Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving

10th October 2009, 03:12 PM	#81
Sharkythefrog diyAudio Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Sweden, Eskilstuna	Youre ringht about tHe bad things about WAV, the grat amount of space that it needs and the missing of tags. The first one I can live with as bytes are getting more and more cheap to buy. The cure to the tag problem is to make EAC name the file in a usable way and they will how in media players as "unknown" but all in alphabetic order such as f ex: Green day - Bullet in a bible - Basket case - Punk rock - Punk rock - 1999 or how you like to set up EAC.

10th October 2009, 03:16 PM	#82
Key diyAudio Member Join Date: Jan 2009	Really I have ripped a large amount of CDs to .wav for another reason entirely. Trust me there is absolutely no reason for you to do this if all you are concerned about is playback. File names are fine but you need TAGS for true organization. You can use EAC to automatically tag your collection with FLAC you can not with wav. I am done trying to convince you - you will just have to find out the hard way I guess.

10th October 2009, 03:30 PM	#84
Sharkythefrog diyAudio Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Sweden, Eskilstuna	Sorry to hear that you are done convincing me that what others been writing that I have taken for correct is wrong. Because if You are right about this I be glad (and not - as I that case need to rip all my CDs again to FLAC)

10th October 2009, 03:36 PM	#85
Key diyAudio Member Join Date: Jan 2009	Really I don't know what more to say to you. You are being superstitious if you believe .wav is closer to the original than flac. You can convert a file back and forth from wav to flac an infinite number of times and the underline PCM will still be bit-identical to the original. They will cancel eachother out with an inverted cancellation test. There is NO reason to rip to .wav except if you are planning on using them in a program that does not accept lossless formats.

10th October 2009, 03:39 PM	#87
Sharkythefrog diyAudio Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Sweden, Eskilstuna	OK! I sounds like you are truly sure about this. So the mext question from me would, is it possilbe to convert WAV to FLAC and automatically getting some sort of usabel tag on the way?

10th October 2009, 03:40 PM	#88
Key diyAudio Member Join Date: Jan 2009	Look up the definition of "lossy" (mp3 ogg, wma), "lossless" (flac, wavpack, apple lossless), and "uncompressed" (.wav .aiff) That's all you need to read. It's pretty elementary to tell you the truth - this is why I feel like I am wasting my time with you.

10th October 2009, 04:11 PM	#90
Sharkythefrog diyAudio Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Sweden, Eskilstuna	Yes I do know what you mean. There is a lot of such things in the computer world, especially when it comes to picture format and picturehandling for example (TIFF, JPEG, PDF etc). Different algoritms for storing redundant information etc. I guess the forums and individuals that stated that WAV was the Format to use and nothing else when I was starting my ripping 4-5 years ago was wrong. New times new thruths . . . Sorry if I look stubborn about this in my earlier posts. It took me a few hours to reconstruct my believes and truths that has been put there years ago with the help of people just as shure as you are now. And this new thruth just gave me a few hundred hours of ripping to do on my shoulders . . . . .

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)