dont know if anyone is interested but i have sussed out how to rip and play back CD audio .cda files from your hard drive. this gives you full .cda quality.
you need daemon tools light and ImgBurn.
first step is to rip your CD as an image using ImgBurn to your HDD as .bin/.cue
you then open the .cue with Daemon tools virtual drive.
once it loads the disc to the virtual drive you can then use your favourite player to play the virtual disc if full CD quality as if it was the original disc.
you need daemon tools light and ImgBurn.
first step is to rip your CD as an image using ImgBurn to your HDD as .bin/.cue
you then open the .cue with Daemon tools virtual drive.
once it loads the disc to the virtual drive you can then use your favourite player to play the virtual disc if full CD quality as if it was the original disc.
Not sure how this is better than a straight rip to uncompressed FLAC. Sure sounds like more work.
there is no conversion. the tracks are raw so are the highest possible quality and should be bit for bit identical to the CD except it's not being read by a laser in a spinning device if you use an SSD drive which equals no mechanical noise which should in theory sound better.
flac, wma, mp3 are all codec and all do their own jiggery pokery behind the scenes.
flac, wma, mp3 are all codec and all do their own jiggery pokery behind the scenes.
Um, as long as the bits being fed to the DAC are the same, who cares how you get them? I know that there are people who claim to hear that difference, but, um, flac vs wav vs cda? You can test via double-blind. Bet you don't hear any diff either. MP3, yes, that's "lossy". FLAC isn't.
flac, wma, mp3 are all codec and all do their own jiggery pokery behind the scenes.
Are you aware of the difference between lossless encodings and lossy, perceptual encodings?
Are you aware that your hard disk and file system do their own jiggery pokery even to your "raw" data? It is not the same physical bits that came off the CD anyway (they just happen to represent exactly the same waveform)... 🙂
if you use an SSD drive which equals no mechanical noise which should in theory sound better.
No audible mechanical noise is better not just in theory, but also in practice - nobody wants to listen to noisy hard disks. Are you saying mechanical noise affects sound quality in some other way?
As apposed to electrical noise of the memory switching in SSDs, ya win some ya loose some, but electrical noise is more likely to upset the signal rather than hardware noise. hardware noise will affect the listening environment.
Er are not uncompressed WAV basily the song with all the data intact...
Er are not uncompressed WAV basily the song with all the data intact...
hardware noise will affect the listening environment.
Yes, just as any other random noise - fans, water pipes, neighbours, birdsong... 🙂
Depends on your definition of "intact". 🙂Er are not uncompressed WAV basily the song with all the data intact...
Yes, the content of the wave data is identical (but that is true of any uncompressed format), but it is not the "same" physical bits - there has been a number of rehashes and reformattings of the low level data for the actual data value to end up on the hard disk - remember SATA is a serial format, so any data has been converted to a serial format for transfer to the hard disk, and then back. How is that different from the (lossless) rehashing of data when using any of the lossless formats (such as FLAC)? The exact same data is conveyed to the DAC in the end...
Well, intact to the extent you can re-create the disc! using EAC or similar. What I meant was the actual bits that make up the song presented to the DAC will be the same with WAV or FLAC, so is there any point in a .CDA format.
Well, intact to the extent you can re-create the disc! using EAC or similar. What I meant was the actual bits that make up the song presented to the DAC will be the same with WAV or FLAC, so is there any point in a .CDA format.
Precisely. No disagreement from me on that one. 🙂
doing it the way the OT described, how big would the files be, would they be larger than a WAV version.
doing it the way the OT described, how big would the files be, would they be larger than a WAV version.
No, slightly smaller, as they would not have the WAV headers.
doing it the way the OT described, how big would the files be, would they be larger than a WAV version.
same disc:
WAV 470,002,892 bytes
bin/cue 470,003,045 bytes
the inconvenience of the bin/cue is that you cant make up playlists as you have to play the whole disc.
same disc:
WAV 470,002,892 bytes
bin/cue 470,003,045 bytes
Something wrong there. The WAV file contains the CD waveform data, but adds a header, so the WAV files should be slightly larger.
the inconvenience of the bin/cue is that you cant make up playlists as you have to play the whole disc.
And you can't have any metadata tags, and most software won't know what to do with the files.
Are there any benefits?
So pretty much the same, apart from headers one would presume.
Well, yes, but the WAV files should be slightly *larger*.
I'm sure it isn't any better than ripping to FLAC 8. I'm also not sure this isn't a discussion about about how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin?Not sure how this is better than a straight rip to uncompressed FLAC.
Abs
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
- Home
- Source & Line
- PC Based
- .CDA from HDD