Best way to rip my CDs to a lossless format?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

In the past I used iTunes and converted them 320KBPS lossy AAC encoded files,as I had an iPod.

However,I am thinking of re-encoding again to a lossless format for playback on my computer. It also gives me an archive for my CD collection.

Now,there are two ways I am thinking of doing it:
1.)Use iTunes and convert the CDs to Apple Lossless. This is the most convenient way IMHO.
2.)Use EAC to rip the CD and convert it to either Apple Lossless or FLAC.

If I go the second route what is a good free converter??

After doing some reading,supposedly,ripping directly from CD with iTunes was not as good as using EAC first,as the latter has better error correction. In reality is there a huge difference though??

Another question - is there a noticeable difference between Apple Lossless or FLAC?? At some point I am probably getting an external DAC(ODAC or a Beresford one - any other suggestions for under £150 would be appreciated),and playing this through my headphone amp(Grado SR125 headphones ATM) or my hifi system.

[Agent]

dbPowerAmp is absolutely awesome for this kind of job. I always found it better than EAC.

edit - just checking the site and I don't think it's free any more though

[g8ina]

Ive used Easy CDDA Extractor for several years now, paid but superb.

[Terbinator]

I was going to say other rippers usually have more specific components such as error correction as opposed to iTunes.

As for format, i'd go with FLAC due to the open nature of it, obviously, it means you're going to be spending some time encoding though. In terms of quality they should both be lossless.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Thanks for the quick replies,chaps! I was thinking the same about the two formats too,as they are both lossless,but supposedly some people consider one better than the other for sound quality - it might be subjective bias then!

Edit!!

I have tended to use iTunes in the past for organising my tracks -anything similar in UI which does the same thing?? AFAIK,FLAC is not supported by iTunes.

[Agent]

I don't see how one can be better if it's lossless *shrug*. Happy to be proved wrong, but if both are lossless, sounds like your typical Apple fanboy comments.

[kalniel]

I don't see how one can be better if it's lossless *shrug*. Happy to be proved wrong, but if both are lossless, sounds like your typical Apple fanboy comments.

You won't be proved wrong - lossless means the source will be completely preserved so they will be identical.

Apple lossless is good enough for me for format shifting, but if you're wanting to archive then you might want to go the full route of copying to hard drive and checking for errors before storing. Personally it's not worth the effort as I don't have that many CDs that I couldn't buy again if I needed to.

[jim]

If you want to do it properly, follow a guide like this one for Exact Audio Copy: http://blowfish.be/eac/

Loads of tools can rip to FLAC, and it might be fine. Using EAC is the best way of being sure that it's the best rip you can get. Depends how "perfect" you want your rip - EAC is really for archival quality rather than perceptible calibre of the rip.

I've ripped all of my CDs to FLAC using EAC and kept logs for all of them. Any that don't meet 100% on the logcheck, I don't keep the rip.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I don't see how one can be better if it's lossless *shrug*. Happy to be proved wrong, but if both are lossless, sounds like your typical Apple fanboy comments.

Most likely.

I just did a quick check and it seems dBPowerAmp can use something called AccurateRip,which can verify if the rips are error free. It seems you only get a three week trial ATM!! It might be enough to convert what I have currently.

Edit!!

According to this dBPowerAmp detected more errors than EAC:

http://www.dbpoweramp.com/secure-ripper.htm

If you want to do it properly, follow a guide like this one for Exact Audio Copy: http://blowfish.be/eac/

Loads of tools can rip to FLAC, and it might be fine. Using EAC is the best way of being sure that it's the best rip you can get. Depends how "perfect" you want your rip - EAC is really for archival quality rather than perceptible calibre of the rip.

I've ripped all of my CDs to FLAC using EAC and kept logs for all of them. Any that don't meet 100% on the logcheck, I don't keep the rip.

At some point I want to integrate the sound library into my hifi system. ATM,its more a case I will listen to individual CDs through the hifi,and for more general listening I use an external Sound Blaster card though a headphone amp with my Grados.

Its not ideal,but I want to converge the two for convenience' sake,so in the future even if I get a better setup,I don't need to re-rip the CDs.

[jim]

Most likely.

I just did a quick check and it seems dBPowerAmp can use something called AccurateRip,which can verify if the rips are error free. It seems you only get a three week trial ATM!! It might be enough to convert what I have currently.

That's a bit odd. EAC uses AccurateRip for free if you set it up properly - to my mind, it's a vital part of the ripping process.

You should also note that the review you linked to uses a very old version of EAC - nobody should be using that version any more.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

That's a bit odd. EAC uses AccurateRip for free if you set it up properly - to my mind, it's a vital part of the ripping process.

You should also note that the review you linked to uses a very old version of EAC - nobody should be using that version any more.

I am giving the 14.3 BETA of dBPowerAmp a try now,and it seems to use AccurateRip as standard. I set it to three passes of Ultra Secure ripping which should suffice,I suspect, and verification after the encode is finished.

[Agent]

That's a bit odd. EAC uses AccurateRip for free if you set it up properly - to my mind, it's a vital part of the ripping process..

AccurateRip does nothing but allows you to compare your result to other results.

The article is actually about how dbPoweramp gets a higher quality rip in the first place, which means it matches the AccurateRip database more.

It's an older article for sure, but AFAIK, the points still stand unless EAC has changed the way it works.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Silly question - the default for Ultra Secure ripping was 3 to 6 passes - 6 passes was taking so long,I stuck it to 3. I assume this should be enough??

[Agent]

The number of passes are only relevant when you're getting errors.
You could potentially rip with 1 pass on the entire disk and get a AccurateRip confirmation hash against it. On the other hand, it could be on the 6th pass that it gets the correct data - it's impossible to say.

My general rule is rip disks when they are new and have no wear on them - if they don't match, up the number of passes as needed. Troublesome disks I leave overnight.

Make sure you have a good quality drive. There is so much tat out there when it comes to drives for ripping.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I am limited on the drive front as I have an SFF PC. ATM,I am using a USB external IDE LiteON SOHW1653S. I do have Pioneer DVR109BK and Sony DW-G121A drives lying around too,but the LiteON should be fine if the audio is being checked anyway? I have had it for years.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I used the Sony G121A in another drive and performed the same rip. It seems to be a rebadged LiteOn SHM-165H6S drive. Enabled Ultra Secure mode with 6 passes. However,the drive seems to be do the conversion without doing any Ultra Secure passes,so I assume after the first pass AccurateRip test it found no errors.

Tried the Pioneer DVR109 and the same thing happened.

The CD is virtually brand new - no dust and no scratches at all.

However,I tried the other older Liteon drive and it does go though Ultra Secure passes,and in a few of the tracks needs re-ripping.

I looked at some reviews. I found ones of the LiteOn and the Pioneer:

http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Revi...12496&PageId=2

http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Revi...12802&PageId=2

It seems the Pioneer does not report C2 errors. Not sure about the Sony.