EAC

[nbaptista]

I´m ripping my cd´s with EAC clicking on IMG in order to convert the cd in Wav files.It stores the cd on an external hard drive,but what should I do if I want to compress Wav format to FLAC?Using EAC,of course!
BTW,IMG is an image of the audio cd,isn´t it?

[nbaptista]

Done!

[symon]

What did you do? I wasn't aware that EAC could do FLAC compression.

[Stratmangler]

What did you do? I wasn't aware that EAC could do FLAC compression.

When you use the wizard to set up extraction you eventually get to a page where you can set the extraction output type - select flac in there.

When ripping a CD use the mp3 tab - it will rip it as flac.

Chris:)

[Stratmangler]

I´m ripping my cd´s with EAC clicking on IMG in order to convert the cd in Wav files.It stores the cd on an external hard drive,but what should I do if I want to compress Wav format to FLAC?Using EAC,of course!
BTW,IMG is an image of the audio cd,isn´t it?

So you've ripped your CD's to big wav files and use cue sheets for track selection ?
If so, why ?
And why compress the big wavs to flac - it involves at lot of processing (relatively speaking) to decompress a flac that big

I'm just a bit bemused, that's all.:scratch:

Chris:)

[Stratmangler]

If you have a load of wav files that you want to compress to flac you could of course utilise FLAC Frontend.

Chris:)

[symon]

Which is what I do use. I find it very easy and quick to use, which is why I hadn't thought of using EAC to do the same job, I suppose.

[Stratmangler]

One thing you do not get when extracting to FLAC with EAC is Replaygain tags.

That said, it's a simple matter to analyse files and add tags in Foobar.

Foobar can also analyse 24/96 and 24/192 files for Replaygain tags, something FLAC Frontend will not do.

Chris:)

[ZebuTheOxen]

And why compress the big wavs to flac - it involves at lot of processing (relatively speaking) to decompress a flac that big.
Decoding FLAC is less processor intensive than MP3, just fyi. :)

[Stratmangler]

Decoding FLAC is less processor intensive than MP3, just fyi. :)

When the file is potentially up to 80 minutes long it takes a lot of processing regardless.

Chris:)

[Peter Galbavy]

That depends. With modern processors, the gain of reading less data from disc or NAS outweighs or at least approaches the decoding overhead.

A CD is about 700MB. FLAC compression delivers about 50%. 350MB. So the difference to read 350MB on an average, modern Windows PC is about 10-20MB/sec - 25 seconds perhaps ? I have seen my machine decode a batch of FLAC files at > x50 speed. About 90 seconds. It's in a related order of magnitude, and FLAC carries many advantages in (standardised) metadata terms.

Curious as to why you are ripping one file per CD though, as I read it ? And not one file per track ?

[Rare Bird]

This is the best thing i've used as long as you set all your settings correctly

http://www.nch.com.au/switch/

[Stratmangler]

Curious as to why you are ripping one file per CD though, as I read it ? And not one file per track ?

So was I.
So I had a play.

I first just made a disc image (wav + cue sheet). These play just fine in Foobar - simply select the cue sheet and the tracks appear as a playlist and you get sound.

Next I made a compressed disc image. As I'd already set the compression to be FLAC this was the compression used, so I got a large FLAC file with cue sheet, and this again plays fine in Foobar.

My concerns about processing time are totally unfounded.:)

I have found a couple of quirks. If I use FLAC Frontend to compress a disc image wav (after the initial rip) the file will not play from the cue sheet. Maybe I needed to edit the cue sheet, but TBH I couldn't be bothered.

If I make a compressed disc image EAC will not decompress the FLAC file to allow me to write a CDR. This time I couldn't be bothered trying to decompress with FLAC Frontend.

The upshot of it all is that I now understand why some folk rip the big wav files.

Why they'd want to compress those files to FLAC is a mystery, other than the obvious thing of the files being smaller on the HDD. The files are useless for burning up CDR copies for use in the car.

Ah well !

Chris;)

[Clive]

I think one WAV (or FLAC) per CD makes managing and moving files around easier. You're also less likely to hit problems with directory pointers getting screwed up, as can happen with 10's of thousands of files in a single directory.

[Peter Galbavy]

Erm, you only need a cue sheet if you have a single large file. If you rip (properly) to file-per-track then any decent program will reproduce the CD-R exactly. Certainly does for me - to the point where a CD-R made from an album's worth of FLAC files matches, using AccurateRip checksums, the original album and also there are no gaps between tracks.

But hey, whatever works for you!

[Clive]

Erm, you only need a cue sheet if you have a single large file. If you rip (properly) to file-per-track then any decent program will reproduce the CD-R exactly. Certainly does for me - to the point where a CD-R made from an album's worth of FLAC files matches, using AccurateRip checksums, the original album and also there are no gaps between tracks.

But hey, whatever works for you!
I was only thinking in terms of holding the files on an HDD, not CDR, for HDD playing I see no benefit in one WAV per track.