[[email protected]]

I am going to rip a bunch of cds and a fair amount of concerts on
cassettes to my computer. My question: If time and disk space were of
no importance, which format is the best way to go? My goal is to be
able to make sure in 5 years I have made the most adaptable choice for
future technology while also keeping audio quality as high as possible.
What are the positives and negatives for the two? Am I missing another
format (not interested in any mp3 format)?
Thank you in advance for your help.

[Richard Crowley]

bob_niekamp wrote ...
I am going to rip a bunch of cds and a fair amount of concerts on
cassettes to my computer. My question: If time and disk space were of
no importance, which format is the best way to go?

Assuming you *really mean* that "disk space of no importance"
then WAV would appear to be the most straightforward.

OTOH, you can save a significant amount of space by using
a lossless audio compression algorithm like FLAC or several
others. The only downside is some additional time to decode,
and the necessity of keeping the decoding methodology
available.

My goal is to be
able to make sure in 5 years I have made the most adaptable choice for
future technology while also keeping audio quality as high as possible.

It seems quite likely the FLAC (and likely most of the other
lossless audio compression methods) will still be just as available
in 5 years. The answer might be different for 50 or 100 years.

What are the positives and negatives for the two?

Mostly outlined above.

Am I missing another format (not interested in any
mp3 format)?

There are several lossless audio compression schemes
available.



Thank you in advance for your help.

[[email protected]]

On 9/24/2006 10:02 PM, Richard Crowley wrote:
bob_niekamp wrote ...
I am going to rip a bunch of cds and a fair amount of concerts on
cassettes to my computer. My question: If time and disk space were of
no importance, which format is the best way to go?

Assuming you *really mean* that "disk space of no importance"
then WAV would appear to be the most straightforward.

OTOH, you can save a significant amount of space by using
a lossless audio compression algorithm like FLAC or several
others. The only downside is some additional time to decode,
and the necessity of keeping the decoding methodology
available.


Many network music systems decode FLAC in real-time. Check out Slim
Devices.

My goal is to be
able to make sure in 5 years I have made the most adaptable choice for
future technology while also keeping audio quality as high as possible.

It seems quite likely the FLAC (and likely most of the other
lossless audio compression methods) will still be just as available
in 5 years. The answer might be different for 50 or 100 years.


FLAC is an open source format and hence there is no chance a it will go
away. You will always be able to find a software player for it.

What are the positives and negatives for the two?

Mostly outlined above.

When FLAC is decoded it is the same bit stream as WAV. So if you have a
lot of music ( 1,000 CDs) you probably want to use FLAC we are talking
about 400GB to 750 GB depending on which compression level.


Am I missing another format (not interested in any
mp3 format)?

There are several lossless audio compression schemes
available.



Thank you in advance for your help.

[Richard Crowley]

dan wrote ...
When FLAC is decoded it is the same bit stream as WAV.

Indeed. The FLAC converter I use actually decodes and
compares the result to the original WAV file. It proclaims
"success" only if the compressed file was proved to decode
back into the original bitstream. Pretty slick (and reassuring)

[Laurence Payne]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 13:59:56 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

When FLAC is decoded it is the same bit stream as WAV.

Indeed. The FLAC converter I use actually decodes and
compares the result to the original WAV file. It proclaims
"success" only if the compressed file was proved to decode
back into the original bitstream. Pretty slick (and reassuring)

I'd be a little worried at its lack of confidence! COULD the
procedure go wrong?

[Richard Crowley]

"Laurence Payne" wrote ...
"Richard Crowley" wrote:
When FLAC is decoded it is the same bit stream as WAV.

Indeed. The FLAC converter I use actually decodes and
compares the result to the original WAV file. It proclaims
"success" only if the compressed file was proved to decode
back into the original bitstream. Pretty slick (and reassuring)

I'd be a little worried at its lack of confidence! COULD the
procedure go wrong?

Dunno why it would be any less reliable than any other
comptuer application? What do you mean by "go wrong"?

According to the info I read, it compressed my WAV files to
FLAC, and then decompressed the FLAC back to WAV
and made a bit-for-bit comparison with the source WAV
file to prove that the FLAC encoded file could be 100%
recovered.

[Laurence Payne]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:16:04 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

I'd be a little worried at its lack of confidence! COULD the
procedure go wrong?

Dunno why it would be any less reliable than any other
comptuer application? What do you mean by "go wrong"?

According to the info I read, it compressed my WAV files to
FLAC, and then decompressed the FLAC back to WAV
and made a bit-for-bit comparison with the source WAV
file to prove that the FLAC encoded file could be 100%
recovered.

I don't know. But FLAC's need to check suggests that it considers it
a possibility.

LP- [Tue, 26 Sep 2006 03:14:30 +0100]:
I don't know. But FLAC's need to check suggests that it considers it
a possibility.

Bad RAM, disk, who knows what, could lead to that,
and silently. Some mobos, even Vista, come with an
option to test memory when it starts. Does that
show a lack of confidence? And so what if it does?
-- Ignorance is bliss and all that, or, better to
not know it's bad and go on with things as if all
is all right. Yeah! Me, I'd rather know then and
there.

--
40th Floor - Software @ http://40th.com/
iPlay : the ultimate audio player for mobiles
mp3,mp4,m4a,aac,ogg,wma,flac,wav, play+record
parametric eq, xfeed, reverb; all on a mobile

[Ro]

If you really want highest audio quality, important factors (possible
bottle-necks) will be to use the highest quality cd player, cabling, and
sound card you can afford or borrow. For your cassettes, again a very high
quality cassette player (Nakamichi etc), high quality filters, cabling and
sound card... If you have this side of things sorted, then using a very high
quality file recording format is worthwhile and my personal favourite is
Monkeys Audio (.ape). If you are just using run of the mill hardware, then
mp4 / aac would do you grand I think.

wrote in message
oups.com...
I am going to rip a bunch of cds and a fair amount of concerts on
cassettes to my computer. My question: If time and disk space were of
no importance, which format is the best way to go? My goal is to be
able to make sure in 5 years I have made the most adaptable choice for
future technology while also keeping audio quality as high as possible.
What are the positives and negatives for the two? Am I missing another
format (not interested in any mp3 format)?
Thank you in advance for your help.

[Richard Crowley]

"Ro" wrote ...
If you really want highest audio quality, important factors (possible
bottle-necks) will be to use the highest quality cd player, cabling,
and
sound card you can afford or borrow.

Rip CDs directly on your optical drive of your computer.
No need for any "high quality" analog components.

[Ro]

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"Ro" wrote ...
If you really want highest audio quality, important factors (possible
bottle-necks) will be to use the highest quality cd player, cabling,
and
sound card you can afford or borrow.

Rip CDs directly on your optical drive of your computer.
No need for any "high quality" analog components.

Of course. Sorry. Still got a bee in my bonnet from putting down vinyl
recently... duh.