VolkerR wrote: > There is a lot of buzz around FLAC format and I have to decide what > format I am going to use: > > My criteria list is the following: > 1) Sound Quality > 2) Ease of use & Time for ripping > 3) Database for automatic file naming of ripped tracks > 4) Required space
You are combining the tool to rip with the format. No need to do that. Most tools can create any format you want. The sound quality of all lossless audio is the same. The database is not part of the compressed format, it is something read by the tool when doing the extraction of the audio data. Nearly all tools use CDDB or FreeDB to get data. They work well for pop/rock and less well for jazz, classical, etc. Space differences are not really meaningful, it varies as much by the actual tracks that you are compressing than it does between algorithms. And the algorithms are getting better, so over time you can expect all will tend to get more and more the same. It really becomes a religious issue. My belief is that FLAC is better. In part, because Josh, the inventor, frequents these forums. _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
