andy b Wrote: > >since I've gone down the EAC/FLAC route, I've been too impressed with > the increase in sound quality to want to go back to WMP/WMA > > You shouldn't get a sound difference between lossless WMA and flac. Are > you sure you were using lossless WMA? > > I did an A/B comparison, comparing the result of doing: > WM10->lossless WMA -> exported WAV file, and > EAC->FLAC ->exported WAV file. > > Apart from some header differences, the waveform data was bit for bit > the same. > > I've since done A/B listening tests with a squeezebox playing the > lossless WMA versus the original CD, and the sound is the same, > allowing for the different DACs in the CD player and squeezebox. > (Basically, I couldn't tell which was which). > > I'm just writing this because when I started looking into ripping, I > got the impression that WM10/lossless WMA was simply no good. That > might have been true at one point, but 500+ CDs in, I can say that it's > not a problem. I've only had 2 discs I couldn't read, and I got around > it by just using the other cd drive in my machine, and it ripped fine > (albeit very very slowly!) > > The sound quality is identical to the original source. (I do have error > correction turned on though - if it wasn't, then scratched discs might > break up in places)
I put it down to the extraction software. EAC vs WMP. Not the compression system WMA vs FLAC. -- greedy_grendel _______________________________________________ ripping mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/ripping
