MediaMonkey forum

I'm new to Media Monkey. I have always used Itunes and then Zune to rip my CDs but I then I learned that MP3 files are lossy and don't have the best sound. I heard on an audio forum that Media Monkey was a good program for ripping CDs to FLAC. I'm after the best sound quality I can possibly get out of digital files which is why I'm going to re-rip all my CDs to a lossless format. I was about to begin but noticed the compression level which can be adjusted, what affect does this have on ripping CDs other than the speed of the rip? I don't want to compromise SQ no matter what. Just wanted to be sure about this before I begin re ripping my entire collection. Also any other tips concerning FLAC are welcome. Thanks in advance for your help.

Found my answer, thanks anyways.

For anyone else looking for the same answer: FLAC compression level does not affect sound quality. A higher compression level will take longer to encode but will result in smaller file size. Conversely, a lower compression level will encode very quickly but will have a larger file size.
See: http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php ... _questions

I beg to differ. When I rip a CD to FLAC, I can hear the difference over my Meridian sound system (basically an incredible 96/24 digital speaker system and pre-processor). If you have sensitive ears, you just may be able to tell. If you're using a 96/24 sound system, you will almost certainly be able to tell. I've burned test CDs by placing the same tracks back to back, using different compression levels for LAME MP3 and FLAC. As the compression level got lower, the sound quality got better--without fail.

You can't compare mp3 and Flac. Flac is loose-less whatever the compression settings.
The difference you heard was only in your head.

wornways wrote:I beg to differ. When I rip a CD to FLAC, I can hear the difference over my Meridian sound system (basically an incredible 96/24 digital speaker system and pre-processor). If you have sensitive ears, you just may be able to tell. If you're using a 96/24 sound system, you will almost certainly be able to tell. I've burned test CDs by placing the same tracks back to back, using different compression levels for LAME MP3 and FLAC. As the compression level got lower, the sound quality got better--without fail.

I...can't even. All of your FLAC files play back *exactly the same* as their WAV/CD sources. Think of FLAC as a ZIP format for WAV files. You can increase the compression level and the ZIP files will be smaller but when you extract them they will be exact copies of what went in. Converting to FLAC isn't going to change playback quality whatsoever and furthermore you can never EVER increase audio quality above its source. You're hearing "better" because you think you are.

wornways wrote:I beg to differ. When I rip a CD to FLAC, I can hear the difference over my Meridian sound system (basically an incredible 96/24 digital speaker system and pre-processor). If you have sensitive ears, you just may be able to tell. If you're using a 96/24 sound system, you will almost certainly be able to tell. I've burned test CDs by placing the same tracks back to back, using different compression levels for LAME MP3 and FLAC. As the compression level got lower, the sound quality got better--without fail.

Wrong

https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic, ... #msg790714

Hi,
Ok I've done a little testing and for me it is subjective and post processing.
As I've heard that myself, I used WAVE 16/44.1 Upscale it to 24/96 done 4 pass restoration of sine and saved it.

All is playing on TASCAM 2x2 to Audio Technica ATH-m50x loudness 2/3 I used for testing Bedřich Smetana--Die Moldau, Pachelbel - Canon in D (Berlin Orchestral version), Giorgio Moroder - Madeline's Theme, Neverne Bebe - Good Bye+Serbian Song+Tužna Pesma.

Subjectively they seams that are better, but they are still reconstructed.