CD ripping shortcomings

You’re mixing discussions, @Bill_Janssen & @Suedkiez - Roon ripping / Wav vs. Flac? I have no objections if anyone else wants to use Roon ripping - it just isn’t for me for the reasons I stated. I did get excited when I read that the new Roon version supported direct ripping, and was then disappointed with the limitations of the tool. You are right - “profoundly deficient” was overly harsh. I should have said “profoundly deficient for my uses.”

Also @Suedkiez - it’s apparent that we’ll never agree on wav vs. flac. I respect your choices and ask that you respect mine.

1 Like

I already did that, and Roon does. You started this thread with quite a rant about how poor the Rock ripper is. It just isn’t for you, that’s all.


Roon Labs seems to think it is. Why would anyone use ROCK who didn’t trust Roon’s evaluation of these things? That makes this argument moot, I think.

Sure. But can you incontrovertibly prove that there are no undeniable uncertainties in WAV encoding? Maybe there’s no good format.

Every music digital-encoding format has artifacts. The wav format has been around the longest and has the benefit of DAC decoders being engineered to minimize its artifacts. Newer encoding formats may have specific advantages over wav, but from what I’ve read, none yet has surpassed wav for playback quality. There are some arguments that MQA (despite being a lossy format) can sound better than wav but only on specific tracks that have been encoded / decoded on similar equipment. Will a CODEC come along that can surpass wav? I’m sure that eventually, that will happen. But for now, I think that all the competitors to wav have too many limitations. And as always, I could be wrong…

Speeds got nothing to do with it unless you’re in a hurry to consume the results. Deterministic algorithms produce predictable and consistent results.They can’t be “rushed” into mistakes and FLAC decompression is deterministic

Relativity is a wonderful thing. From where I’m sitting it doesn’t feel as though you’re in want of “unsupported mumbo-,jumbo”.

1 Like

What “unsupported mumbo jumbo” have I stated, @killdozer - List one statement that I’ve made about flac (statement - not opinion) that is less than factual.

I said flac is lossless - it is.
I said flac can handle more metadata than wav - it can.
I said flac uses less storage space than wav - it does.
I said flac had more limits on bit depth and sampling rate than does wav - it does.
I said flac is a newer CODEC than wav - it is.

Unless you’re putting words in my mouth, none of this is “unsupported mumbo jumbo.”

Why do these discussions always end in a pissing match?
Glenn, just do your thing and be happy :slight_smile:

1 Like

End with one?

Well, the claim on NUC decoding and audible artifacts I quoted. Much of the FUD you throw up around audible differences in lossless codecs is also unsupported. I’d consider it supported with reproducible examples and/or verified controlled test results. In real world tests most folk struggle to distinguish high quality MP3s from red book.

It’s interesting that Roon went with FLAC rips when SQ is one of their value propositions. They don’t care about file metadata so it’s not that. Did they prioritise storage efficiency over SQ?

FWIW I keep all of my original rips as single large WAVs for a little format redundancy. Roon’s not the ripping tool for me.

1 Like

Yes if this carries on going down the swanny as it is doing now!

I suggest everyone stand back and take a deep breath…omm…omm

1 Like

That’s a real can of worms :smiling_imp:

I duck because

  1. I have no WAV files to compare
  2. I am 72 , my Golden Ears are long gone , if I ever had them so I wouldn’t spot the difference
  3. I listen music for fun not analysis
  4. Finally why resurrect a subject that’s been inconclusively done to death previously :joy:

I have heard Paul McGowan suggest in the past that Wav sounds better than FLAC/ALAC, but I always felt he was generally talking about noise created by under powered chips that struggled to decompress the wav file’s.

I have only done minimum testing as I only have a small number of WAV files but I heard no difference, but it’s good to have the options for all the file types.

Personally I prefer the metadata handling of FLAC, but I like an inclusive community not one that forces everyone down the same direction (the exception is folder browsing :rofl:).

1 Like

Rather than continue here, browse the collective wisdom as already laid down…:relaxed:

120 entries

A mere 32

45 entries

Why keep it just to flac, a blockbusting 600+

Or ALAC 200+


Encyclopedic & dope.

Now, there’s an oxymoron. :smiley:


Just use dpoweramp. I have never used Roon to rip CD. It is not designed for that task, and I never wish Roon to Rip any CD ever!!! I want to have a full control of my ripping process.

1 Like

I apologize for ever starting this thread. I should have realized that it would create rancor and blow out of control. We’ve drifted off into religion where nobody believes anyone else and nobody is willing to change their opinion. So, mea culpa. I’ll try not to do it again.

In the meantime, Happy Holidays to all of you and yours, and may your New Year be safe, productive, and happy!

Glenn Young


Just stick to vinyl in future……

1 Like

Glenn, since you ask this is actually untrue.

Wav can use ID3 tags (the same as mp3) this can store as much data as Flac, arguably more since it has some more advanced frame that can store more complex than the simpel name/value pairs that Flac uses. ID3 wasn’t part of the original Wav standard, but is well supported now (including by Roon)

1 Like

Thanks - I’d been told otherwise.