Sorry to create yet another ripping thread but I'm back to the old debate of WAV vs FLAC again. I have many rare expensive video game albums and I don't want to regret any decisions later on. Both are lossless. WAV is uncompressed with no metadata support and FLAC is compressed and supports metadata. Seems like a no-brainer but is WAV better for audio editing as it is raw L-PCM and doesn't require transcoding like FLAC would? I may eventually wish to edit audio, which is why I want to futureproof. What about platform compatibility across different computer architecture?

Should I archive in both formats and spend more money on storage drives? Will have to plan for plenty of storage redundancy.

Then the software to use? Exact Audio Copy, dBPowerAmp and VLC Media Player seem to be the most recommended. I need to start the learning curve soon otherwise I won't start at all. lfc jon said that he is no good with computers but in this area, I doubt that I am any more knowledgable, probably less so.

If WAV is easy to convert to FLAC, I might archive in WAV and list all the track information in text documents in case I need to copy and paste it across into the FLAC files although there may be tools that do this for you? What populates the metadata when you play a CD? Your computer connects to an online server, recognises the catalogue number of the disc and pulls the data across?

Very little of the data comes from the record companies, and if you happen upon something that does come from them the metadata is frequently atrocious.

The computer is guided towards online repositories which have CD data entered by ordinary folk like you or I, so smelling pistakes aren't unusual, punctuation occasionally absent, but more often than not the person ripping the CD manages to enter something that's comprehendible.

Mp3Tag is invaluable.

As for artwork, there are a number of places to go to find it.

Something I use is Album Art Downloader.

The WAV/FLAC conversation I refuse to get drawn into, as life's too short.

The data is ripped to WAV, then post rip converted into a smaller lossless package called FLAC.

If you're really paranoid you can compare checksums of the WAV and unpacked WAV.

I use FLAC because it makes for easier network handling with 24 bit files at high sample rates (176.4 & 192 KHz).

With CD spec stuff it matters less.

Like the others, I use dBpoweramp and FLAC format, uncompressed, for all CD ripping to NAS box. The software is very easy to use and offers the options to alter level of compression to be applied (if wanted). CDs are so quick to rip that it's easy to make multiple copies in different format. I usually make an MP3 copy to go on a USB stick for use in the car, or elsewhere.

Ripping programs like dBpoweramp give you a more than one choice for metadata. You simply pick the one that is the closest. When I rip Japanese music, I typically find that if the album was popular enough, someone has already translated everything to English for me.

That doesn't mean there aren't mistakes in the translation though. I don't speak or read Japanese so I would never know. If the metadata providers only have Japanese character info, I will typically leave it, except I change the artist and album title manually to English.

With FLAC, metadata is embedded to a file. It is possible with some playback programs to pull metadata on the fly but I'm not really a fan of this as it's a rather clunky experience. That feature on a lot of programs can also make mistakes, and confuse your album with another with a similar track time.

My advice is to tag the best you can using metadata providers that dBpoweramp use. If you need to do intensive editing later, mp3tag is the best program I have come across. Note that despite the name it edits FLAC files as well.

WAV tagging is not comprehensively supported by playback devices.

here is a tip, when you start ripping put a piece of paper with the CD you have ripped (I put a letter R on the paper) it will save you time, as like me I didn't rip all the CDs in one go and I was putting A ripped CD in and then having to take it out and put another in (my memory is not that good) I also put on it any changes I have done.

I continue to use ALAC, because it’s native to Apple devices and is supported by the software running on my Raspberry Pis (MoOde and Volumio).

Ash,

I'm not sure what editing you're going to be getting up to but Audacity is easy to use and supports common functionality including FLAC import/export.  I use it on Linux but a Windows version is available.  I'd add my voice to those  recommending FLAC format.  If you ever need a WAV you can just convert it as required.

As far as I know they support WAV.

The bottom line is that FLAC will preserve the audio better than leaving the data on the original discs for decades to eventually succumb to physical degradation.

Ernie wrote: I originally used ALAC because of having Apple devices. I never really though much of the sound I was getting still preferring CD, it was convenient. I’ve recently had a go with FLAC. It appears I have to rip everything again! To my ear holes it’s much better sound wise.

You shouldn't have to rip anything again when moving from one lossless format to another.  I use Linux so would use either ffmpeg (command line) or Soundconverter (GUI) to perfrom the conversion.  It's worth researching to see what's available on your own operating system as the conversion preserves the metadata, the bane of file based music storage.