Yes, if you want to retain the sonic characteristics of the CD when you rip, lossless encoders are perfectly valid.

They don't get you a 50% smaller file, you will usually end up with a file that is somewhere around 65-75% of the original size.

I have read multiple sources that have done testing with lossless formats and in every case, when the data was uncompressed back to raw audio track it was exactly a bit for bit copy of what was on the CD.

Given that, ripping to RAW gives you no benefit over ripping to FLAC or other lossless codecs.

Following up on Avlis' side-by-side test comments, could you make the argument that the quality of CD player one uses is irrelevant? If you're just moving binary data, what is the value of a more expensive unit? Why not buy the cheapest one available, as long as it has the desired features?

What we're talking about here mainly is the method of storing the digital data. That data still needs to be passed from source (CD, hard drive, flash memory of an MP3 player, whatever) down the signal path and converted to analog at some point before we can listen to it. A more expensive CD player will have (among other things) better DAC's for that digital-to-analog conversion. If the signal stays digital all the way to the receiver, then the receiver's DAC's become important and the player's DAC's are left out of the equation.

BloggingITGuy is right you do not get 50% reduction. Not meaning to knitpick but you don't do as bad as 65-75% either. Apple claims 52%. I just did 40 CDs at 55% and I saw another review that says they got 58%. That's significant if storage is limited and trivial if you have a Tbyte hard disk. I suspect as storage cost/Gb keeps going down we will either store more and more and/or give up compression. There's a lot of personal preference working here. Some of us don't like to waste space and if ALC is bit for bit as good as uncompressed why not do it? The last time I digitized all my CDs I did them uncompressed because I wanted bit for bit archival copies. Depends on your mood. Something deep down inside me says that uncompressed is the original and correct state even though I know there's no difference from FLAC or ALC.

Paladin: you are opening a huge can of worms. Audiofiles believe that not all ones and zeros were created equal and then the invoke things like jitter to further fog the output from inexpensive players. If you are using digital out just about any modern transport will do a pretty darn good job. I don't want to start an argument with audiophiles--I'm sure they agree that the DAC and subsequent pre-amp out stages are more important than the transport. But consider this. When you copy a CD to a hard drive the copying program makes a bit-perfect copy by redundant sampling. Once you have that copy on a disk, if you play it back through a USB port (as described by Avlis above) you essentially eliminate all jitter. You certainly eliminate any playback errors or distortion when you play a disk file. May be one of the reasons iPods and MP3 players sound better than they ought to. May also explain why people who rip DVDs to hard disks and play them in the HTPCs say they video is better. Makes sense to me.

I just want to say that I'm a newbie to this forum, but this is really great.
I'm pretty much of a novice and I wasn't aware that the DAC could be either in the source or the receiver. Is there a standard rule of thumb for where the conversion takes place? What if you have a CD player with its own DAC and the receiver also has DAC capabilities? Also, would a typical PC sound card (or an iPod) do the conversion? If so, I can understand how the sound quality might vary.

The easiest way to tell where the conversion is taking place is by looking at the cable being used between components. If you connect your source (sound card, iPod, CD player) to your receiver's stereo input (the ol' "red and white" cables), then you've moved to the analog domain inside the source (computer sound card, iPod, or CD/DVD player). If you connect your source to one of the receiver's coaxial or optical digital inputs (or to a USB input, or in some very rare cases using an ethernet cable), then your data is remaining in the digital domain all the way to the receiver.

To reply to Paladin's question in another way. Why should you care about which DAC you are using? A $100 CD player probably does not have DACs and output stages as good as the current Outlaw models (or most other good modern gear). Where it starts getting tricky is that some slightly more expensive transports have some darn good DACs and output amps. But how good the DACs are isn't the important part unless one unit or the other is much better. The digital cables are usually less susceptible to loss and noise so they do a better job of getting the signal to your pre-amp/processor/reeceiver, and you have a lot more control and options in your receiver as to what you can do with a signal in the digital domain. In fact, on the Outlaw 990, unless you bypass everything, you end up re-digitizing analog inputs. So you are usually a lot better off using your player's digital out as described by Gonk. You just avoid one DA/AD conversion.

Now we could open another can of worms by starting a thread about whether any one can hear audible degradation from one additional good quality AD/DA stage. I have always taken it as a given that one avoids them because they degrade the sound--everyone says so. But I have never tested it myself. Has anyone here tried to test this or know of a good reference?

Interesting - so if I use a Mac (iTunes) as the source and transport the signal to the receiver via AirPort Express (which is basically an ethernet signal)would the receiver be doing the conversion or the Mac? The AirPort Express still plugs into the stereo input, so I assume the conversion is still being done at the Mac, but just curious.

Airport Express is capable of outputting both analog and digital signals. Based on the foregoing, I would guess that if you are using recent Outlaw gear or equivalent you would be better off using the optical digital output of the airport and connecting that into an optical digital input on your receiver or pre-amp/processor. Make sense?

What to you mean by "stereo input"? I take that to mean analog input (but the digital is also stereo so it's better to say analog or digital).

I should also add that current thinking is that computers are bad places to do DA conversions. Lots of noise--audiofiles call it digital hash. Some say that's why computer sound cards sound so bad. That's why it's good to digitize in unit designed for audio like a DAC or a pre-amp. I use an external USB DAC and avlis uses a Xitel USB out to Toslink optical. Airport has made it easy by providing an optical out. I'd recommend using it if you can.