Question about rip/burn Cd's

[blackraven]

I've got a question about ripping CD's to my computer and burning copies for my CD player.

What format and bit rate do I use for the ripping. I'm using Window's Media Player. The default bitrate is 128 and the default format is Window Media Audio. Do I want 192K and WAV lossless? And what settings for burning to the CD for best audio quality on my CD player? I don't plan on keeping the ripped files on my computer so file size is not an issue.

Will Windows Media Player automatically transfer the music from the CD to my computer and then burn it in standard redbook CD format or do I have to choose?

By the way, I have Real Player and I have a Nero program as well although nero is not installed.

Thanks,

Larry

[02audionoob]

You would use WMA or other reduced bit rate formats only if you're making compressed files, such as for a portable player. Otherwise, you would want to simply copy the CD in Nero or you would use an uncompressed format, like WAV. Then, when you have the uncompressed audio files, use Nero's option to create an audio CD.

By the way...the bit rate option will not be offered when you choose the "WAV (Lossless)" option from the Rip menu. And last comment for now...most people's Windows settings are probably set so a CD plays automatically, rather than rips, when inserted. You can change that if you like, or you can go to the Rip menu to start the rip.

[blackraven]

Thanks Noob! So it looks like if I use Windows Media Player when ripping, I need to pick wav lossless, and when burning it do the same. Are there noticeable audible differences in rip/burn programs for CD's? Right now I could care less about mp3.

[02audionoob]

When you go to the Rip menu in Windows Media Player, choose WAV (Lossless) for the best files.

When you're burning a CD, you'll go to Nero's option to "make audio CD" and it will open a box and wait for you to browse to your audio files to add to the CD. It won't limit you one choice of whether you'll be using lossless files, WAV files, etc. It will just give you the chance to add any file format it recognizes as audio. There are at least 10 of them. You can slide them up or down in the order before you begin.

To my knowledge, there isn't technically a better burning software than Nero, but I don't know that for a fact. By the way...if you want a direct copy, just go straight to Nero, rather than ripping to lossless first.

[02audionoob]

I suppose I should also mention there is an option to burn an audio CD in Media Player. It's just not something I use. You go to the Burn menu and choose "audio CD". At that point you can drag music files from the library to the burn list on the sidebar.

[poppachubby]

I wouldn't use WMP if you paid me to. Check out Media Monkey Raven. I agree with noob, if you simply want to copy a CD, Nero is the best option.

[recoveryone]

I have one question, why do you want to rip the redbook CD in the first place if you are only going to play them right back on your CD player? Normally people rip CD to place them on a storage system (computer, portable player) to keep the same level of quality sound from the original CD. Just a hint in future ripping, 320kps is min level for lossless ripping and most programs can do this, its just what you feel comfortable using.

[02audionoob]

I have one question, why do you want to rip the redbook CD in the first place if you are only going to play them right back on your CD player? Normally people rip CD to place them on a storage system (computer, portable player) to keep the same level of quality sound from the original CD. Just a hint in future ripping, 320kps is min level for lossless ripping and most programs can do this, its just what you feel comfortable using.

Just as a clarification, so we don't confuse terminology, 320k is not lossless. Lossless is WAV, FLAC, ALAC, etc.

[recoveryone]

Just as a clarification, so we don't confuse terminology, 320k is not lossless. Lossless is WAV, FLAC, ALAC, etc.
What is the bit rate of WAV, FLAC,ALAC?

Question on Music & Play:

I have used the MP3 format for my music ever since I could bring my music with me, and I always use at least 192kbps. Recently I read about FLAC and Apple Lossless, which should be a lot better than MP3s. If I'm listening to MP3s encoded at 320kbps, will there be any difference at all compared to a lossless format? I'm using an iPod touch (http://asia.cnet.com/reviews/musicplay/0,39050466,44008665p,00.htm) and Nokia N82 (http://asia.cnet.com/reviews/mobilephones/0,39051200,42250712p,00.htm), plus my Audio-Technica SJ3 headphones.



Submitted by Reader



Answer:

http://forums.audioreview.com/2007/i/ed/mg_jc.gif
John Chan
Asst. Editor
I know people who swear by lossless tracks and others who can't be bothered with them. Most can't tell the difference, and essentially, enjoying the content of your music should be more important than the minute quality improvement you get with lossless formats.

But if you must know, the solution to your query is simple. Just grab one of your favorite CDs and use iTunes to rip one track twice, one in 320kbps MP3 and the other in Apple Lossless format. Give them different names and move them both to your iPod touch. Listen to them a few times and see if you can tell the difference. If you can, and if you enjoy the lossless one more than the 320kbps track, then go ahead and listen to your music encoded in lossless formats. Take note though, if you decide to go that route, your iPod touch will be able to hold much less music because each lossless track will take up a lot more space than the same track encoded in MP3.

[blackraven]

I have one question, why do you want to rip the redbook CD in the first place if you are only going to play them right back on your CD player? Normally people rip CD to place them on a storage system (computer, portable player) to keep the same level of quality sound from the original CD. .

There are some CD's that I want to have copies of for my second and third systems in my bedroom and basement as well as my car.

Thanks guys. I know a lot about copmuter hardware after building some very high end custom gaming computers for my son, but not so much about the software. My son usually copies CD's for me.

[recoveryone]

There are some CD's that I want to have copies of for my second and third systems in my bedroom and basement as well as my car.

Thanks guys. I know a lot about computer hardware after building some very high end custom gaming computers for my son, but not so much about the software. My son usually copies CD's for me.

Understandable

[02audionoob]

What is the bit rate of WAV, FLAC,ALAC?



I would think the WAV files Windows Media Player makes off a CD will be 44,100 16-bit samples per second, since that's what the source would be. I haven't gotten into FLAC much, but it's proportional to the source, as opposed to being specified by user input.

[Feanor]

What is the bit rate of WAV, FLAC,ALAC?
...
.
Assuming ripped CD was the source, the rate for all the above is 16 bilt / 44.1 kHz. All are lossless formats; FLAC and ALAC are compressed but preserve all the original data. That is, they are like Zip files for non-music files only tweaked for music; also, they can include metadata tags, e.g. Artist, Title, etc.. The fact that FLAC and ALAC can include tags whereas WAV cannot, is a plus for many users.

[recoveryone]

Assuming ripped CD was the source, the rate for all the above is 16 bilt / 44.1 kHz. All are lossless formats; FLAC and ALAC are compressed but preserve all the original data. That is, they are like Zip files for non-music files only tweaked for music; also, they can include metadata tags, e.g. Artist, Title, etc.. The fact that FLAC and ALAC can include tags whereas WAV cannot, is a plus for many users.

I guess I should have been clearer in my question of Bit Rate. What is the kbps rate of the lossless formats. Now if, in the article I posted suggest states that and CD ripped at 320kps is at near CD quality, we all know that you can store more Mp3 files on a disk than lossless formats. I have done my own side by side test using 320kps Mp3, WAV and the original CD and I could not tell which was which. I may not have the highest end equipment or even the most trained ear for the smallest sound quality, but I agree with the editor, let each person make the choice.

[recoveryone]

Just as a clarification, so we don't confuse terminology, 320k is not lossless. Lossless is WAV, FLAC, ALAC, etc.

Not confusing just using what the standard of "At near CD quality" I'm sure that is what lossless is.

[02audionoob]

I guess I should have been clearer in my question of Bit Rate. What is the kbps rate of the lossless formats. Now if, in the article I posted suggest states that and Mp3 ripped at 320kps is at near CD quality, we all know that you can store more Mp3 files on a disk than lossless formats. I have done my own side by side test using 320kps Mp3, WAV and the original CD and I could not tell which was which. I may not have the highest end equipment or even the most trained ear for the smallest sound quality, but I agree with the editor, let each person make the choice.

That's the question I was answering. When you're making a WAV file from a CD, it's 44,100 samples per second. Each sample is 16-bit. FLAC is a compressed version of the file, but lossless. You can't make FLAC just any bit rate you want. It's like Feanor says...like a ZIP file of the original. A WAV file could be more than 44,100/16-bit and it could be less. But usually that's what it will be. I suppose for the comparison you're looking for, multiply 44100 x 16.


Not confusing just using what the standard of "At near CD quality" I'm sure that is what lossless is.

The confusion I was trying to avoid was when you apparently referred to 320k as lossless. It's not.

Edit...I get it now. No..."lossless" is not "at near CD quality". It's the same quality out to the new file as was in the source, regardless of bit rate. When you specify 320k, you are in effect also specifying the amount of loss.

[recoveryone]

I found this:

Playing back digital audio has turned into a regular experience for most computer users thanks in part to a variety of formats that helped make audio smaller in size, allowing simple methods of digital distribution. There are many different formats that serve many different purposes. Need to know FLAC (http://www.obsessable.com/glossary/flac/) from MP3 (http://www.obsessable.com/glossary/mp3/)? We've broken down each format and its main purpose in this audio formats primer.

MP3

http://media.obsessable.com/media/2008/11/07/zz05a87356.jpgThe most popular audio format, and the one that largely changed music as we know it, is called MP3 (http://www.obsessable.com/glossary/mp3/). MP3 is a relatively old format and part of the first set of MPEG (http://www.obsessable.com/glossary/mpeg/) specifications governing the playback of both audio and video. MP3 actually stands for MPEG1 layer 3, and because of the name some people often confuse it with the audio/video standards MPEG-2 and MPEG-4.
MP3 is a lossy codec, which means when files are encoded to MP3, the encoder chooses which parts of the audio are most important, and discards other less important parts. This process results in audio files that are passable, but less complete than the original file. Depending on the bitrate at which the file is encoded, more information can be kept or thrown out. This "lossy" nature, like all MPEG codecs, makes it an ideal candidate as a delivery format, meaning a format for mass consumption, rather than an archival format. MP3 doesn't have any sort of digital rights management (DRM) (http://www.obsessable.com/glossary/drm/) built-in, meaning most MP3s can be transferred to any device and be expected to play.
AAC

MP3's ideal successor is AAC, which stands for Advanced Audio Codec. AAC was largely designed to be the next version of MP3, and accomplishes things like better quality audio at similar bitrates. That means AAC will sound better than similarly sized MP3s. While AAC might be the successor to MP3, thanks to MP3's 10+ year lifespan as a file format, MP3 is supported with most devices whereas AAC doesn't have the breadth of support in hardware devices by comparison. However, that's not to imply that AAC doesn't have a broad install base. Most notably, iPods can play AAC files back natively, and every track purchased in the iTunes Music Store is an AAC file.
http://media.obsessable.com/media/2008/11/07/zz0295b2bc-1.jpgUnlike MP3, AAC has seen some DRM (http://www.obsessable.com/glossary/drm/) implementations, again most notably in the iTunes Music Store. While not defined as part of the AAC specification, Apple (http://www.obsessable.com/company/apple/) has forked AAC to try to thwart music copying. The implementation, known as FairPlay, requires listeners to be using iTunes, and have a computer authorized to play the music before being able to actually listen to the files. Apple limits the computer count to five total activated iTunes accounts at a time (check out our guide to deauthorizing all those iTunes accounts at once (http://www.obsessable.com/how-to/how-to-deauthorize-all-your-itunes-accounts-at-once/) if you ever hit your limit and find the need).
OGG

Another lossy audio format is the OGG format. OGG is a "free" format, meaning the format is maintained by the not-for-profit Xiph.org (http://xiph.org/about/) foundation, and doesn't charge for licensing or implementation. OGG is a file format popular with open source computer users, since there is no corporation sponsoring the format and all of the format's specifications and encoding methods are open and public. OGG is a less popular format, one not sanctioned by any store selling legal tracks, however many users transcode their music collections into OGG typically using the compression format called Vorbis. OGG files do not typically have any implementation of DRM, since the idea of DRM is counterintuitive to the nature of open source (http://www.obsessable.com/glossary/open-source/).
WMA

One format known most notably for its wide variety of DRM implementations is WMA (http://www.obsessable.com/glossary/wma/), short for Windows Media Audio. WMA was created by Microsoft, likely as a response to the rise of other lossy codecs like MP3. WMA's main use is in subscription and pay-per-download music services. Microsoft created WMA to have wide copy protection measures in the files, seemingly to lure music industry labels to its side and make money off of licensing fees. Music services like Wal-Mart's online store, as well as Napster (http://www.obsessable.com/company/napster/) and Yahoo!'s (http://www.obsessable.com/company/yahoo/) music store all use WMA audio, with Napster utilizing a subscription model, and the other two utilizing a purchased downloads model.
The actual WMA codec consists of four sub codecs. The original WMA codec is the lossy codec that competes with MP3. WMA Pro is an audio codec that has extended support for multi-channel audio, and also works with higher resolution audio. WMA Voice targets voice-only content and works at much lower bitrates by constraining the encoder to vocal frequencies only. Lastly, WMA Lossless is a lossless codec, meaning the complete data from the original master is maintained; however, the audio is compressed to allow ease of transfer.
http://media.obsessable.com/media/2008/11/07/zz0db590a3.jpg
FLAC

Another lossless audio codec is the Free Lossless Audio Codec, commonly referred to as FLAC (http://www.obsessable.com/glossary/flac/). FLAC is popular with the audio enthusiast scene, as the files created are smaller than WAV files, though the files still maintain all the audio fidelity of a WAV file. FLAC files can also be paired with "cue sheets" that define individual tracks inside of one larger FLAC file. FLAC files cannot be played back with most portable audio hardware, requiring either modified iPod firmware or custom portable players, but several notable players support it such as several in the Cowon (http://www.obsessable.com/company/cowon/) line (including the Cowon A3 (http://www.obsessable.com/portable-media/cowon-a3/), and iAUDIO 7 (http://www.obsessable.com/portable-media/cowon-iaudio-7/)) as well as the iriver SPINN (http://www.obsessable.com/portable-media/iriver-spinn/), the SanDisk Sansa slotMusic player (http://www.obsessable.com/portable-media/sandisk-sansa-slotmusic-player/), and a number of Samsung PMPs including the YP-S2 (http://www.obsessable.com/portable-media/samsung-yp-s2/). FLAC's other primary advantage is that it is free, and any device manufacturer can implement FLAC at no charge. If you're looking for components to handle your FLAC collection, an updated list of many of the devices that support FLAC is kept at Sourceforge (http://flac.sourceforge.net/links.html#hardware).

ALAC

One lossless format implemented on the most popular portable media player, the iPod (http://www.obsessable.com/portable-media/apple-ipod-classic/), is the Apple Lossless Audio Codec (ALAC). ALAC allows users to take audio straight from CDs, convert it in iTunes to ALAC, and play it back in full fidelity on an iPod. ALAC files can only be played in Apple's music ecosystem (iTunes, Quicktime and iPod) and therefore the format is mainly suitable for audiophiles who enjoy listening to lossless music on an iPod exclusively.
WAV and AIFF

Most lossless audio comes from an originating source that has a bit-by-bit file that actually maps all the points on a sound wave. The two main formats of choice for complete recording are WAV (pronounced wave) and AIFF (sometimes pronounced "Aee-ph"). Both file formats are devoid of any sort of compression, making an average pop music song three or four minutes in length a hefty 50MB. While not as large of an issue in modern computing, 50MB file sizes in the mid to late 90s made the transfer of audio files extremely difficult, which is why lossy codecs were born. WAV is typically the Windows standard for audio storage, while AIFF is the Mac standard, though in modern usage both work interchangeably on either operating system. The WAV and AIFF formats are typically seen as "master" or "archive" formats, meaning they aren't typically distributed to the public since the file sizes are large, though the audio quality is much higher than any lossy codec.

[02audionoob]

The long and short of it is, when you specify a bit rate, you're making lossey files...even if it's 320k.

[audio amateur]

I've got a question about ripping CD's to my computer and burning copies for my CD player.

What format and bit rate do I use for the ripping. I'm using Window's Media Player. The default bitrate is 128 and the default format is Window Media Audio. Do I want 192K and WAV lossless? And what settings for burning to the CD for best audio quality on my CD player? I don't plan on keeping the ripped files on my computer so file size is not an issue.

Will Windows Media Player automatically transfer the music from the CD to my computer and then burn it in standard redbook CD format or do I have to choose?

By the way, I have Real Player and I have a Nero program as well although nero is not installed.

Thanks,

Larry
Didn't you say you built computers?

[audio amateur]

Thanks guys. I know a lot about copmuter hardware after building some very high end custom gaming computers for my son, but not so much about the software. My son usually copies CD's for me.
That explains it

[Hyfi]

Just use Nero or EAC and make an exact copy of the CD. Forget about all the other formats if your not gonna put it on a pod or are worried about space.

[noddin0ff]

That's the question I was answering. When you're making a WAV file from a CD, it's 44,100 samples per second. Each sample is 16-bit. FLAC is a compressed version of the file, but lossless. You can't make FLAC just any bit rate you want. It's like Feanor says...like a ZIP file of the original. A WAV file could be more than 44,100/16-bit and it could be less. But usually that's what it will be. I suppose for the comparison you're looking for, multiply 44100 x 16.
...
Edit...I get it now. No..."lossless" is not "at near CD quality". It's the same quality out to the new file as was in the source, regardless of bit rate. When you specify 320k, you are in effect also specifying the amount of loss.

The way I think about it is viewing bitrate as the speed at which the files are transferred; rate = velocity. Redbook rates are 2 channels (L/R) with 16bits transferred 44,100 times every second per channel. Multiply to get 2x16x44100= 1411200 bits per second. Rephrased as 1411 kilo bits per second or 1411kbps (or shorter, 1411k).

Thus the 'rate' of a redbook lossless file is 1411kbps. If you compress this file lossless, on average the file is about one-half the size and the bitrate needed to transmit the file is proportionately less, say 700-800kbps. The amount it compresses to in a lossless format is dictated by the complexity of the music. Music with pure tones compresses more than white noise, eg. a cello solo will compress more than distorted punk mayhem.

If you select a bitrate that is lower than the bitrate that the file would require as a lossless file, you must throw away information. All the good encoders attempt to first throw away the information you are least likely to hear. Which is why 320kbps files can sound very much like lossless (I can't hear the difference myself, but I don't think that the slightly smaller file sizes of 320 compared to lossless are worth it given that lossless is more flexible for me.)

On playback, all these files are converted back to a 16bit/44.1hz signal for the DAC to turn into an analog signal. Lossy formats, obviously differ from the original when converted back. They can also be upsampled further to higher resolutions but lossy is lossy.

Does that help?

[Feanor]

I guess I should have been clearer in my question of Bit Rate. What is the kbps rate of the lossless formats. Now if, in the article I posted suggest states that and CD ripped at 320kps is at near CD quality, we all know that you can store more Mp3 files on a disk than lossless formats. I have done my own side by side test using 320kps Mp3, WAV and the original CD and I could not tell which was which. I may not have the highest end equipment or even the most trained ear for the smallest sound quality, but I agree with the editor, let each person make the choice.
The answer is the FLAC and ALAC are similar and compress the full-size files to just a bit more the 50% of the original overall. The physical bit rates are variable depending on the complexity of the sound. The compressed size is relevant only for storage and transmission over the network. It's isn't relevant to the effective, musical bit rate which remains the original, in the case of CDs, 16 bits / 44.1 kHz.

[02audionoob]

The way I think about it is viewing bitrate as the speed at which the files are transferred; rate = velocity. Redbook rates are 2 channels (L/R) with 16bits transferred 44,100 times every second per channel. Multiply to get 2x16x44100= 1411200 bits per second. Rephrased as 1411 kilo bits per second or 1411kbps (or shorter, 1411k).

Thus the 'rate' of a redbook lossless file is 1411kbps. If you compress this file lossless, on average the file is about one-half the size and the bitrate needed to transmit the file is proportionately less, say 700-800kbps. The amount it compresses to in a lossless format is dictated by the complexity of the music. Music with pure tones compresses more than white noise, eg. a cello solo will compress more than distorted punk mayhem.

If you select a bitrate that is lower than the bitrate that the file would require as a lossless file, you must throw away information. All the good encoders attempt to first throw away the information you are least likely to hear. Which is why 320kbps files can sound very much like lossless (I can't hear the difference myself, but I don't think that the slightly smaller file sizes of 320 compared to lossless are worth it given that lossless is more flexible for me.)

On playback, all these files are converted back to a 16bit/44.1hz signal for the DAC to turn into an analog signal. Lossy formats, obviously differ from the original when converted back. They can also be upsampled further to higher resolutions but lossy is lossy.

Does that help?

Given that you quoted me, are you addressing me? Or are you addressing recoveryone?

[noddin0ff]

Given that you quoted me, are you addressing me? Or are you addressing recoveryone?

Yes. :wink5:

[E-Stat]

Just use Nero or EAC and make an exact copy of the CD. Forget about all the other formats if your not gonna put it on a pod or are worried about space.
Most importantly, most car CD players only play CDs and not other codec flavors.

rw

[recoveryone]

I hope we have helped or seriously confused Blackraven more ...lol (J/K) I was just showing an option that render very good quality and use little less disk space for future rippping.

[recoveryone]

Most importantly, most car CD players only play CDs and not other codec flavors.

rw

E ??? how old is the head unit in your car? most CD head units (post 03) can read MP3/WMA/ACC formats And if you brought one within that last couple of years (aftermarket) it should be able to control Ipod or USB devices if not read a USB storage drive with MP3/WMA/ACC formats.

[Hyfi]

E ??? how old is the head unit in your car? most CD head units (post 03) can read MP3/WMA/ACC formats And if you brought one within that last couple of years (aftermarket) it should be able to control Ipod or USB devices if not read a USB storage drive with MP3/WMA/ACC formats.

My 03 Impala will only play CDs.
My 07 Rav4 will play CDs and MP3s......I played MP3s in it one time since I have owned it.

[E-Stat]

E ??? how old is the head unit in your car? most CD head units (post 03) can read MP3/WMA/ACC formats
While the Alpine unit in my '04 Acura can play multi-channel DVD-A and DTS, it does not understand file based music.


And if you brought one within that last couple of years (aftermarket) it should be able to control Ipod or USB devices if not read a USB storage drive with MP3/WMA/ACC formats.
Then why would you want to burn a CD?

rw

[recoveryone]

While the Alpine unit in my '04 Acura can play multi-channel DVD-A and DTS, it does not understand file based music.


Then why would you want to burn a CD?

rw

I haven"t burn (car use) CD's since around 03

I use a 2gig USB thumb drive (cheap Dual X7714 HD) http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:PeddwSvL1fefGM:http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/ownership/audio/tech.seen.at.sema/xhd.7714.500.jpg (http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/ownership/audio/tech.seen.at.sema/xhd.7714.500.jpg)






and my wife has a 4gig USB thumb drive (Pioneer DEH 7100BT) for hershttp://forums.audioreview.com/ UXISceFxkvGhIXIDshIykpLDgsGCozOjwqOSgvLikBCQoKDgwO GQ8PFy0cHiAsLDUqLC0sMywsNSksKSwsNSwtMCwsLCkpKi8sLC ktLCksKSw2LCwuKjY1KSksKSkpKf/AABEIADkAlAMBIgACEQEDEQH/xAAcAAACAgMBAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAQFAQIDBgf/xABCEAABAwEDBwoCBwYHAAAAAAABAAIDEQQSIQUWMUFRkZMGBx MiU2FxgdHSVPAyUnKSobGzNUJig7TCFyWUpLLB4f/EABcBAQEBAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAgP/xAAeEQEAAgEEAwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARECISIxQQMSE//aAAwDAQACEQMRAD8A+4oQvkvK/Lkpyha4jLIGROjbG1kj4g0GCOR1bhFTeecSg+tISyWrnDnBJYZ LhJDC60T1cAaXsH0C4HnAtZ0GTynnP96tIaJCVl3L+1jS+Ufz5 x/ctf8AEK1dpJ/qJ/cimoQldzztuuSRvc61StO4vqucvLW2gVMktNotEzh4VDyKpSWa ZCVM8vLX203Hm9y1z7tfbzceb3IprkJUDy5tfbzceb3LGfFs+I n483uQNghKaeW1s+Jn483uWuels+KtHHm9yBtEJSs87b8VaOPL 7kZ4234u0ceX3KBtUJTjystrXFrrVaQ5pxHTy+P1kxvNzlaS05 Mslondekcx1531rsjmAnvo0IPSIQhAJfucu3dHlPKXjGf9rEmB S1c8ElMrW9u3o/6aNWB5/lFZRZ5ooBQmOzwXvtPibM/R3y08lEss4BqVplmSs7icahn6baKMyRW0p6WwW8DE/Oz571rarSZHNABqT1aadN2o/iLgRXUG/wAVRRstCtLBllsckBd1mhrAdVOpdO51T5Lt4fWct3Tj5fatva9 yBkKCR/RPvE0JJa4Mb5ClT4k+SqcrWNkbnmLFg6pLhXXhWmDm1w0bPEeg hnD3kxMoWtcSQaVwOCqssW2IWeQBpBIugE66/joWvvnOkzoz8cY45RrG+ExgmNtdRppFSN9WkeQOtdxCxzLzICR W6CNburgBrPXbh6FeejttAxv7ovGnjSv/ABW9my1NFd6N5bdN4YA0OONCNPWPyAuOWk07Y6xae6zk1uwO+j f+i4dXUcdtMNupYiaGscX2UvrexvOa6MNNHOuitBeBF5wIqKai sZNys6650shHXaA4tBAPWNa3TTrBh8GAYjBcpZWuDiJnGgc/XUATEsrRmovL6YVvaW6G4baTmNtS6zSNAIBJeQBUXgMWaafhvU W0WR1eqygIaaAh9y9QNvEfRJJ100q1yy9/TPjnfI6AF0jDMHRtleWA49GKhuNQBTDRSqlWQ0Z01+QxF0TpXN ibcNyVhN5/R6esDjXFprewBDzE8JZS9TEuAoQcWm67R3rWR7TS6CPE1/6U57YntDTIS5kZDQAAHOcS4NFG3nUe+hvYmuBAbQxsp2YMle1o owOIaetRwGF4F2JB0+aCy5QgEWOZpqZbJGX9z2OfC7zpE0+aYf mj/Y1h+y/9Z6Wu3SVisoriI3+VZXEfmmU5o/2NYfsP/Veg9ghCFAJZOeQ/51bP5X9PGmaJSyc9Aplm1E4Bwic0nC8OhY2o2irSPEIPHzPvFr nH90Dd1fyAXIUrtHd8haGQbRvWL42jeqNw6n/tD+a6Qy0wNPPHyXC+No3ovjaN6tpMWucm8pJrOCGXSKEdYXqYU wIKhzW173X5PLDAeDdG9QhKNo3o6QbRvS0pIDh5/ku4dHdFS69rpSmnvUC+No3ovjaN6jSXK8Uutc6lakE4V20GtcP Nc742jei+No3oO807nUvvLqUpecXUoKDT3ABZjmIFwudc1tDqA 69GjSo98bRvRfG0b0HcFoxF7u0YfJW89XGpcSdZc4OJ17VFvja N6OkG0b0Eq1O+iPqsA89J/FyZvmj/AGNYfsP/AFXpXOkG0bwml5qIi3I9ha4UNxxodhkc5p8CCD5oPXIQhQYLa6 VW23JDJHVcxhA0Va0026QrNCCjzbi7KP7jfRYzZi7GP7jfRXqE FFmxD2MXDb6LGa8PYxcNvor5CChzWh7GLht9FjNWHsIuG30V+h BQZqw9hFw2+iM1Yewi4bfRX6EFBmrD2EXDb6IzVh7GLht9FfoQ UOa0PYxcNvojNeHsYuG30V8hBRZsQ9jFw2+izm1F2Mf3G+ivEI KQcnIuyj+430VtZ4g0DAV7hRdUIBCEIP/Z (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.audiodesign.gr/images/products/DEH-P7100BT.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.audiodesign.gr/images/products/&usg=__Yc0sx4IhmxAgEieadeWAvQVi6Rk=&h=368&w=960&sz=116&hl=en&start=2&zoom=1&itbs=1&tbnid=ys-20UPTWAZmyM:&tbnh=57&tbnw=148&prev=/images%3Fq%3DPioneer%2BDEH%2BP7100bt%26hl%3Den%26s a%3DG%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3Disch:1)

[recoveryone]

My 03 Impala will only play CDs.
My 07 Rav4 will play CDs and MP3s......I played MP3s in it one time since I have owned it.

"Most"

[Bluey]

if you just want to have a copy of your cd's then just use Nero or similar and just 'copy cd' as many times as you want.
The copy should be the same quality no matter which format its in .... for using with iPods etc, then maybe use a compression :)

[Hyfi]

"Most"

And the other problem is that many factory radio units are also the control for the anti theft and other things so you can't just swap the head unit out for an MP3 playing unit.

Maybe "Most" cheaper cars are like that but both of mine are setup the way I just described.

To get back on track, the original poster asked the best way to make copies of CDs to play in secondary systems without having to carry the disks from room to room.

Nero or EAC is one of the best answers to his question, not a huge blown out debate on other formats and bit rates.

[E-Stat]

I use a ...
That's all fine and good but doesn't address the OP's question.

rw

[blackraven]

Didn't you say you built computers?

I know a fair amount about the software needed to get computers up and running as well as keeping it clean and tidy, but I don't really use my computer for much of anything anymore except for Email and browsing. So I'm not that familiar with certain computer app's. I used to be into gaming when Mech Warrior 2-4 was big. I customized quite a few computers.

[noddin0ff]

That's all fine and good but doesn't address the OP's question.

rw

This question you mean?

What format and bit rate do I use for the ripping.

It's been answered. EAC will give an 'Exact Audio Copy". Red book to Red book. Lossless.

alternatively, the answer is 'depends' in which case a discussion of formats and bit rates is helpful.

[E-Stat]

This question you mean?
No, I refer to the clarification of his specific needs:

There are some CD's that I want to have copies of for my second and third systems in my bedroom and basement as well as my car.

Apparently, he was unaware that copies of CDs usable on a wide range of players do not involve selection of bit rate. There is only one answer - 1440k. I use EAC myself.

rw

[recoveryone]

Just spent 8 hours ripping most of my collection, putting the cd's in storage so I can make more room on the display rack for DVD's and Blu Ray disk. Ran across some cd's I have forgot that I even had, I guess that's the curse of using my squeezebox now days for my listening pleasure.

[Feanor]

Just spent 8 hours ripping most of my collection, putting the cd's in storage so I can make more room on the display rack for DVD's and Blu Ray disk. Ran across some cd's I have forgot that I even had, I guess that's the curse of using my squeezebox now days for my listening pleasure.
Congrats, R1.

You'll notice it's great to have your whole music collection just a few clicks away.

However for my part I've spent several hundred hours ripping the close to a thousand albums we have around home. I have a lot of classical music and in these cases it is almost always necessary to modify the tags are provided by the online services; this adds a lot to the effort.

[El_descnocido]

I think the response to the original question should be a simply: There is no reason to ripping the CD into your hard disk and burnning CDs then, just copy, chose the CD copy option on any CDs burnner and thatīs it, you can select several copies so information as is will be storage in the computer and burnned into a several CDs as required. It is hugh dierence if you ripped and burnned then. Whoever that can not diferenciate quality audio between LPs, CDs, Loosless files, Lossey files (MP3, WMA, etc) doesnīt deserve to write any post in here. Man you have to go to a doctor for EARs checking or improve your audio siystem.

[audio amateur]

I think the response to the original question should be a simply: There is no reason to ripping the CD into your hard disk and burnning CDs then, just copy, chose the CD copy option on any CDs burnner and thatīs it, you can select several copies so information as is will be storage in the computer and burnned into a several CDs as required. It is hugh dierence if you ripped and burnned then. Whoever that can not diferenciate quality audio between LPs, CDs, Loosless files, Lossey files (MP3, WMA, etc) doesnīt deserve to write any post in here. Man you have to go to a doctor for EARs checking or improve your audio siystem.
I'd be willing to bet you a large sum of money that you can't discern between wav and lossless, and even possibly high quality lossy.

[Feanor]

I'd be willing to bet you a large some of money that you can't discern between wav and lossless, and even possibly high quality lossy.
I am certain that I could not infalibly distinguish between, say, WAV, and 320 kbps. At the very least it would depend on the quality of the recording and the type of music. I've made the point before that mainly extremely complex musical sounds, e.g. cymbals struck with a steele brush, make good candidates for distinction.

Then again, lots of people will insist that they can distinguish any change in the reproduction chain or, indeed, a jar of Brilliant Pebbles in the room ...

http://gallery.audioreview.com/data/audio//500/medium/BrilliantPebbles.jpg

[recoveryone]

ditto Feanor

[El_descnocido]

Iīm not that guy that argue something without data, first of all wav is considered lossless in CD audio format so iīm agree it is almost impossible to diferenciate in between, but 320Kbs lossey format wich is the higher quality of course i do diferenciate, even on 320Kbs bass looks like be more or deeper, highs and mids are muddy, actually those deficiencies on loosey formats increase while audio is driven tru a DSP while the signal is modified or digitilized several times its been more distorntioned and far away of its original source, tone and sound. There are several ways to maximize or improve digital lossey to being near to the original source, so im refering to direct sound comparisson without sound processing at any kind. Again you wonīt be able if you still using that sony, panasonic and other low end piece of garbage. I worked for about 4 years in a radio station driving, digitalizing and processing audio in TX room and recording room, so iīm not that expert or Prodigious EAR neither but a guy that worked with sounds came from a single guitar or an entire orchestra and can diferenciate lossless from a lossey audio recording. saludos!

[E-Stat]

I'd be willing to bet you a large sum of money that you can't discern between wav and lossless...I don't disagree fundamentally with your bet, there can be implementation details that get in the way. As a new Squeezebox Touch user, I have experimented with different formats and options. The default setting is for the server software to send the native format (FLAC in my case) to the Touch where the onboard processor performs the transcoding and playback. Initially, I thought this was great because it reduced the bandwidth requirement for the Wi-Fi transmission. The office server lives a hundred feet away from the Touch located in the garage. Initially, I had experienced some dropouts requiring rebuffering but solved that by moving a large Metropolitan rolling metal rack out of the pathway and getting larger antennae for the Linksys access point.

It was suggested by a long term user over at AA that I try using the option where the transcoding occurs at the server instead to reduce the computational burden on the Touch. While its 500 mhz ARM processor is more powerful than found in previous SB units, it is significantly less powerful than the 2.8 ghz quad core I7 in the office. On some content, I can hear a reduction of non-musical click-like artifacts. Similarly, I can hear the difference when I replaced the wall wart switching PS with a high quality linear unit which is measurably quieter. The overall sound is less bright and smoother. I think the Touch is a great deal at $300, but it has its limitations. Fortunately, they can be addressed. The aftermarket power supply was another $200.

Lossless can be great, but the playback device must be well implemented.

rw

[JoeE SP9]

Who cares about lossy or lossless? When making a copy of a CD just use EAC as already recommended. The question of bit rates, FLAC or whatever is only germane when copying to a HDD.

[audio amateur]

E-Stat
I'm not a 100% briefed on to the workings of wireless streaming with logitech touches etc., but I get the idea. Do you use it with the main system or with garage only? I bet any differences would be more noticeable in the main system.

I don't disagree fundamentally with your bet
Would you disagree fundamentally if we included 320kbps lossy?

[noddin0ff]

I don't disagree fundamentally with your bet, there can be implementation details that get in the way. As a new Squeezebox Touch user, I have experimented with different formats and options. The default setting is for the server software to send the native format (FLAC in my case) to the Touch where the onboard processor performs the transcoding and playback....[etc. etc.]
rw

I dunno. I think it's this kind of rhetoric that continues to confuse and mislead people looking for answers on resolutions and bitrates and codecs etc. If I parse what you're saying correctly, then your post is not at all about the fidelity of the codec or bit rate, but about the robustness of your home internet. You contort a reasonable statement of challenge regarding whether one can distinguish WAV vs Lossless vs HQ compression and confound it by bringing in unrelated issues of wireless internet dropouts, the location of metal racks, and $200 power supplies. Sure, I get occasional dropouts too with streaming music on my wireless network--particularly when I use the microwave--but what has this to do with evaluating codecs.

I highly doubt whether processor speed has any bearing on transcoding fidelity; it isn't a processor intensive task. The SB is way more than adequate. Similarly, I don't understand what you mean by 'lossless is great, but...'. I mean...lossless is lossless; it is what it is. You don't have to 'well implement' it to get more lossless. Any difference you hear is downstream and subject to variations there.

Isn't the basic thrust of this extended thread, all things being equal, to ask what you sacrifice with various codecs? Why confound the issue by bringing in the perceived effects of wall warts versus $200 power supplies? etc. I don't think a mine's bigger argument clarifies anything.

and...what JoeE SP9 says.

[02audionoob]

I dunno. I think it's this kind of rhetoric that continues to confuse and mislead people looking for answers on resolutions and bitrates and codecs etc. If I parse what you're saying correctly, then your post is not at all about the fidelity of the codec or bit rate, but about the robustness of your home internet. You contort a reasonable statement of challenge regarding whether one can distinguish WAV vs Lossless vs HQ compression and confound it by bringing in unrelated issues of wireless internet dropouts, the location of metal racks, and $200 power supplies. Sure, I get occasional dropouts too with streaming music on my wireless network--particularly when I use the microwave--but what has this to do with evaluating codecs.

I highly doubt whether processor speed has any bearing on transcoding fidelity; it isn't a processor intensive task. The SB is way more than adequate. Similarly, I don't understand what you mean by 'lossless is great, but...'. I mean...lossless is lossless; it is what it is. You don't have to 'well implement' it to get more lossless. Any difference you hear is downstream and subject to variations there.

Isn't the basic thrust of this extended thread, all things being equal, to ask what you sacrifice with various codecs? Why confound the issue by bringing in the perceived effects of wall warts versus $200 power supplies? etc. I don't think a mine's bigger argument clarifies anything.

and...what JoeE SP9 says.

What point is there in debating what is appropriate to say in this thread when the first reply said this...


You would use WMA or other reduced bit rate formats only if you're making compressed files, such as for a portable player. Otherwise, you would want to simply copy the CD in Nero...

[audio amateur]

You would use WMA or other reduced bit rate formats only if you're making compressed files, such as for a portable player. Otherwise, you would want to simply copy the CD in Nero...
I don't agree. Many do and would copy their cd collection to their hard drive in WMA, especially if they can't hear any difference when comparing to lossless or WAV.

[noddin0ff]

I don't agree. Many do and would copy their cd collection to their hard drive in WMA, especially if they can't hear any difference when comparing to lossless or WAV.

...and there's both WMA lossless and WMA lossy.

[noddin0ff]

What point is there in debating what is appropriate to say in this thread when the first reply said this...

If I post something confusing, misleading and irrelevant I hope someone will call me on it.

I'm in no way trying to be a thread nazi or an arbiter of appropriateness. People can say what ever ridiculous things they want on any thread. It's a free forum. And, we're all free to call things as we see them.

E-stat has many insightful things to say throughout many forums. But, here he made a long post about a whole bunch of wonky stuff and then closed with the conclusion


Lossless can be great, but the playback device must be well implemented.

You can't draw that conclusion from what he posted. Is there a problem with me pointing that out civilly, as I believe I did?

[Feanor]

...
I highly doubt whether processor speed has any bearing on transcoding fidelity; it isn't a processor intensive task. The SB is way more than adequate. Similarly, I don't understand what you mean by 'lossless is great, but...'. I mean...lossless is lossless; it is what it is. You don't have to 'well implement' it to get more lossless. Any difference you hear is downstream and subject to variations there.
...
Understand that there are a lot of audiophools out there who insist that they can hear a difference between WAV and compressed lossless such as FLAC. Well there are a lot of variables with compter sound so maybe they do if they aren't "well implement", but you have to be "well implemented" whether WAV, MP3, or whatever.

Noddin, you are perfectly correct that decoding FLAC is a totally trivial task for any CPU made in the last decade. In general sound differences, (assuming they are real rather than imagined), are rarely if ever the result of the decoding process per se.

[E-Stat]

Do you use it with the main system or with garage only? I bet any differences would be more noticeable in the main system.
Presently, I use it only in the vintage system. Indeed, differences would be more noticeable with the Sound Lab based system. I thought that I was agreeing with you in that given a suitable player, I believe that a lossless format is capable of sounding every bit as good as an uncompressed format.


Would you disagree fundamentally if we included 320kbps lossy?
With a good enough system and suitable content, I find that lossy truly sounds lossy.

rw

[E-Stat]

I highly doubt whether processor speed has any bearing on transcoding fidelity; it isn't a processor intensive task.
Try a Touch and get back with us.


You don't have to 'well implement' it to get more lossless. Any difference you hear is downstream and subject to variations there.
In the real world, one must use downstream components that can affect the result.


Isn't the basic thrust of this extended thread, all things being equal, to ask what you sacrifice with various codecs? Why confound the issue by bringing in the perceived effects of wall warts versus $200 power supplies? etc.
They are examples of the variables responsible for the differences you hear downstream. I replaced a CD transport with a network transport that provided different audible results when:

1. A different power supply was used
* and *
2. Transcoding was performed at the server level

Conclude what you may. I'm not convinced that inherently using a FLAC source vs. a WAV source was responsible for either change.

rw

[Dawnrazor]

Noddin, you are perfectly correct that decoding FLAC is a totally trivial task for any CPU made in the last decade. In general sound differences, (assuming they are real rather than imagined), are rarely if ever the result of the decoding process per se.

Hey Feanor!

I kind of agree with this statement for most people. Though for those of us who have gone kind of crazy with the minimalist approach of the cics memory player concept that flac processing is not trivial even though the hardware could normally handle things very easily.

I for one cant really play flac. It causes a hang that .wav doesnt when loading from ram. I accidentally imported some flac and the volume was much higher than normal from a previous song, and the flac was blaring and the mouse hung for a long while and I couldnt do anything. This never happens on .wav

Here is an explanation from the author of the software and overall computer transport concept:

-There's no difference in SQ as FLAC is decoded entirely before playback. The issue that FLAC causes is potential dropouts when cPlay does background RAM loading. Although this takes just a few seconds, FLAC decoding is insanely CPU intensive and will cause a dropout. This gets worse when output rate is at 192k as CPU headroom reduces significantly (at 96k, CPU0 load is ~40% vs ~78%).-

Anyhow I dont really see what the big deal is. Hard drive space is cheap these days.

It is probably just me, but I have had pretty bad luck with flac on a wide variety of computers from normal pcs to audio ones.

Here is a vid I put together of one of those issues where the same file played as a flac stutters but the .wav doesnt:

http://www.basaudio.net/diyhosting/asylum/MVI_1602.avi

[Feanor]

Hey Feanor!

I kind of agree with this statement for most people. Though for those of us who have gone kind of crazy with the minimalist approach of the cics memory player concept that flac processing is not trivial even though the hardware could normally handle things very easily.

I for one cant really play flac. It causes a hang that .wav doesnt when loading from ram. I accidentally imported some flac and the volume was much higher than normal from a previous song, and the flac was blaring and the mouse hung for a long while and I couldnt do anything. This never happens on .wav
...

Anyhow I dont really see what the big deal is [with WAV]. Hard drive space is cheap these days.

It is probably just me, but I have had pretty bad luck with flac on a wide variety of computers from normal pcs to audio ones.
....
Dawnrazor, good to hear from you.

:biggrin5: I'm glad you concede that getting into CICS is "going crazy". :biggrin5:

I'm also glad you mention that decode FLAC is exactly the same as WAV so that any sound diffference that there are, are the result of decoding -- part of "implementation" as E-Stat refers to it.

Personally I've never actually had a "stutter", "hiccup", or dropout that I could attribute to FLAC or other compressed format vs. WAV -- to be sure, I have had these probems. However in my case these anomalies have been the result of (a) bad sound drivers, e.g. the ASIO driver for my M-Audio card, or (b) computer startup programs or Windows services that interrupt processing. These are other aspects of what E-Stat calls "implementation", and by experimentation I have eliminated these problems except for the following ...

Presently about once every ~3 hours of listening, on average I have a network dropout that causes Foobar2000 to kick up a "file not found" message. These dropouts seem to have begun after I got my newest network router. They have nothing to do with the sound quality before or after the interruption. I'll enlarge Foobar's input buffer to see if that makes any difference -- it might not. In any case at the current frequency of these dropouts they aren't really a problem .

If you can do without metadata tags, and if you have the pockets for twice the hard disk capacity, sure, go for WAV. Personally I couldn't live without the tags and, now that I'm retired, the extra cost of HD space is still relevant.

[E-Stat]

Although this takes just a few seconds, FLAC decoding is insanely CPU intensive and will cause a dropout.
I didn't think so many folks were hallucinating. I wanted to pass along the advice that I found to be true when using a non-computer based solution.


Hard drive space is cheap these days.
The chief advantage to FLAC is tagging support, not space preservation. For a couple of years, I had most of my library ripped to WAV and played it back on my computer alone. I confess that the additional convenience of tagging was worth all the hours spent converting to FLAC.

rw

[E-Stat]

Personally I've never actually had a "stutter", "hiccup", or dropout that I could attribute to FLAC or other compressed format
Nor have I when played back on a computer - which is where the processing in my arrangement now occurs. The compact Touch player, however, uses a comparatively low powered imbedded processor that is comparable to the Pentium II used in my 1998 desktop. You end up pushing it pretty hard when it also runs the Linux based server software playing from a local USB or SD card.

rw

[noddin0ff]

Conclude what you may. I'm not convinced that inherently using a FLAC source vs. a WAV source was responsible for either change.
Which is what I said. You're not hearing differences due to codec. Thus, we reached the same conclusion and we agree.


Try a Touch and get back with us.
No need. I can accept that your Touch might be a lemon. Your comment about the added overhead of Linux and local USB is duly noted. I'm no computer expert, no argument. I've fed digital signals to a 10 year old Mac G3 processor (which I guarentee is slower than the Touch), a 7 year old Yamaha receiver, 2 different DACC (MD-10, and Zhaolu), and a current mac mini. I've done this wirelessly and optically and a combination, and now via wireless to an AppleTV and HDMI. Hardwired they all work fine, wireless they used to have dropouts but the networks are better now. I could turn this back to you and suggest that you should now run out and try every system I've implemented and get back to us, but that would be childish wouldn't it. Sonically, yeah there are differences, however, as we agreed above, its due to downstream components.


In the real world, one must use downstream components that can affect the result.
It may surprise you that as a flesh and blood member of the species and the forum, that I do live in the real world. I certainly don't live in the esoteric world and I never argued counter to this statement. Thus, we agree.

I took umbrage to a post that listed peripheral/downstream influences and then suggested the sonic differences were due to implementation of a lossless codec. I saw no connection there. Your posts often comment on how you perceive extremely subtle differences in your system; I felt this case was worth challenging as I believe all lossless codecs are perfectly capable of being transcoded (implemented) to create the same audio signal. I pointed out that you seemed to be arguing you could distinguish between the fidelity of lossless formats when really you were saying that the position of racks and the present of wall warts was affecting your sound. I thought this was confusing and misleading and still do. But, as you see above, we agree on the reasons for the perceived differences.


They are examples of the variables responsible for the differences you hear downstream. I replaced a CD transport with a network transport that provided different audible results when:

1. A different power supply was used
* and *
2. Transcoding was performed at the server level
As to this, its all far to esoteric for me to weigh in on. There's no way, in the world I inhabit, that I would ever convince myself to believe that I could hear any sonic difference induced by a power supply. Well, if it was arcing lightning maybe I could. Perhaps I've been blessed by high quality electricity; I wouldn't know. I'll take your word on it that you do hear a difference.

It does strike me as weird, however, that a company with a solid reputation for providing a robust DACC/server thingy would sell one that couldn't do the one thing it was built for. I'd send it back.

[E-Stat]

Which is what I said.
Hmmm. What you said was:

"I highly doubt whether processor speed has any bearing on transcoding fidelity; it isn't a processor intensive task...Thus, we reached the same conclusion and we agree. "

We (and quite a few others) do not agree on that assertion. I submit that Logitech disagrees as well. Otherwise, why would they provide the configuration option? If you choose to run it stand alone using local storage, it must necessarily transcode locally. On the other hand, if you use a separate server, you can exploit the benefits of offloading the processing task.


I can accept that your Touch might be a lemon.
On the contrary. I think the Touch is a great value for $280 as Wi-Fi receiver, network player, DAC and local server. Better performance from the unit, however, is available for those who wish.


I took umbrage to a post that listed peripheral/downstream influences and then suggested the sonic differences were due to implementation of a lossless codec. I saw no connection there.
It has everything to do with the implementation, i.e. what makes it work - as opposed to the potential capability of the FLAC format.



There's no way, in the world I inhabit, that I would ever convince myself to believe that I could hear any sonic difference induced by a power supply.
That's certainly fine. Others can and you might as well if you knew what to listen for. There is a very good reason why there are zero high end players that use wall wart switching power supplies: added HF noise as seen graphically here. (http://www.teddypardo.com/products/Powersupplies/TTouch.html) The GamuT CDP I use incorporates separate linear power supplies for the transport and DAC.



It does strike me as weird, however, that a company with a solid reputation for providing a robust DACC/server thingy would sell one that couldn't do the one thing it was built for. I'd send it back.
It certainly works out of the box. I think it is great that it provides a cost effective platform suitable for audible improvements via configuration (transcode at server level) and the use of a replacement power supply (for which there are at least four different manufacturers of aftermarket solutions). Just plug in the new PS and enjoy a smoother, quieter top. :)

rw

[recoveryone]

I hate to break up the current ongoing debate, but I have a quick observation since I'm about 80% done with ripping my own CD collection. I have notice that Jazz artist or I should say the mixing engineers take more pride in how the finish sound comes out. I have played back CD's from the 70's and 80's from various artist and the quality of the sound is right their with current artist CD's today. But in other musical styles I can tell right off hand how dated the sound quality of the recording is. Which leads me into my next question, when you guys talk about drop off, is this due to your network or the ripped format, cause I have never experience such occurrence or maybe I am not listening close enough.

[noddin0ff]

Well, since the noddin/E-stat sub-thread has now stepped into a confusing muddle of misinterpretation, mis-recontruction and loss of context where we can't seem to agree on the fact that we're not disagreeing...

I'll just ask a question about the link E-Stat provided above regarding the graph of HF noise. In the interest of fair disclosure--although I admit I don't think I have the capacity to hear wall wart induced noice in my system--at heart I'm a skeptic. Even though those with claims have better ears and better systems, I will doubt until convinced otherwise. Doubt is not to be confused with disbelieve. So no personal slight is intended.

I read the text and looked at the chart. As far as I can tell the sound measurements are taken from the noise the wall wart is making directly to the ambient environment. ie not any noise the wall wart may be introducing into the downstream audio chain that comes out your speaker. I'd like this clarified for me.

If all the past posts about the glories of high end power supplies, how wonderful they are and everyone should by them were a simple referendum on the ambient noise they don't make, then I have completely misunderstood. My take was that the argument on wall warts was that they degrade downstream audio quality within the electronic chain to the speakers--an argument I'm skeptical of.

Also, the differences are presented in dB, which I believe is a signal to noise ratio and not a measure of absolute noise. I presume you can have a huge signal to noise ratio between two values that both fall in a completely inaudible range. As is, the chart doesn't convince me that there is any perceptible difference in wall warts. I don't know what a zero Volt ref is, but I assume it's a very very very quiet reference (the quieter the reference the greater the more exaggerated the dB value). Clearly the chart isn't using the standard SPL scale and that alone would be misleading to the casual reader.

If this is all about cheap power supplies buzzing, specifically at 50 or 60hz. That can certainly annoy a person, even me. My low tech solution is to plug into a more distant outlet and run an extension cord. I can understand the lack of appeal though.

[noddin0ff]

I hate to break up the current ongoing debate, but I have a quick observation since I'm about 80% done with ripping my own CD collection. I have notice that Jazz artist or I should say the mixing engineers take more pride in how the finish sound comes out. I have played back CD's from the 70's and 80's from various artist and the quality of the sound is right their with current artist CD's today. But in other musical styles I can tell right off hand how dated the sound quality of the recording is. Which leads me into my next question, when you guys talk about drop off, is this due to your network or the ripped format, cause I have never experience such occurrence or maybe I am not listening close enough.

My take is that we're talking about audio drop outs (silent gaps) and pops (digital artifacts that make sharp noisy pops). When I first ripped my collection (I've re-ripped it all) I used iTunes. iTunes is not the best ripper and in a number of my rips, particularly from older CDs, there were digital mistakes in the rip. These produce pops at the same point in the song every time it's played. Anecdotally, I believe different DACCs can do a better job of filtering out the pops. Drop outs are due to halts in the smooth transmission and/or buffering of the data. The computer experts can provide specifics and, please, correct me if I'm wrong. You can probably also get pops if the data stream gets interrupted. You can probably also argue that the actual bits in the data can be altered by interference or phasing issues resulting in pops and artifacts. Reflections of data at the ends of cables are oft cited. I tend to think that this latter type of error must be exceptionally rare and that digital signals are very robust these days. The pops I hear have always been in the rip.

[E-Stat]

As far as I can tell the sound measurements are taken from the noise the wall wart is making directly to the ambient environment.
Nope. This is a noise measurement performed on the gear just as you commonly find on any piece of audio electronics. Such gets amplified and as you can see, is frequency dependent. In this case, you can see and hear added false brightness which masks detail.


If this is all about cheap power supplies buzzing, specifically at 50 or 60hz.
It isn't. Look again where the greatest noise peaks exist - two octaves between 2 and 8 kiloherz. It is about clarity throughout the bandwidth and more dynamic punch.

rw

[E-Stat]

...when you guys talk about drop off, is this due to your network or the ripped format, cause I have never experience such occurrence or maybe I am not listening close enough.
With my new experience with inexpensive network players, I've found two separate sources: Wi-Fi transmission and local transcoding. The former manifests itself quite obviously - the music stops for a moment while the device rebuffers the signal. Such can be addressed in a number of ways. The latter results not so much in a dropout per se, but the occasional presence of digital artifacts like clicks or "swishy" sounds manifested at the top end of the frequency range. Choose the SB option to allow the computer server to do the heavy lifting. Turn off the simulated power meter or RTA screen saver.

rw

[recoveryone]

I must be very lucky on both the WIFI transmission and the quality of my Rips (320kps) Mp3 format. I have 3 SB's I use in the house with the one downstairs getting a 89% connect signal strength and the 2 upstairs getting between 75-80% signal strength. I have the music server in the garage with a WIFI card in it, so nothing in my setup is hard wired. It may be the repeater (Linksys Range Expander) I have in the garage to boost the signal to my sons room in the front part of the house. The only time I get any hic ups is when listening to internet radio from time to time (very rare) and then its usually on the sender (weak signal) and not my system. But thanks for clearing that language up, I was wondering if the drop outs were a result of the player or the platform (rip format) used.

[E-Stat]

I must be very lucky on both the WIFI transmission and the quality of my Rips (320kps) Mp3 format. I have 3 SB's I use in the house with the one downstairs getting a 89% connect signal strength and the 2 upstairs getting between 75-80% signal strength. I have the music server in the garage with a WIFI card in it, so nothing in my setup is hard wired.
Indeed, one must begin with a solid ripping solution. I've always used EAC and had good luck.

As for Wi-Fi reception, it depends upon location and bandwidth requirements. I had always gotten good strength in the garage until I moved the steel rack to what turned out to be a direct path between the access point in the office and the garage. It was a simple fix simply to move that out of the way. As for bandwidth, your needs are more modest than mine. FLAC or Apple Lossless typically requires about double that of 320k MP3. Allowing the server to offload the transcoding increases the bandwidth further to 1,440k. I think the sonic benefits are worth the trouble since I am directly comparing the performance of using a CD transport vs. that of a transmitted FLAC source.

rw

[Dawnrazor]

Dawnrazor, good to hear from you.

:biggrin5: I'm glad you concede that getting into CICS is "going crazy". :biggrin5:


If you can do without metadata tags, and if you have the pockets for twice the hard disk capacity, sure, go for WAV. Personally I couldn't live without the tags and, now that I'm retired, the extra cost of HD space is still relevant.

Hey Bill, it IS crazy in the sense that many people sadly just dont seem to care about quality sound. Maybe it is the knee of the curve thing but I for one care about that extra 10-20%. For one who really cares about the sound cics stuff is not crazy...it works.

And to you and E-stat I just dont get the need for tagging.

It must be a classical thing. Personally my cue sheet/wav method gives me all I need: artist, album, song.

a cmp2 box also adds genre, which is kind of meaningless for me.

(Fwiw it is a long long story but most of my collection doesnt even have song names, though my latest rips do contain that info. I still enjoy the music whether it is "track 4" or "False Faces"....)

Others have mentioned to me in the past that one can do searches through the metadata. But I for one dont want my audio rig to behave like a computer per se requiring a keyboard.

Anyhow I am not saying there is anything WRONG with tags, just that I dont see the benefit especially if there MAY be an issue with sonics.

On the issue of the Squeeze box and the psu, one of the most knowledgeable people is John Swenson, who is an engineer of some renowned has repeatedly said that the psu in the squeeze box needs replacing. The Audio Asylum is down right now (why I am here) so I cant find the posts but they are there if you want to look. He also talks about power cords and has measured many and price point doesnt always seem to correlate with performance.

On a related note there is general agreement within the memory player project that the psu has a big effect on the sound and there are several advanced mods that take the cmp2 recipe to the next level (adding a separate psu for the drives and usb, and cpu is one of the hallmarks of the recipe, though it uses easy to do switchers):

http://www.cicsmemoryplayer.com/index.php?n=CMP.ApdxBAdvanced

[E-Stat]

And to you and E-stat I just dont get the need for tagging.
Nor did I for many years - until I started using it.


Others have mentioned to me in the past that one can do searches through the metadata. But I for one dont want my audio rig to behave like a computer per se requiring a keyboard.
What I use contains a touch screen that works like an iPhone. You scroll through choices with your finger. Sometimes, I find it nice to quickly locate a song title via searching for its name.


Anyhow I am not saying there is anything WRONG with tags, just that I dont see the benefit especially if there MAY be an issue with sonics.
I'm not yet convinced what it would take to fully duplicate the performance of the CDP I use in the main system. On the vintage system however, I find that my tweaked Touch works every bit as well as various CD transports and changers I've used in conjunction with the Manley DAC.



On the issue of the Squeeze box and the psu, one of the most knowledgeable people is John Swenson, who is an engineer of some renowned has repeatedly said that the psu in the squeeze box needs replacing.
It was reading his posts and comments of others that led me in the direction of looking for a high quality linear for mine.

rw