Music Tagging Questions

[Boomzilla]

It seems to me that there are but three ways for music to be tagged with metadata:

1. If the file has internal metadata capabilities (like the FLAC format, for example), then the metadata can be stored in the file itself.

2. If the CODEC itself does not have metadata storage capabilities, then the information can be stored in an external database.

3. If neither of the above are true, then the metadata must be stored in a nested file structure: "Drive letter / album name / performer / tracks" for example.

The problem comes when the above three techniques are mixed. All players that read the FLAC format should be able to read the attached metadata of the file. But if the player expects its data in one data file, and is then presented with another, then things get scrambled.

If the user does not want to use FLAC, and has multiple databases from multiple ripping programs, then it seems that the only alternative left is to use the file directory structure to attach metadata.

My question is: How universal is the file directory structure method. Will all players read it provided the file structures are identical?

Thanks - Boomzilla

[klinemj]

Still wrestling with that issue you found with your Roon library?

My offer still stands...send me some problem cases, and I'll see what I can see/do.

Regarding your question, I don't know the answer. But I do know that WAV doesn't have/keep the metadata I needed. I have no clue about downloads from the internet that started as MP3 or were from iTunes...never dabbled in those. But, when I used JRiver to batch-convert a bunch of WAV files to FLAC, I got the metadata I needed. Where is it? I don't know. But, when I import those files into my Roon, Sonos, or JRiver libraries - all goes swimmingly and "it just works". I actively use my Roon and Sonos libraries today, and I have found no issues (except 1 rip that was from a damaged CD that wouldn't play well in a CD player either). I used to use my JRiver library also and also found no issues (again, other than that 1 CD rip).

Mark

[DYohn]

xiph.org/flac/faq.html

[Boomzilla]

OK - Two knowledgable votes for FLAC - but now the ugly question...

At least one article in "The Absolute Sound" magazine compared compressed, lossless files (including FLAC) to uncompressed files (by definition, lossless) such as WAV. Their finding was that the uncompressed files sounded better than the compressed ones, despite the fact that both files were lossless.

Many dismissed that article as the ravings of the terminally-tweaky, but I have at least one personal experience that makes me suspect that there might be some truth there...

At one time, the majority of my audio files were in ALE (Apple Lossless Encoding) format. I found two rips of the same disc on my drive - one in ALE format, and the other in WAV. The ALE file sounded as if the original recording's microphones were overloading and distorting, but the WAV file exhibited no such artifacts.

I then did a conversion of several discs from ALE to WAV, and in every case, the WAV files sounded better than the ALE files. Based on that experience, I went through the entire library, convening every file to WAV format, and I've not looked back since.

So I'm pre-inclined to be wary of compressed, lossless formats. This is why I've been wary of FLAC.

Now this can be easily tested again - I'll convert a few discs from WAV to FLAC and see if I can hear any difference. Apparently, you guys don't?

FLAC seems the most elegant solution to tagging, but until I'm convinced that it won't harm sound quality, FLAC is radioactive to me.

Boomzilla

[Priapulus]

I use Tag&Rename <https://www.softpointer.com/> to edit the tags on all my music files, so all the meta-data (including folder.jpg) is permanently part of the music file. It works with almost all music formats. Then it is always there no-matter what music player you use. Google images is the best place to find folder.jpgs. It takes a while to edit, but you only have to do it once to get the meta-data the way you like it.

I find most music meta-data is incomplete, inconsistent and error filled. So I feel editing is necessary.

Sincerely
/b

[Boomzilla]

Jul 4, 2019 12:51:14 GMT -5 Priapulus said:

I use Tag&Rename <https://www.softpointer.com/> to edit the tags on all my music files, so all the meta-data (including folder.jpg) is permanently part of the music file. It works with almost all music formats. Then it is always there no-matter what music player you use. Google images is the best place to find folder.jpgs. It takes a while to edit, but you only have to do it once to get the meta-data the way you like it.

I find most music meta-data is incomplete, inconsistent and error filled. So I feel editing is necessary.

Sincerely
/b

Hi Priapulus -

Might I ask what CODEC your music files are stored in? (.wav? .flac? .ogg? etc.?)

Thanks - Boom

[klinemj]

Jul 3, 2019 22:18:11 GMT -5 Boomzilla said:

OK - Two knowledgable votes for FLAC - but now the ugly question...

At least one article in "The Absolute Sound" magazine compared compressed, lossless files (including FLAC) to uncompressed files (by definition, lossless) such as WAV. Their finding was that the uncompressed files sounded better than the compressed ones, despite the fact that both files were lossless.

Many dismissed that article as the ravings of the terminally-tweaky, but I have at least one personal experience that makes me suspect that there might be some truth there...

At one time, the majority of my audio files were in ALE (Apple Lossless Encoding) format. I found two rips of the same disc on my drive - one in ALE format, and the other in WAV. The ALE file sounded as if the original recording's microphones were overloading and distorting, but the WAV file exhibited no such artifacts.

I then did a conversion of several discs from ALE to WAV, and in every case, the WAV files sounded better than the ALE files. Based on that experience, I went through the entire library, convening every file to WAV format, and I've not looked back since.

So I'm pre-inclined to be wary of compressed, lossless formats. This is why I've been wary of FLAC.

Now this can be easily tested again - I'll convert a few discs from WAV to FLAC and see if I can hear any difference. Apparently, you guys don't?

FLAC seems the most elegant solution to tagging, but until I'm convinced that it won't harm sound quality, FLAC is radioactive to me.

Boomzilla

With the very few files I have compared WAV to FLAC, I didn't hear any difference. And, I have zero Apple experience. That said, your premise is that uncompressed files sound better than compressed. So, it's odd that you could take a compressed file (ALE) and convert to uncompressed (WAV) and find "WAV files sounded better than the ALE files". That would imply that it is possible to polish a turd.

Mark

[DYohn]

My post was less a "vote" and simply information to help answer your question about tagging. In my experience, there is no noticeable sound quality difference between WAV, FLAC and ALAC.

[wilburthegoose]

Just re-rip your collection to FLAC. I’ve ripped my entire collection twice - once to MP3 when disk space was expensive, and then to FLAC.

Try it with 50 discs and tell me you’re not happy.

[Priapulus]

Jul 4, 2019 13:36:40 GMT -5 Boomzilla said:

Jul 4, 2019 12:51:14 GMT -5 Priapulus said:

I use Tag&Rename <https://www.softpointer.com/> to edit the tags on all my music files, so all the meta-data (including folder.jpg) is permanently part of the music file. It works with almost all music formats. Then it is always there no-matter what music player you use. Google images is the best place to find folder.jpgs. It takes a while to edit, but you only have to do it once to get the meta-data the way you like it.

I find most music meta-data is incomplete, inconsistent and error filled. So I feel editing is necessary.

Sincerely
/b

Hi Priapulus -

Might I ask what CODEC your music files are stored in? (.wav? .flac? .ogg? etc.?)

Thanks - Boom

I use mostly Apple-lossless (because I have Apple devices that don't play well with other formats), but also FLAC and MP3.  Tag&Rename works with all of them.
/b

[Boomzilla]

Jul 4, 2019 14:09:12 GMT -5 klinemj said:

With the very few files I have compared WAV to FLAC, I didn't hear any difference. And, I have zero Apple experience. That said, your premise is that uncompressed files sound better than compressed. So, it's odd that you could take a compressed file (ALE) and convert to uncompressed (WAV) and find "WAV files sounded better than the ALE files". That would imply that it is possible to polish a turd.

Mark

The only theory that fits that situation is that the server's CPU is spending time uncompressing and buffering the data when it should be just shipping bits.

[klinemj]

Jul 4, 2019 20:40:18 GMT -5 Boomzilla said:

Jul 4, 2019 14:09:12 GMT -5 klinemj said:

With the very few files I have compared WAV to FLAC, I didn't hear any difference. And, I have zero Apple experience. That said, your premise is that uncompressed files sound better than compressed. So, it's odd that you could take a compressed file (ALE) and convert to uncompressed (WAV) and find "WAV files sounded better than the ALE files". That would imply that it is possible to polish a turd.

Mark

The only theory that fits that situation is that the server's CPU is spending time uncompressing and buffering the data when it should be just shipping bits.

I gave that a passing thought, and what I realized is that the time it takes to un-compress a file and convert it to another format that's no compressed is far less than the time it takes to play the file. I can un-compress and convert an entire ripped CD faster than it takes for 1 song to play. And, while that's happening - my computer's CPU is still doing a lot of other things unrelated to audio. When I check CPU usage during those times, my cheap little PC has plenty of capacity left.

So, it seems to me the rate limiting step is playback - not un-compressing, and today's CPU's have plenty of extra capacity.

Maybe if CPU's were as slow as when I started into computing in the late 70's and RAM were effectively nothing, I could buy the argument. But, today - even low end CPU's are very fast and RAM is huge.

That said, the guys from Mythbusters did manage to add luster to fecal matter in 1 episode.

Mark

[Boomzilla]

Jul 4, 2019 22:39:36 GMT -5 klinemj said:

I gave that a passing thought, and what I realized is that the time it takes to un-compress a file and convert it to another format that's no compressed is far less than the time it takes to play the file. I can un-compress and convert an entire ripped CD faster than it takes for 1 song to play. And, while that's happening - my computer's CPU is still doing a lot of other things unrelated to audio. When I check CPU usage during those times, my cheap little PC has plenty of capacity left.

So, it seems to me the rate limiting step is playback - not un-compressing, and today's CPU's have plenty of extra capacity.

Maybe if CPU's were as slow as when I started into computing in the late 70's and RAM were effectively nothing, I could buy the argument. But, today - even low end CPU's are very fast and RAM is huge.

That said, the guys from Mythbusters did manage to add luster to fecal matter in 1 episode.

Mark

Hi Mark -

What you say is absolutely logical. So I'm left with no good explanation.

However... Your experience with the Micro-Rendu streamer was true despite the fact that we never reached consensus on any logical explanation.

When I tell you that the .WAV files (created from Apple lossless encoding files) sounded better than the source ones, I'm very confident that my hearing did not deceive me, either.

Does the FLAC codec also reduce sonic quality? I don't know - I haven't done back-to-back comparisons. Many who have done such comparisons claim no difference. But others disagree.

The only claim that I've NEVER heard is that FLAC sounds better than WAV. That absence alone may be significant?

Boom

[klinemj]

Jul 4, 2019 23:07:19 GMT -5 Boomzilla said:

Hi Mark -

What you say is absolutely logical. So I'm left with no good explanation.

However... Your experience with the Micro-Rendu streamer was true despite the fact that we never reached consensus on any logical explanation.

When I tell you that the .WAV files (created from Apple lossless encoding files) sounded better than the source ones, I'm very confident that my hearing did not deceive me, either.

Does the FLAC codec also reduce sonic quality? I don't know - I haven't done back-to-back comparisons. Many who have done such comparisons claim no difference. But others disagree.

The only claim that I've NEVER heard is that FLAC sounds better than WAV. That absence alone may be significant?

Boom

I believe you when you say you heard it. Each individual's perception is their reality.

The other thing I was thinking about it that MQA is compressed and there are 2 unfolds (de-compressions). So far, I've not heard a single MQA with both unfolds but I have heard the 1st. I've so far not heard a single piece of music that I thought sounded worse.

I have heard some say they think MQA is worse. Maybe some are. Maybe the versions they heard had different mastering from the original master tapes and the mastering was poor. Who knows.

Mark

[Boomzilla]

Jul 5, 2019 7:04:09 GMT -5 klinemj said:

I believe you when you say you heard it. Each individual's perception is their reality.

The other thing I was thinking about it that MQA is compressed and there are 2 unfolds (de-compressions). So far, I've not heard a single MQA with both unfolds but I have heard the 1st. I've so far not heard a single piece of music that I thought sounded worse.

I have heard some say they think MQA is worse. Maybe some are. Maybe the versions they heard had different mastering from the original master tapes and the mastering was poor. Who knows.

Mark

I've also heard MQA - single AND double "unfolds." To my ears, the particular MQA tracks that I heard DID sound better than 44.1 PCM - BUT (and this is a big qualifier) the music that I heard on MQA had specifically been selected and "groomed" to be audiophile-nip for the CODEC. Is it credible that ALL MQA material will sound that good? Seems unlikely...

So while I'd conclude that MQA actually can work, and also that it can sound better than 44.1 PCM materials, I'd also contend that the "weak link in the chain" limit still applies to MQA materials. To get the best of MQA, the encoding ADC would have to be modeled for MQA as would the decoding DAC. If both ends are part of the MQA "correction" algorithm, then the results can be unparalleled. But how much material meets that criteria?

But we digress...

Due to time constraints, I'm probably going to get a tagging program for my music and use it consistently. After consistently tagging a reasonable amount of music (0.5 TB, maybe), I'll let Roon import it. If I get consistent and expected results, then I've got my solution.

Cheers - Boom

[wilburthegoose]

Just get dbPoweramp and enjoy.

PS - You can also ship all your CDs and have them ripped by a service. (an example - I have never used this particular service: www.cdtomp3.us/)

[Boomzilla]

Jul 5, 2019 7:35:22 GMT -5 wilburthegoose said:

Just get dbPoweramp and enjoy.

PS - You can also ship all your CDs and have them ripped by a service. (an example - I have never used this particular service: www.cdtomp3.us/)

Hi wilburthegoose -

Thank you most kindly for that information. Although I don't need the service (the majority of my discs are already ripped), I have relatives and friends who might well find it highly useful.

Per recommendations from you and other Loungers, I'm already using dbPoweramp, and once one learns to specify the rip-destination path, I'm finding it to be absolutely stable and a pleasure to use, thanks. I'd say that I won't be using anything else for ripping henceforth.

Hope you had a good Holiday!

Boomzilla

[KeithL]

I'm going to have to agree with both sides of this argument (although I find articles like that to be extremely misleading - although perhaps not intentionally).

The information contained in a file that is compressed using a lossless format like FLAC is exactly the same as the information in a lossless file that is not compressed (assuming the encoder works as it's supposed to).

So, for example, if you convert a WAV file to a FLAC file, then back to a WAV file, the result will be exactly the same.

There is no magical and mysterious difference that attaches itself to the file - because it has spent time as a FLAC file - even though the bits themselves are the same as before.

That isn't even science fiction - it's just plain mystical claptrap.

HOWEVER, when you play an audio file, you are actually doing several distinct things.....

1) You are reading the file, from a disc or USB stick, or via a network, in whatever format it is stored in.

2) You are converting the data into a standard format - like PCM - to send to the DAC.

3) You are sending the converted data to the DAC to be converted into analog audio.

So, for example, if you play a FLAC file, you are reading the file itself, decoding the FLAC formatted data it contains into PCM, then sending that PCM digital audio to the DAC.

Now, as it turns out, the data contained in a WAV file is in a format very similar to "raw PCM data"....

Therefore, converting a WAV file into PCM data requires very little processing effort.

However, because of the compression algorithms used, the data in a FLAC file is stored in a more complex format, which requires a lot more processing power to convert into PCM.

(You could simplify that and say that, while a WAV file contains the same data as a FLAC file made from it, the WAV file is easier to play.)

Therefore, while the resulting output data itself will be the same, it is possible that the extra work required to decode the FLAC file will cause audible differences elsewhere in the system.

For example, because the processor is working harder to decode the file, the resulting PCM output data stream may contain more jitter, or even audible dropouts.

Whether this happens, and whether it has any effect on the DAC, will depend on a lot of different factors, and so can be difficult to rule out.

A device which "reads the file fully into memory before playing it" should avoid this sort of issues.

Likewise, a DAC which has its own mechanisms to ensure that it is immune to jitter, should be largely immune to it.

IN GENERAL, IF THE PLAYER DEVICE IS PROPERLY DESIGNED, THIS WILL NOT AFFECT ITS AUDIO PERFORMANCE, AND THERE WILL BE NO DIFFERENCE.

I should also point out that this sort of difference, if it exists in a particular device, may not always favor the WAV file.

The WAV file format itself is simpler - so requires less processing power to play.

HOWEVER, the FLAC file will be smaller, so it will read from a disc more quickly, will require less bandwidth to send across a network, so will be less sensitive to network speed issues.

Therefore, if your player is short on processing power, for any of a variety of reasons, then a WAV file may indeed produce a "better quality" output from it - which could actually sound better.

HOWEVER, if the file is stored on a slow hard disc, or being played through a network with limited bandwidth, or the player has less than stellar data performance, then the FLAC file may actually sound better.

Whether decoding performance or data transfer performance is more of an issue will depend on the architecture of your particular player.

(And, again, if everything is properly designed, and both are adequate, then there should be no difference.)

The same comparison holds true for ANY lossless data format and ANY player.

However, as far as I'm concerned, the problem is that all such articles and claims are extremely misleading.

They are NOT comparing one format to another as they claim to be...

They are comparing how well one particular player, or a certain few players, handle one or more of those formats...

Not only is this bad science, but it is also misleading, since you cannot reasonably expect the same to be true for different equipment.

I should also point out that, in order to compare files formats properly, you must carefully avoid or rule out a wide variety of factors... for example...

- the speed of the USB stick on which you store a song will affect a WAV file more than a FLAC file (because the WAV file will be bigger)

- likewise, and especially if you're streaming, the speed of your network or their server will affect an uncompressed file more

- but the power of the processor in your player device will affect a FLAC file more (because the FLAC file requires more processing power to convert to PCM)

- and, if your server always sends audio in a standard format, then the processing power of that server will matter a lot

   (and will have a much larger effect on files that need to be transcoded before being sent than on files that are already stored in that format)

Jul 3, 2019 22:18:11 GMT -5 Boomzilla said:

OK - Two knowledgable votes for FLAC - but now the ugly question...

At least one article in "The Absolute Sound" magazine compared compressed, lossless files (including FLAC) to uncompressed files (by definition, lossless) such as WAV. Their finding was that the uncompressed files sounded better than the compressed ones, despite the fact that both files were lossless.

Many dismissed that article as the ravings of the terminally-tweaky, but I have at least one personal experience that makes me suspect that there might be some truth there...

At one time, the majority of my audio files were in ALE (Apple Lossless Encoding) format. I found two rips of the same disc on my drive - one in ALE format, and the other in WAV. The ALE file sounded as if the original recording's microphones were overloading and distorting, but the WAV file exhibited no such artifacts.

I then did a conversion of several discs from ALE to WAV, and in every case, the WAV files sounded better than the ALE files. Based on that experience, I went through the entire library, convening every file to WAV format, and I've not looked back since.

So I'm pre-inclined to be wary of compressed, lossless formats. This is why I've been wary of FLAC.

Now this can be easily tested again - I'll convert a few discs from WAV to FLAC and see if I can hear any difference. Apparently, you guys don't?

FLAC seems the most elegant solution to tagging, but until I'm convinced that it won't harm sound quality, FLAC is radioactive to me.

Boomzilla

[KeithL]

Whenever I've edited tags I've used Tag&Rename - and it always seems to do the job.

(Nowadays I usually let dBPowerAmp do that part for me.)

I should also point out a few things.....

1)

Apparently some tag formats are widely supported than others.

For example, there are tag formats that are supported by WAV files - but, apparently, they are less widely supported by other programs.

2)

You DO NOT have to choose a single method for organizing files.

For example, you can have your ripping program BOTH arrange your files in standard hierarchical folders, AND insert tags in a standard format.

(dBPowerAmp can be configured to do both at the same time when it rips a CD.)

Although it's been a long time since I've done it, I'm pretty sure that Tag & Raname can be set up to insert tags into files based on their hierarchical file location...

(I think you may also even be able to configure it to sort them into physical location based on their tags.)

Of course, there are several services that can now be linked to look up and insert tag information when you rip a CD...

And at least one or two of them can now be used to look up files, and insert the appropriate tags, AFTER the files have already been ripped (or acquired by some other means).

Jul 4, 2019 12:51:14 GMT -5 Priapulus said:

I use Tag&Rename <https://www.softpointer.com/> to edit the tags on all my music files, so all the meta-data (including folder.jpg) is permanently part of the music file. It works with almost all music formats. Then it is always there no-matter what music player you use. Google images is the best place to find folder.jpgs. It takes a while to edit, but you only have to do it once to get the meta-data the way you like it.

I find most music meta-data is incomplete, inconsistent and error filled. So I feel editing is necessary.

Sincerely
/b

[DYohn]

Boom, just box up all your CDs and a couple 4TB SSDs and send them to me. I'll rip them for you and make sure all the tags are right. I only charge $150 an hour.