|
Post by cfcmick on Feb 27, 2010 16:37:06 GMT -5
PG, I too have an iMac and had to recently re-rip all my CD's (roughly 5,000 songs) after investing in an external DAC. I tried Apple Lossless at first, but soon switched to AIFF (also lossless) after a bit of research. Found many recommendations for this format for use on a Mac via iTunes including the host of Computer Audiophile (mentioned above). Don't know if it's because AIFF files are quite a bit larger than Apple Lossless and rip at a higher bit-rate, but to my ears, on my system, playing back through NHT Classic Three's, I preferred the sound of the AIFF files to the Apple Lossless, which sounded a little harsher to me. There's no difference in sound between Apple Lossless and AIFF unless your ripper is doing something wrong. Then why is an AIFF file (on average) almost 50% larger than an Apple Lossless file?
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,357
|
Post by DYohn on Feb 27, 2010 16:45:30 GMT -5
There's no difference in sound between Apple Lossless and AIFF unless your ripper is doing something wrong. Then why is an AIFF file (on average) almost 50% larger than an Apple Lossless file? Compression.
|
|
|
Post by littlesaint on Feb 27, 2010 17:08:29 GMT -5
Apple Lossless uses lossless compression to compress the raw PCM data. FLAC is another popular lossless codec, but it is not natively supported by iTunes. When these files are decoded, the resulting PCM is identical to the original.
|
|
|
Post by strindl on Feb 27, 2010 19:01:16 GMT -5
Okay, sorry if i'm a newb to this topic. I'd like to start ripping my CD's to a lossless format like FLAC or Windows Media Lossless so that I could eventually set up a computer to serve as a media server, but I don't know where to begin. Is either of these formats better for what I'd like to do down the road, and which programs/players are available to download and fairly easy to use? Like I said, I'm a newb. I do have an ipod and use itunes, but when I did that i ripped as mp3 files so I need to start over again. If I use FLAC or WML I can always convert these files into itunes to use with my ipod correct? Thanks for any and all help! I ripped all one thousand plus of my CD's to wma lossless a year ago for use with a Logitech Duet system. They sound great that way and it was easy to do because wma lossless can be done through the windows media player that comes with windows. Once you have your music ripped to a lossless file, it is very easy to convert them to any other lossless or lossy format. I did a batch convert of my entire library to a high bit rate mp3 format to use on my iphone. I then set up my itunes to import that exact mp3 format and bit rate. I now have my music in two libraries...one wma lossless that is the one I use on my home systems and is the master copy, and one high bit rate mp3 for mobile devices.
|
|
|
Post by cfcmick on Feb 28, 2010 11:08:28 GMT -5
Okay, sorry if i'm a newb to this topic. I'd like to start ripping my CD's to a lossless format like FLAC or Windows Media Lossless so that I could eventually set up a computer to serve as a media server, but I don't know where to begin. Is either of these formats better for what I'd like to do down the road, and which programs/players are available to download and fairly easy to use? Like I said, I'm a newb. I do have an ipod and use itunes, but when I did that i ripped as mp3 files so I need to start over again. If I use FLAC or WML I can always convert these files into itunes to use with my ipod correct? Thanks for any and all help! I ripped all one thousand plus of my CD's to wma lossless a year ago for use with a Logitech Duet system. They sound great that way and it was easy to do because wma lossless can be done through the windows media player that comes with windows. Once you have your music ripped to a lossless file, it is very easy to convert them to any other lossless or lossy format. I did a batch convert of my entire library to a high bit rate mp3 format to use on my iphone. I then set up my itunes to import that exact mp3 format and bit rate. I now have my music in two libraries...one wma lossless that is the one I use on my home systems and is the master copy, and one high bit rate mp3 for mobile devices. Do you keep both libraries on the same hard drive, or use an external drive for the second library?
|
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,262
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Feb 28, 2010 19:10:08 GMT -5
Then why is an AIFF file (on average) almost 50% larger than an Apple Lossless file? Compression. I use ALAC. It's not compression. ALAC (Apple) or FLAC takes all the bits from the CD, but stacks them closer together compared to the CD because the CD needs to contain the silences too. Zero information is lost. I notice that the kbps varies from 350 kbps for old stuff like Django Reinhardt to over 1100 kbps for the recent stuff like AC-DC's Black Ice. So if the timing is performed perfect (!), Lossless is indeed as good as CD. If you are really serious, you can check the best site for this: www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Computer-Audiophile-CD-Ripping-Strategy-and-MethodologyNote that Lossless is not the favorite method of the author. But it's good enough for me.
|
|
|
Post by littlesaint on Feb 28, 2010 20:24:04 GMT -5
I use ALAC. It's not compression. ALAC (Apple) or FLAC takes all the bits from the CD, but stacks them closer together compared to the CD because the CD needs to contain the silences too. Zero information is lost. I notice that the kbps varies from 350 kbps for old stuff like Django Reinhardt to over 1100 kbps for the recent stuff like AC-DC's Black Ice. So if the timing is performed perfect (!), Lossless is indeed as good as CD. If you are really serious, you can check the best site for this: www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Computer-Audiophile-CD-Ripping-Strategy-and-MethodologyNote that Lossless is not the favorite method of the author. But it's good enough for me. When you re-arrange data in a fashion that makes the file size smaller, it's compression. It's called lossless compression. Many examples of this. The easiest to comprehend is ZIP. Take a document, zip it. It's smaller. Unzip it, and it looks exactly the same. That's lossless compression. Also, there are no variables or "ifs" for it to sound as good as the CD. By definition, something compressed with a lossless codec must be identical to the original file.
|
|
|
Post by cfcmick on Feb 28, 2010 20:28:23 GMT -5
I use ALAC. It's not compression. ALAC (Apple) or FLAC takes all the bits from the CD, but stacks them closer together compared to the CD because the CD needs to contain the silences too. Zero information is lost. I notice that the kbps varies from 350 kbps for old stuff like Django Reinhardt to over 1100 kbps for the recent stuff like AC-DC's Black Ice. So if the timing is performed perfect (!), Lossless is indeed as good as CD. If you are really serious, you can check the best site for this: www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Computer-Audiophile-CD-Ripping-Strategy-and-MethodologyNote that Lossless is not the favorite method of the author. But it's good enough for me. I already use that site (as mentioned in an earlier post above) and as you say, it's for very serious players I browse the site for the latest/upcoming products (as computer-based playback appears to be the wave of the future) but a lot of the stuff Chris comments on/reviews are way beyond my budget at the moment, but very educational nonetheless, but as with all components as more competition hits the market, the prices will drop considerably. Think they'll be plenty of Peachtree Nova type products (one-box solutions for computer playback) hitting the market soon. OPPO's BDP 83 Special Edition player would have been a wonderful one-box solution for me if you could you access their ESS Sabre DAC's via it's USB port, but OPPO confirmed that there were licensing issues involved, so it will never be an option. Shame! In the meantime, the M2TECH Hiface looks like an interesting, relatively inexpensive upgrade for computer users. As for the format, I recently upgraded my hard drive to specifically handle my music files, so disk space isn't an issue for me, so no need to touch my AIFF files. All the best ;D
|
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,262
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Mar 1, 2010 10:06:18 GMT -5
I use ALAC. It's not compression. ALAC (Apple) or FLAC takes all the bits from the CD, but stacks them closer together compared to the CD because the CD needs to contain the silences too. Zero information is lost. I notice that the kbps varies from 350 kbps for old stuff like Django Reinhardt to over 1100 kbps for the recent stuff like AC-DC's Black Ice. So if the timing is performed perfect (!), Lossless is indeed as good as CD. If you are really serious, you can check the best site for this: www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Computer-Audiophile-CD-Ripping-Strategy-and-MethodologyNote that Lossless is not the favorite method of the author. But it's good enough for me. I already use that site (as mentioned in an earlier post above) and as you say, it's for very serious players I browse the site for the latest/upcoming products (as computer-based playback appears to be the wave of the future) but a lot of the stuff Chris comments on/reviews are way beyond my budget at the moment, but very educational nonetheless, but as with all components as more competition hits the market, the prices will drop considerably. Think they'll be plenty of Peachtree Nova type products (one-box solutions for computer playback) hitting the market soon. OPPO's BDP 83 Special Edition player would have been a wonderful one-box solution for me if you could you access their ESS Sabre DAC's via it's USB port, but OPPO confirmed that there were licensing issues involved, so it will never be an option. Shame! In the meantime, the M2TECH Hiface looks like an interesting, relatively inexpensive upgrade for computer users. As for the format, I recently upgraded my hard drive to specifically handle my music files, so disk space isn't an issue for me, so no need to touch my AIFF files. All the best ;D I agree with you. Fact is that the price of the ERC-1 is the same as the difference between OPPO BDP 83 and the SE version... I will be purchasing the OPPO region free version here: www.crtprojectors.co.uk/region_free_bpd-83.htmThis way, I will have a disc player in both the HT and in the living room. In 2008, I started to rip my CD's into my old Powerbook G4 for use in an iPod classic 80 GB. I knew no better than to do it in AAC 128kbps, iTunes default setting. The laptop had no more than 20 GB, so it got full very rapid anyway. I bought this iMac end of 2008 with 320 GB. A big improvement, but with upgrading our old stereo to a good AV system with a good CD player and with Airport Express came the wisdom that AAC 128 kbps just wasn't good enough compared to CD. The Apple seller suggested to use 320 kbps. Instead I had the HD replaced for a 1TB HD. This way, I could rip the over 1,000 CD's I have using ALAC and have still enough space left for a couple of years. It meant re-ripping most of the CD's. Today I have 19,870 songs, good for 462 GB. So I am good for a few more years. In the end, it's important for everybody to take their own situation/expectations into consideration and decide accordingly. Before wasting time ripping it at a low quality. I would like to add this info from Eloise from CA: "A file converted to ALAC (Apple Lossless) then converted to WAV (or AIFF) will have the same information as the original WAV. The whole point of Lossless compression (ALAC, FLAC, etc) is that nothing is lost - it's the same as using Zip to compress a Word document. Sound quality MAY be different when playing back ALAC vs AIFF because of additional processing steps hving to be done in real time. Eloise" So, Eloise is saying that ALAC needs more processing and therefore could theoratically sound different. iTunes works better with AIFF than with WAV, which has something to do with the metadata (coverart etc). Like I said, ALAC works best for me now, but maybe if my next Apple has 8TB instead of 1TB, I might convert to AIFF...
|
|
buzzkill
Seeker Of Truth
The Dude abides....
Posts: 1
|
Post by buzzkill on Mar 2, 2010 12:39:54 GMT -5
Good topic! In my opinion, the "best" format to rip CDs is a multidimensional issue. Ideally, we'd simply convert everything to lossless on a big media server. In practical application it seems that some compromise is often necessary.
I have around 700 CDs converted as 256Mbs MP3s. Blasphemy...right? Well, I have done this to allow for the syncing of a reasonable selection of songs to my iPhone. I also didn't want to slow down that mass conversion any more than I had to! I chose MP3 in case I need to switch smart phones someday and I wanted to avoid proprietary format issues. I'm usually traveling with cheap earbuds that I don't mind losing. You see, I'm not looking for a "reference" experience from my iPhone.
I stream my iTunes content to multiple Airport Express access points throughout the house. This is all controlled with the Remote app for iPhone/iPod touch. When we are cleaning the house, entertaining, or just hanging out, the 256Mbps playback is quite good. Of course, if I stop and concentrate in an otherwise quiet room I can tell I'm listening to compressed audio.
For more critical listening I have a collection of Apple Lossless songs in separate playlists that I don't sync with my iPhone. It definitely sounds better, but I'm looking to add a DAC to the mix like the Cambridge Audio DacMagic or PS Audio Digital Link III. I'm also storing some select songs as AIFF--it is just really slow.
When I sit down to relax with a cocktail and 2 Channel audio, I still spin CDs the old fashioned way. I'll be playing around with DACs and dedicated pre-amps as I go to find the best performance I can afford.
My suggestion is find the compromise between file size, quality, and compatibility that works best for you. Music is personal and you will like what others don't. So, rip the same CD in 3 or 4 different formats. Play back samples on your preferred output devices and pick a winner!
Cheers and good luck!
|
|
|
Post by littlesaint on Mar 2, 2010 13:14:59 GMT -5
That's mostly what I do as well. I keep all my music in 3 formats. Single file FLAC+CUE for archiving, multi-file FLAC for media server, and True VBR AAC for my MacBook and iPhone.
|
|
|
Post by House on Mar 2, 2010 17:14:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by strindl on Mar 2, 2010 17:45:00 GMT -5
yes and yes. I have 4 internal hard drives on my main computer. Two of those drives are one TB ones reserved for my music....one backs up the other. I also copy both of my music libraries to two separate external drives, one of which is an NAS that I can access remotely from anywhere I have net access. I can even access that drive from my iphone...for example if I am at a CD store and can't recall if I already have a certain CD...I can check.
|
|
Mister L'fe
Emo VIPs
There is nothing in the dark that isn't there when the lights are on.
Posts: 417
|
Post by Mister L'fe on Mar 2, 2010 18:02:29 GMT -5
There's no difference in sound between Apple Lossless and AIFF unless your ripper is doing something wrong. Then why is an AIFF file (on average) almost 50% larger than an Apple Lossless file? Doesn't the AIF(F) file also contain metadata? Watch the file size change in your file browser/finder when you add large 800 X 800 or 1000 X 1000 album cover artwork in iTunes.
|
|
|
Post by taoggniklat on Mar 2, 2010 18:42:17 GMT -5
I just ordered a sqeezebox duet and while I am waiting for it, sitting here recording all of my music into FLAC. I actually forgot how many cd's I actually have....but it has been fun finding old music again.
|
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,262
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Mar 2, 2010 19:36:11 GMT -5
Then why is an AIFF file (on average) almost 50% larger than an Apple Lossless file? Doesn't the AIF(F) file also contain metadata? Watch the file size change in your file browser/finder when you add large 800 X 800 or 1000 X 1000 album cover artwork in iTunes. Again, a good comment on this matter from about a year ago on ComputerAudiophile: "1) Apple Lossless (ALAC) and FLAC (or other lossless formats) require on-the-fly decoding by the computer's processor. At least one CA member has posted that in his case this extra processing impacted the quality of sound, altho the processor in question was not today's dual/quad core standards. 2) AIFF files are more easily supported with regards to metadata/tagging than are FLAC/WAV files, especially using iTunes. The choice of ALAC/FLAC versus AIFF is more about convenience and file storage requirements than sound quality. For someone like yourself who is already using a Mac, I can see no reason to use WAV files instead of AIFF, as WAV files do NOT support metadata/tagging well, to put it mildly (even on Windows, where it is often touted as the preferable format). AIFF is Apple's implementation of WAV, and integrates well with iTunes, or other OS X music players. FLAC is the preferred lossless codec for Windows users, but again, for those on OS X, Apple Lossless is the preferred codec, due to identical sound quality levels PLUS ease of integration with iTunes. enjoy clay" I believe that AIFF are a bit smaller files than WAV. AIFF is co-developed by Apple, so it works better with Macs. I am a very visual person, so the coverart is super important for me, so i would never use WAV. Lossless (ALAC or FLAC) uses all the bits, but stacks them more intelligently (like a ZIP)
|
|
|
Post by littlesaint on Mar 2, 2010 20:23:31 GMT -5
Doesn't the AIF(F) file also contain metadata? Watch the file size change in your file browser/finder when you add large 800 X 800 or 1000 X 1000 album cover artwork in iTunes. Again, a good comment on this matter from about a year ago on ComputerAudiophile: "1) Apple Lossless (ALAC) and FLAC (or other lossless formats) require on-the-fly decoding by the computer's processor. At least one CA member has posted that in his case this extra processing impacted the quality of sound, altho the processor in question was not today's dual/quad core standards. 2) AIFF files are more easily supported with regards to metadata/tagging than are FLAC/WAV files, especially using iTunes. The choice of ALAC/FLAC versus AIFF is more about convenience and file storage requirements than sound quality. For someone like yourself who is already using a Mac, I can see no reason to use WAV files instead of AIFF, as WAV files do NOT support metadata/tagging well, to put it mildly (even on Windows, where it is often touted as the preferable format). AIFF is Apple's implementation of WAV, and integrates well with iTunes, or other OS X music players. FLAC is the preferred lossless codec for Windows users, but again, for those on OS X, Apple Lossless is the preferred codec, due to identical sound quality levels PLUS ease of integration with iTunes. enjoy clay" I believe that AIFF are a bit smaller files than WAV. AIFF is co-developed by Apple, so it works better with Macs. I am a very visual person, so the coverart is super important for me, so i would never use WAV. Lossless (ALAC or FLAC) uses all the bits, but stacks them more intelligently (like a ZIP) Compressed audio is in no way taxing on todays processors. Even the ones in phones and portable devices play ALAC and FLAC without issue. I wouldn't say one format is preferred over another simply because of the operating system. All formats play on all operating systems. Tagging is very different between the different formats in how data is stored, and then there's iTunes which is actually a bit limiting in your options, but once you get outside the iTunes sandbox, formats really don't matter all that much. Nothing wrong with iTunes, I use it on my MacBook, but there are other, very good audio software options for all operating systems.
|
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,262
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Mar 2, 2010 20:44:22 GMT -5
Compressed audio is in no way taxing on todays processors. Even the ones in phones and portable devices play ALAC and FLAC without issue. I wouldn't say one format is preferred over another simply because of the operating system. All formats play on all operating systems. Tagging is very different between the different formats in how data is stored, and then there's iTunes which is actually a bit limiting in your options, but once you get outside the iTunes sandbox, formats really don't matter all that much. Nothing wrong with iTunes, I use it on my MacBook, but there are other, very good audio software options for all operating systems. I suppose you are correct. I never bothered to try anything beond Apple Lossless. I do still slightly prefer the sound of my Njoetjoeb CD (which is in effect a modest Marantz 4000 with upsampling and a better clock) over streaming Lossless files to a DacMagic though. But there are also (Siemens) tubes in the CD, so I am not sure which one is more true to the intended sound. Maybe the tubes give a bit of (nice but false) sweetening to the top end, don't know. The power of Apple is that they make products that people like myself can use and thus like who otherwise would abolutely hate computers...
|
|
|
Post by Wideawake on Mar 3, 2010 18:37:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by littlesaint on Mar 3, 2010 20:27:55 GMT -5
Yes, I remember, and you are still incorrect on what happens when you "drag and drop" an audio track. Also, today's ripping software is far more accurate at extracting audio from a CD than using the OS.
|
|