|
Post by Wideawake on Mar 3, 2010 20:44:02 GMT -5
Sorry Saint, but I disagree with you. There is no ripper in the world that can do any better than an OS level bit by bit copy. I see no need for Mac users to use rippers at all. However, if I'm missing something here, please educate me. Tell me why you think I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by strindl on Mar 3, 2010 21:29:39 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. You're going to wonder how you ever got along without that...I know I do. The biggest benefit to going with a music server like the duet is that you will listen to far more music and you will rediscover music that you had forgotten you had. One of the nicest add ons is the ability to play things like Pandora on the duet. I love that service and the sound quality is quite good. You can put in an artist whose music you like, and Pandora will create a special radio station for you around that artist and others with a similar style. A great way to discover new artists you will like.
|
|
|
Post by littlesaint on Mar 3, 2010 22:15:03 GMT -5
Sorry Saint, but I disagree with you. There is no ripper in the world that can do any better than an OS level bit by bit copy. I see no need for Mac users to use rippers at all. However, if I'm missing something here, please educate me. Tell me why you think I'm wrong. I tried that once and failed, so I'd rather just agree to disagree and move on. In the end, the differences in most cases would be splitting hairs anyway, and if what you get sounds great to you, that's all that matters.
|
|
|
Post by taoggniklat on Mar 3, 2010 23:42:36 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. You're going to wonder how you ever got along without that...I know I do. The biggest benefit to going with a music server like the duet is that you will listen to far more music and you will rediscover music that you had forgotten you had. One of the nicest add ons is the ability to play things like Pandora on the duet. I love that service and the sound quality is quite good. You can put in an artist whose music you like, and Pandora will create a special radio station for you around that artist and others with a similar style. A great way to discover new artists you will like. Thats my goal. I love playing "random" and I am looking forward to having all my music available, not just a few discs.
|
|
|
Post by elwicksto on Mar 4, 2010 1:22:28 GMT -5
anyone know how hdcd fits in to the equation - at least on a mac?
does apple lossless apply hdcd filters before losslessly compressing the ~20 bit per channel per sample data?
does apple lossless just treat it as non hdcd and lose the hdcd information (15 bits of signal, 1 bit of noise)
does apple lossless treat treat it as non hdcd, but provide a way so that if connected to a hdcd capable external dac could decode it properly. if so, how would the dac know the difference between a normal cd PCM stream and an HDCD stream?
anyone???
|
|
|
Post by strindl on Mar 4, 2010 1:30:20 GMT -5
Yes, when you have an extensive CD collection it takes a while to get it all ripped. I went through that starting in January 2009. It took me about three weeks to get all one thousand or so CD's done. It was so worth it though.
|
|
|
Post by Wideawake on Mar 4, 2010 10:48:22 GMT -5
Sorry Saint, but I disagree with you. There is no ripper in the world that can do any better than an OS level bit by bit copy. I see no need for Mac users to use rippers at all. However, if I'm missing something here, please educate me. Tell me why you think I'm wrong. I tried that once and failed, so I'd rather just agree to disagree and move on. In the end, the differences in most cases would be splitting hairs anyway, and if what you get sounds great to you, that's all that matters. Not sure what you're talking about but that's fine. I'm happy to leave it at that.
|
|
|
Post by littlesaint on Mar 4, 2010 14:26:23 GMT -5
anyone know how hdcd fits in to the equation - at least on a mac? does apple lossless apply hdcd filters before losslessly compressing the ~20 bit per channel per sample data? does apple lossless just treat it as non hdcd and lose the hdcd information (15 bits of signal, 1 bit of noise) does apple lossless treat treat it as non hdcd, but provide a way so that if connected to a hdcd capable external dac could decode it properly. if so, how would the dac know the difference between a normal cd PCM stream and an HDCD stream? anyone??? HDCD information is stored within the least significant bits of 16bit CD audio. That is the data on the CD itself is still 16bit, and an HDCD decoder/player uses this information to create the 20bit HDCD audio. The only way to rip this would be to rip the data to 44.1/16 (anything else destroys the HDCD information) with lossless codec (anything else destroys the HDCD information), playback the file using the standard CD format 44.1/16 (anything else destroys the HDCD information), and transport the digital stream to an HDCD decoder/player.
|
|
|
Post by elwicksto on Mar 5, 2010 22:02:04 GMT -5
HDCD information is stored within the least significant bits of 16bit CD audio. That is the data on the CD itself is still 16bit, and an HDCD decoder/player uses this information to create the 20bit HDCD audio. The only way to rip this would be to rip the data to 44.1/16 (anything else destroys the HDCD information) with lossless codec (anything else destroys the HDCD information), playback the file using the standard CD format 44.1/16 (anything else destroys the HDCD information), and transport the digital stream to an HDCD decoder/player. its clear that any lossy compression would destroy hdcd info, and i get the general idea of how hdcd works to simulate ~20bits/channel and/or 88.1khz, but the thing i'm still unclear on is exactly how a hdcd decoder can differentiate between a normal 44.1/16 pcm stream, and an hdcd stream. does the pcm stream optionally include additional metadata that specifies hdcd decoding parameters? if so, can a umc-1 (or xmc-1?, or xda-1?) recognize and decode hdcd pcm streams properly?
|
|
|
Post by littlesaint on Mar 5, 2010 22:39:25 GMT -5
You're correct. The data is "hidden" within a normal PCM stream. An HDCD decoder will see the metadata and do its thing. Not sure if any Emotiva products decode HDCD.
|
|
iceman66
Emo VIPs
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" The Great One
Posts: 1,083
|
Post by iceman66 on Mar 6, 2010 1:41:55 GMT -5
You're correct. The data is "hidden" within a normal PCM stream. An HDCD decoder will see the metadata and do its thing. Not sure if any Emotiva products decode HDCD. ERC-1
|
|
|
Post by ossif on Apr 6, 2010 1:23:13 GMT -5
I do not compress at all. In fact I have two libraries. One with in Wave format, so this is one to one as on CD, and another library that is MP3 in all 320 kbps.
|
|
ratmice
Emo VIPs
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.
Posts: 1,853
|
Post by ratmice on Apr 6, 2010 12:21:46 GMT -5
You're correct. The data is "hidden" within a normal PCM stream. An HDCD decoder will see the metadata and do its thing. Not sure if any Emotiva products decode HDCD. ERC-1 I think he meant any Emotiva componenet that has an input. But you already knew that.
|
|
|
Post by ossif on Apr 17, 2010 15:14:07 GMT -5
Still I do not understand why if somehome choses a loosless format in the first place and does not stick to the original wave format which is the most widely available and acceted format. It cannot be because of saving hard disc space in a time whe you can buy 2 TB for a handfull of $.
|
|
|
Post by littlesaint on Apr 17, 2010 15:24:49 GMT -5
If lossless compression produces audio exactly the same as WAV or AIFF, why not use it and save space. Sure big hard drives are for the most part, inexpensive, but compression is free. If you're giving yourself proper redundancy for your data, those big drives can start to get expensive, either in cost or in loss of data if one dies. When you start adding video, photos, backups, etc., compression is your best friend in the world.
|
|
|
Post by mnwild on Apr 17, 2010 16:08:17 GMT -5
If lossless compression produces audio exactly the same as WAV or AIFF, why not use it and save space. Sure big hard drives are for the most part, inexpensive, but compression is free. If you're giving yourself proper redundancy for your data, those big drives can start to get expensive, either in cost or in loss of data if one dies. When you start adding video, photos, backups, etc., compression is your best friend in the world. The author of this article goes into some detail why he prefers wav or aiff to Apple lossless. Most of it has to do with metadata and album art. He's got some good primers on his website. www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Computer-Audiophile-CD-Ripping-Strategy-and-MethodologyAlso some people in this thread mentioned keeping two different iTunes libraries - there's a new feature in the latest version of iTunes (9.1) that makes this unnecessary. It can now "Convert Higher Bit Rate Songs to 128 kbps AAC" when syncing with your iPod. This was huge for me since my iPod nano is only 8g. Now I can rip everything to AIFF or lossless on my 1TB hard drive and still be able to fit everything on the nano. For earbuds and tunes on the go the 128k sounds fine to me. And with the lossless files on my iMac it might finally be worth investing in a good DAC to pipe tunes to the main stereo. www.macworld.com/article/150193/2010/03/inside_itunes91.html
|
|
|
Post by littlesaint on Apr 17, 2010 17:03:19 GMT -5
There's plenty of ways to add metadata and artwork to ALAC or FLAC. Certainly no more difficult than for WAV and AIFF which are really just wrappers for PCM and not really codecs.
The new re-encode feature in iTunes is nice, but the settings should match Apples own iTunes Plus (256 AAC VBR) format. 128 AAC is a little too lean for my mobile listening.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2010 17:42:01 GMT -5
I don't know if it's been said but make sure you have a backup of all your rips, either on dvd or another HD. I once lost all my stuff and it was well over 600 gigs worth of music and movies sucked. Now I have my entire collection on dvd's, blu-rays, 2 other hd's lol better safe than sorry
|
|
|
Post by ossif on Apr 18, 2010 2:10:28 GMT -5
KEEP THE ORIGINAL ;D
Any codec applied, and gone is the master version. As said, there is no need for this in time of 2 TB hard discs. I do not have the most CDs, only about 450 but this result also only in 200 GB of hard disc space needed for a copy in wav format. I do however acknowledge the need of a second bibliography with data reduction if you are into mobile devices. However this might also only be necessary the next 2 or 3 years to come, storage space will make a big step ahead in the near future. For this, I would rather have the original saved somewhere right away.
|
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,262
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Apr 18, 2010 6:43:22 GMT -5
There's plenty of ways to add metadata and artwork to ALAC or FLAC. Certainly no more difficult than for WAV and AIFF which are really just wrappers for PCM and not really codecs. The new re-encode feature in iTunes is nice, but the settings should match Apples own iTunes Plus (256 AAC VBR) format. 128 AAC is a little too lean for my mobile listening. Actually, this article from Chris of CA, is a guideline mostly for how deal with meta-data once you decide to use WAV and not something like ALAC. ALAC is easy, no computer skill is needed. Have you read the article? I get a headache out of it! WAV was never intended for meta-data and it shows. Chris is very good with computers. I personally dislike computers, but if they make life easier like purchasing e-tickets so you don't have to cue, then I am for it. If they make life more difficult like WAV vs Apple Lossless, then I say thank you but NO! People who should know claim that Lossless compression should sound the same as WAV. Good enough for me!
|
|