Digital music, the pain and the agony

steveinaz

So when I rip from EAC, is the album art "embedded" somehow? (EAC also uses freedB). When I look at my files, I only see the *.flac files, no gif's or jpg's...?

I wonder why Foobar 2000 doesn't show album covers?

heiney9

steveinaz wrote: »

So when I rip from EAC, is the album art "embedded" somehow? (EAC also uses freedB). When I look at my files, I only see the *.flac files, no gif's or jpg's...?

I wonder why Foobar 2000 doesn't show album covers?

You have to use a media player that supports viewing album art. Not all do. I honestly don't remember if EAC also attached the album art. It's either a setting to do it automatically or one extra step. It's been quite sometime since I've actively used EAC so I cant remember.

When you say "look" at the file, do you mean in a Windows folder or as you put them on your play list in a media player? If you are viewing them in a Windows folder you won't see anything because it's not part of the file extension, but embedded in the digital data that makes up the file(s).

H9

P.s. As far as Foobar it depends on the version and your settings. I used Foobar a long time ago so again not familiar. But a current or even relatively current version should support album art work. If you find your current with the files don't have artwork as part of the metadata, you don't have to re-rip them, just have to add the art work to the existing files.

Check into this awesome Music Library manger/player. It's ebcome my standard and it's powerful and there is a free version.

www.mediamonkey.com

I use Media Monkey instead of Foobar

H9

dkg999

Slap the Monkey - onto your computer that is :biggrin:

SCompRacer

dkg999 wrote: »

slap the monkey - onto your computer that is :biggrin:

lmao!:cheesygrin:

SCompRacer

steveinaz wrote: »

So when I rip from EAC, is the album art "embedded" somehow? (EAC also uses freedB). When I look at my files, I only see the *.flac files, no gif's or jpg's...?

Just a FYI, with MediaMonkey, you also have the option of saving album art to the album folder. I do that with all my albums. Been a long time since I used EAC, can't reall anything about it.

Another thing I like about dBpoweramp is their tag editor and file converter. Just right click on the file for the options.

Drenis

Wow... what an EXPLOSIVE thread. It took me 45 minutes just to read through this but what an awesome wealth of knowledge. Even the most nerdiest of users such as myself can learn a thing or two. What us techie folks think we know when it comes to digital music are out to lunch.

Wow... I've been collecting and building my digital collection for the last 13 years, no joke. What started out as 128kbps MP3's that I thought were king. Burn CD's, Napster... I was in a good prime when I got into it but wow has it ever evolved.

I currently have JUST under 15,000 songs in my collection. I've always admired it but I was arrogant to learn about FLAC and any other formats. I refused to buy into the iPod market and refused to EVER go down that iTunes road. I knew it from being in the lieu with friends who knew what was good and what was terrible for PC. And iTunes was a FAIL! (Great, unstoppable on Mac's though).

Now my collection consists of more modern 320kbps rips but the majority of my collection is below par. I didn't pursue FLAC because at the time, my media players of choice were Winamp Ver. 2. I stuck with that version for YEARS only moving to the Zune software when I purchased my first device and moved to managing and using the Zune software for playback duties and ripping etc etc. I always used Windows Media Player to get my 320kbps rips.

Any FLAC copies I came across I just re-encoded into 320kbps files as I couldn't play FLAC on anything and never did research to learn WHY it was superior. Even all my CD's were ripped that way. But with programs like MediaMonkey... wow has that all changed. I built a $700 HTPC to handle movie playback with a Blu-Ray reader and stream my music through my wired LAN to play on my Zune software via HDMI out through my GPU since it could stream all the latest and greatest HD audio formats. However expensive software is needed for that Blu-Ray playback. and the management of my HTPC via my Logitech diNovo Mini is laggy and a pain sometimes. But a HTPC was supposed to be the ultimate is creating what you need for digital ease.

After reading this thread... I want to go home and delete the entire collection and start over... now I find myself looking at a Squeezebox.

heiney9

Drenis,

MP3's stink.............FLAC is where it's at if you want a perfect digital copy.

H9

steveinaz

MediaMonkey huh? Sounds kinky, I'm on it.

SCompRacer

Brock's brother Blake put me on to this. If you have MediaMonkey and do used music shopping, you can download Triximoto's free Advanced Report 6.0. That report creates a single HTML document listing all the artists you have in MediaMonkey. You click on an artist to view all the albums you have ripped for them. You have the option to click and view the albums tracks. The album artwork is in full color. Much nicer than a plain album list.

While it was designed to be uploaded to your personal web space, I don't have any so I stuck it on my smart phone and found it worked. Never again will I buy a duplicate CD at Disc Replay in Rockford! (They got a buy three, get one free deal! My local Disc Replay sucks!). The file size of the report depends on the amount of albums and can be quite large, and adding the view tracks option nearly doubled the file size.



Pics are in this post.
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?124582-Rockford-Audio-Society-Mini-Meet&p=1667373&viewfull=1#post1667373

falconcry72

I want to add something about lossless compressed audio codecs:

Nowadays for some, and in the not too distant future for all, any type of lossless compression method will be irrelevant and unnecessary. The whole point of lossless compression codecs like FLAC is to reduce file size from the original WAV while maintaining perfect quality. This was important 10-15 years ago when hard disc space was expensive. Nowadays, most people could store their entire music library in full uncompressed WAV files on the 640GB or 1TB hard drive that comes standard in most modern PC's. You can get a good 2TB external drive for just over 100 bucks. Not many people need more space than that, so for most people, sticking with the uncompressed WAVs is a very viable option. Hard drive space is getting exponentially cheaper, so I can see all lossless compression codecs being irrelevant soon.

When I got into lossless digital audio storage, FLAC did not exist. SHN (Shorten) was the only game in town. WAVs have a bit rate of 1400kbps, SHN could get them down to about 900. That was significant then. FLAC can get them down to as low as 600ish. FLAC won. At that time, I remember buying an internal 80GB hard drive for about 160 bucks. That's $2 per GB. Now you can get a 2TB internal for a hundred bucks. That's 5 cents per GB, or 1/40th the cost per GB. I now have 6.6TB's of storage, and I have a plan to have a total of 24TB's.

Hard storage is only going to get cheaper. Eventually it will make no financial difference to you if you're using WAV's or FLAC. For many, that time has already come. 1000 CD's is less than 700GB's. If your home PC comes standard with a 1TB drive, and you have fewer than 1500 CD's, you have no need to compress the WAV's.

edit: for the record, 99.9% of my music is FLAC.

heiney9

Until they can embed metadata information into a windows WAV file it will never become a standard. When they do that then it might grab some use. FLAC makes more sense on many levels and even if you can buy a billion GB HD for cheap, I still like the 20-25% smaller files that comprise FLAC. I am waiting for SSHD's to become lower in cost, that's the ticket right there.

Plus WAV files still won't be as manageable on portables. But this is a dynamic area and I'm sure there will be many changes to come over the next 3-5 years.

H9

falconcry72

heiney9 wrote: »

Until they can embed metadata information into a windows WAV file it will never become a standard.

good point.

heiney9

Also FTR, FLAC, SHN, WAV, CDA, are all 1400kbps that is a standard cd bit rate.

SHN and FLAC, APE uncompress on the fly, but playback is always at 1400kbps regardless of the compression of the file. Lossy compression compresses a file to say 320kbps and the 1080kbps difference is disgarded and lost forever. Lossless compression uses a scheme exactly like WINZIP does. It makes the file smaller for storage purposes but retains all the information and is uncompressed on the fly during playback.

H9

Drenis

heiney9 wrote: »

Drenis,

MP3's stink.............FLAC is where it's at if you want a perfect digital copy.

H9

How sad is it that it's ALL that I'm used to. I don't even have a CDP to listen to the difference. For shame.....

Polkitup2

I use a dedicated laptop running JRivers media center through Wyred DAC2. Better than any CD player I've owned. SACD??? now that is a toss up.

tonyb

Any big differences between Media Monkey and Jrivers ? Is the free version of the Monkey good enough or should I just cough up the few bucks for the full version ?

Brock, not trying to start a war on formats, but please tell me why apple lossless is so bad ? Or is it just their ripping process thats not up to snuff. Curious, I want to know this ****. You guys have way more experience than I do with this crap and if I'm going to re rip 400 cd's, I want to get it right.

Phil, since you have the sonos also, I'm still fuzzy on how when you rip to DB poweramp, and you have Media Monkey or Jrivers, how are all these programs talking to each other ? In other words, how do you get the files from poweramp to media monkey, then have sonos recognize them ? Slap me upside the head later, I'm new to this ****.
Great thread guys, tons of info for some of us just getting into the game of computer music and even those who thought they had it figured out. This place rocks.

Drenis

tonyb wrote: »

Any big differences between Media Monkey and Jrivers ? Is the free version of the Monkey good enough or should I just cough up the few bucks for the full version ?

I've been using the free version to poke around and learn the features. For strictly playing, the free version is wonderful. Especially for learning the programs functions.

sucks2beme

I use EAC to make the cd's FLAC. I then use FOOBAR to play back.
Right now the system is in the master bedroom. The pc is a quiet antec case.
I have a 32" led tv with a pc input, and after the pc is up and running, I use a
presentation remote to mouse around and select what to play.
I am bypassing the windows playback and using USB to the Audio-gd nfb3.
It sounds as good or better than any CDP I've used. The preamp/amp are all glass
so that's about as good as it's going to get there.

pearsall001

tonyb wrote: »

Any big differences between Media Monkey and Jrivers ? Is the free version of the Monkey good enough or should I just cough up the few bucks for the full version ?

Brock, not trying to start a war on formats, but please tell me why apple lossless is so bad ? Or is it just their ripping process thats not up to snuff. Curious, I want to know this ****. You guys have way more experience than I do with this crap and if I'm going to re rip 400 cd's, I want to get it right.

Phil, since you have the sonos also, I'm still fuzzy on how when you rip to DB poweramp, and you have Media Monkey or Jrivers, how are all these programs talking to each other ? In other words, how do you get the files from poweramp to media monkey, then have sonos recognize them ? Slap me upside the head later, I'm new to this ****.
Great thread guys, tons of info for some of us just getting into the game of computer music and even those who thought they had it figured out. This place rocks.

Tony, trust me when I tell you that your computer skills are probably a level above mine!! I'm pretty much a dunce when it comes to this stuff. As far as dBpoweramp goes...I picked that one because of all the high praise guys on other forums give it as being the best out there, simple to use & the results are identical to the original. It automatically sets up Accurate Rip which is another big plus. I just do the storing on J river (probably don't even need it) dBpoweramp is pretty much a one stop shop. On the Sonos computer set up just tell it what drive you have the ripped CD on & it pulls them from there. I have an outboard NAS & it works like a charm. I'm telling you the sound is incredible. Give it a try...well worth the few bucks it costs. Good luck!

Face

Laptop loaded with J. River, controlled by keyboard or Droid phone and tablet, W4S DAC-2 via Asynchronous USB or Cambridge 5550C via glass optical, pre, amp, speakers.

A couple of notes, I've tried a couple of different USB cables and haven't heard a difference yet. I'd like to grab a WireWorld USB from my dealer and give it a try since it's the only design that appears to be different from a conventional USB cable.

Having tried Media Monkey and J. River, I thought MM's interface was a mess in comparison. J. River has multiple interfaces and more advanced features, making it a win.

All ripping is done with J. River as it has error correction and does a great(but not perfect) job of tagging and adding album art.

IMO, digital glare has to do with a poor digital source(DAC), not the format as a whole.

inspiredsports

tonyb wrote: »

. . . how do you guys get rid of that digital glare ?

I know this isn't what you are looking for, but I thought I'd share my solution anyway. Wait for standards.

I'm sure you have tons of CD's and/or LP's. Enjoy them.

Stick with them until a standard digital solution emerges. Right now it's still a hodge-podge of pieces/parts that have to be cobbled together and as you noted, when you finally get set up you still have to deal with less-than-perfect fidelity.

God Bless the early-adopters currently fighting the battle; they are blazing a trail toward the plug and play solution that will be satisfactory in perhaps 3 years.

BlueFox

heiney9 wrote: »

BTW, lossless is not lossless, but I don't want to get into a debate about it.

H9

No need to get into a debate. Just provide links to sites with data showing that an uncompressed lossless file is different than the original file. Being an engineer in computer networking where any bit loss is unacceptable, I am always interersted in learning something new. That is how we grow, both at work, and in our common hobby.

Here is a link from a sterephile review of the Wadia iTransport that states an uncompressed Apple Lossless file is bit for bit identical to a WAV file. If they are wrong then I would like to know why so that I can make any changes necessary to get even better audio from my system.

Thanks for your help.

"I recorded the bits coming from the Wadia's coaxial S/PDIF output to my lab PC via the digital input of an RME soundcard, with Wes's iPod Nano playing a losslessly compressed file. I then compared that recording with a WAV rip from the original CD. The files were bit-for-bit identical, meaning that the 170iTransport is indeed transparent via its digital output. "

http://www.stereophile.com/digitalprocessors/1008wad/index.html

Just as a side-note to any reader, the upgraded Wadia 171 sounds even better than the 170.

organ

The digital glare you're talking about used to bug me too. I know you've heard this many times already, but I think the amount of digital glare a given rig has also depends on system synergy.
I'm on my fourth cd player now, and on my previous ones, I noticed that depending on what components I'm running downstream, I was able to minimize the glare. Rotating between different pre amps, I noticed some would lower the amount of glare while others may accentuate it. When I used a transformer based passive pre, it practically eliminated it.
But when it comes to digital sources, I think it's good to try out different DAC's to see what type you prefer. It's a bit like tube rolling.
I find that a NOS DAC is my preference and has the least amount of glare to my ears. I had my cd player custom made to finally get the sound I want from a digital source. I sold my Music Hall TT afterwards.
Digital can sound just as good as analog, imo. It just takes a lot of work. But keep in mind that my TT was under $1500 and I've never heard the high end TT's that a lot of the hardcore vinyl guys here use. So when I say digital can sound as good as analog, I'm talking up to the price point I mentioned. I have no idea how good the next level of TT's are.

Bobsama

The problem, in my opinion, with ALAC is that there's no iTunes support for bit-perfect reproduction. iTunes itself is the problem. It's a wretched program for actual quality and pretty useless on most fronts. When I do have to use it, it's only to update my iPod. I can't use any of its ripping or file conversion abilities since they're so low quality (focused on giving good performance for lower-end PC's and Mac's).

Biggest quality difference for my setup was getting the DAC. It's far superior if for no other reason than it's a real line-level source. Of course it's an entry-level unit ($259 retail) but, for me, it's far better than before.

Half the battle I'd fought was to get Foobar2000 & ASIO4All working together nicely. They still fight with my other programs and some don't play nice when they can't find an output device. I'm a gamer, so another annoying thing is having to close down programs like my games and Steam so that Asio4All can get take exclusive mode again. Damn programmers. -_-

sucks2beme

That's why I dedicated a machine to tunes. It does nothing else,
so I could tweak it as needed for good music playback.
With Windows 7, you really don't need asio4all any more.
Wasapi works well, and is easier to use.

SRTer

First, I will not attempt to add to this thread or be a teacher. I will be asking questions basically.

As far digital music for my humble Pioneer SC-35 --> Adcom 555 Mkii --> RTi A9’s system, I use Apple Lossless.
Now, I want to know if there is a problem with my setup, because I’m madly in love with the convenience and sound quality I perceive. I use the iPod interface on my Pioneer Elite SC-35 with supplied cord. I have a iPod classic 120GB and iPhone 4 32GB.
Quote from Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity…

“Pioneer iPod interface allows you to send the digital bitstream of your music instead of the more common analog line out. If you happen to keep your music in Apple Lossless format, this lets you carry around a bit-perfect collection of your songs, and utilize the far better DACs inside of the Pioneer than the one inside of the iPhone or iPod. The on screen interface is simply a carbon copy of the iPod interface, so there is no learning curve in using it at all.”

The SC-35 has a DAC spec of the following: 192 kHz/24-bit DAC (111 dB S/N).
Freescale™ and Texas Instruments Aureus 24-bit Digital Engine

Question is this; do you all think this is a good way to access one’s digital music?

I ask this because it seem than many of you in this tread don’t seem to use a built in iPod or iPhone interface. They seem to get decent reviews in magazines and I truly love it. I have used iTunes so long that I don't have any problems with the way it handles my music. Not to count the convenience like what user Heiney9 speaks about in post #5.

Second question is this. Is one lossless format perceived to be better than another? If so, why?

I don’t think there should be a difference but I could be wrong. Furthermore, I’m up to my ears in Apple lossless CD rips because I take a laptop computer to anyone house I meet as well as libraries where I have been able to acquire the music I like for nothing at all. I don’t want to keep recording Apple Lossless and I should be using FLAC. Therefore, let me know.

Question?

Why is Heiney9 screaming, “P.s. Did I mention STOP using i-Tunes and Apple mp4's, that's 95% of your issue right there.” Post #48?

Another question, assuming that you all will tell me that FLAC is better than Apple Lossless. Is user Drenis 320kbps rip better than my Apple Lossless rips?

You people should know that my car system and two living rooms are all powered by ipod docks with usb hookup bypassing the iPod and iPhone DAC's.

You all are killing me!

SRTer

BlueFox wrote: »

No need to get into a debate. Just provide links to sites with data showing that an uncompressed lossless file is different than the original file.

Here is a link from a sterephile review of the Wadia iTransport that states an uncompressed Apple Lossless file is bit for bit identical to a WAV file. If they are wrong then I would like to know why so that I can make any changes necessary to get even better audio from my system.

Thanks for your help.

"I recorded the bits coming from the Wadia's coaxial S/PDIF output to my lab PC via the digital input of an RME soundcard, with Wes's iPod Nano playing a losslessly compressed file. I then compared that recording with a WAV rip from the original CD. The files were bit-for-bit identical, meaning that the 170iTransport is indeed transparent via its digital output. "

http://www.stereophile.com/digitalprocessors/1008wad/index.html

Just as a side-note to any reader, the upgraded Wadia 171 sounds even better than the 170.

Now, this really make me wonder also as I read this review too. It seems that the reviewer must have had a extra check in his pocket, he is slightly deaf, or just lying if he isn't right. Which is it?

If there is a difference, is it one that a human can hear between one Lossless format and another.

I'm not a engineer in computer networking but I'm a Electronics journeyman trained in the Air Force. I can understand somethings given the time to study.

BlueFox

SRTer wrote: »

Now, this really make me wonder also as I read this review too. It seems that the reviewer must have had a extra check in his pocket, he is slightly deaf, or just lying if he isn't right. Which is it?

Which is it? I doubt if he is lying, so that would make him right. One nice thing about stereophile is they do detailed measurements on the gear they review, and provide those measurements for others to review, and duplicate if so inclined.

If the review is incorrect then send stereophile data showing why the review is incorrect. One of the nice things about technology is that it is easily measurable and verifiable. Claiming that a lossless compressed file of one format has missing bits when it is uncompressed is very easy to measure and verify. Obviously, it cannot be hidden. So, let's see the data showing that an uncompressed Apple Lossless file is missing bits compared to the original file.

Bobsama

Apple Lossless is not my format of choice, mainly because I find its compression algorithm lacking when compared to FLAC. That said, I urge you to try bit-perfect reproduction. Bypass the Windows sound stack with Foobar2000 & ASIO4All. If memory serves, Foo2k will play ALAC so you can do a head-to-head comparison between your options and find what sounds best to your own ears.

MP3 compression is inherently a lossy compression, so even 320kbps rips will lose quality. How much quality is lost really depends on your encoder settings. The casual person may never notice the difference between the "average" and "best" settings because they're still listening on Apple earbuds or a $10 off-the-shelf option. Also, MP3 makes up for in compatibility, it loses in antiquity. There are newer and better lossy formats available, like MP4. However, they're still lossy.

The other good news is that, if you find ASIO4All & a compatible player to be the better solution, you can still convert all your ALAC files to FLAC. Converting MP3 or MP4 to FLAC or ALAC will not give you any quality as there is still quality lost. Don't bother converting either, especially not MP3 to MP4. I personally use dbPowerAmp's batch converter. I've done the ALAC-to-FLAC conversions too and they're pretty much painless. Some lost ID3 tags is the only problem I remember.

Another nice thing about dbPA is their CD ripper connects to databases (like free-db) and compares your rip checksum against the database and reports a confidence level. Not all CDs work properly with it but that's often more because of the drive used. You can also easily re-rip any tracks with mismatched checksums. Sometimes the databases are wrong and your checksum will appear incorrect but the checksum is displayed and recalculate each time (so you can see if it's consistent).

heiney9

Bob, is correct in all his thoughts and I totally forgot about dB Poweramp comparing the rip checksum against a known database for extreme ripping accuracy. That is the main reason I stopped using EAC and moved the dB Poweramp. That feature totally slipped my mind.

320kbps MP3's still sound like **** on a good resolving system.

H9