Digital music, the pain and the agony

heiney9

SRTer wrote: »

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.

Define good? For me it would be unacceptable because it doesn't sound as good as it should. If you like it, that's all that matters. I'm sure it's damn convenient and it seems that's more important to you than getting superb sound quality. Again, nothing wrong with that. The convenience I speak of doesn't come at the expense of sound quality so it that respect it's not what I am talking about.

iPods, docking bays, iTiunes, USB inputs on receivers............yes we have come a long way as far as convenience and flexibility, but it's all compromised sound quality to one degree or another. If that works for you and you don't mind............who's to say differently. I take exception when people start saying "it's the same", "there's no difference", etc. It isn't the same and there is a difference, I can hear it. So I choose to go the route I do and I don't need people telling me Apple Lossless, music sourced from iTunes, usb inputs on receivers, iPod docking bays sound the same as a properly ripped FLAC file on a computer where proper steps have been taken to isolate the digital stream so it's not altered from the original.

H9

BlueFox

The burden of proof is on you H9. You are the one making the unsubstantiated claim that only your method of copying and compressing files is perfect. As you said, no debate. Just provide data to back up your claim of superiority, and everything else is "compromised sound quality to one degree or another".

markmarc

Interesting side note to all of this was the usage of Almarra or PureMusic (layered on top of iTunes) being run at RMAF last month in Denver. I run the PureMusic setup myself and the improvement over stock iTunes is easily detected on all my speakers starting from $500pr on up.

BlueFox

markmarc wrote: »

Interesting side note to all of this was the usage of Almarra or PureMusic (layered on top of iTunes) being run at RMAF last month in Denver. I run the PureMusic setup myself and the improvement over stock iTunes is easily detected on all my speakers starting from $500pr on up.

This is true. It has been mentioned a few times in stereophile in their reviews of the Almarra and PureMusic software. Moral of the story is do not use stock iTunes on a computer to play music. However, it is the playback through iTunes that is the problem. Not the lossless file compression algorithm used.

Personally, I am with Bryston on the playback issue. Their philosophy is a dedicated digital file playback system is superior to a generic computer for digital music.

SRTer

heiney9 wrote: »

So I choose to go the route I do and I don't need people telling me Apple Lossless, music sourced from iTunes, usb inputs on receivers, iPod docking bays sound the same as a properly ripped FLAC file on a computer where proper steps have been taken to isolate the digital stream so it's not altered from the original.

H9

Just so you know, I'm just asking and not teachin or suggesting anything. I would like too read some content to this effect about bad quality of Apple Lossless.

If you have some, please share.

Othes here suggest that I can convert my Apple Lossless files over to FLAC. How would they become better?

SRTer

BlueFox wrote: »

However, it is the playback through iTunes that is the problem. Not the lossless file compression algorithm..

Since I don't use iTunes to play the Apple Lossless files. I guess I'm fine by your explanation of things. I use the iPod and iPhone to store and deliver my Apple Lossless files.

Please let me know what you think and please put any links to reading material for me. Thanks.

Tbone289

heiney9 wrote: »

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.

EAC supports the Accuraterip plugin, which compares the rip checksum against a known database.

SolidSqual

tonyb wrote: »

How do you guys get rid of that digital glare ?

Prism Orpheus, the best digital period. IMHO.

steveinaz

To get rid of digital glare:

1. Speaker selection
2. A GOOD DAC

I have zero digititus.

BlueFox

SRTer wrote: »

Since I don't use iTunes to play the Apple Lossless files. I guess I'm fine by your explanation of things. I use the iPod and iPhone to store and deliver my Apple Lossless files.

Please let me know what you think and please put any links to reading material for me. Thanks.

Your source is fine. The main issue is the dock being used to extract the digital file off the iPod. I gave the link to the review of the Wadia iTransport dock, and that is all the links I have now. In the past when the "Apple Lossless is not really lossless" statement came up I searched but could not find anything that validated that statement.

Anyway, the dock for extraction, and the DAC, is where you will have any issues. In the stereophile review of the Wadia they mentioned that while the Apple Lossless file was bit for bit identical to the WAV file, the Wadia had a high jitter value on the output. DACs claim to clean up the jitter, but it appears cleaning it up at the source is the best option. For example, I was using the Benchmark Dac1 Pre when I first bought the Wadia. I later upgraded to the Bryston BDA-1 DAC, which sounded a bit better than the Benchmark. With both DACs I loved the sound resulting from the iPod Classic/Wadia combination.

Later, Wadia upgraded the 170 iTransport, and the new 171 model has reduced the jitter, and it also has a better RCA connector. After I switched to the 171 I was surprised at the positive improvement. While the 170 sounded great, apparently eliminating jitter at the source instead of at the DAC has an obvious effect.

So, in this sense H9 is correct in that there are a variety of areas that need to be perfect in order to get the best results.

sucks2beme

So all this talk, and in the end-everything matters?
Didn't we already come to that conclusion before?:razz:

steveinaz

Exactly.

Tony,
Lesser quality rips (lossy) will certainly introduce glare with digital. Go lossless, by whatever method, and go from there. It's hard enough to get digital right under the best of circumstances.

steveinaz

Alright you streamin' bastads, I ordered a Touch--I hope you're happy with yourselves.

mdaudioguy

SRTer wrote: »

Just so you know, I'm just asking and not teachin or suggesting anything. I would like too read some content to this effect about bad quality of Apple Lossless.

If you have some, please share.

Othes here suggest that I can convert my Apple Lossless files over to FLAC. How would they become better?

There's no way a converted file could get better. Loss is a one way street. Gain is impossible.

mdaudioguy

steveinaz wrote: »

Alright you streamin' bastads, I ordered a Touch--I hope you're happy with yourselves.

Awesome product - enjoy!!

Toolfan66

Great thread tony!! a lot of info I did not know..

tonyb

Thanks, alot of info I didn't know either. Since we have alot of members getting into digital music, I wanted the basics out in the open, where to start, what gear to use for good results, the software out there to download and rip, what formats, and so on. Of coarse we all have opinions on what constitutes good quality music, and we all have various wallet sizes, but this thread is awesome for any wallet size or taste. Thanks for sharing your collective knowlege on this guys, your really helping alot of people here.

markmarc

Couldn't agree more with what others have said. Just make sure to invest in a quality DAC, don't go cheap for cheap's sake. You've heard others mention Benchmark and Bryston, both of which kick up the resolution over the budget level DAC's out there. Take your time and use your ears, I'm on my third DAC, the first was a Promitheus-ridiculously quiet for the price. Second came the Neko D100- which gave up a bit of resolution when I compared it in a blind test to the Bryston, but added warmth. Now I have the SimAudio D300- all the musicality of the Neko, and equals the resolution of the Bryston IMHO. Gear matching with DAC's is critical, be patient Grasshopper.

mdaudioguy

Mp3s have their place in my digital collection, too. Every CD I have is stored in FLAC and mirrored in another directory as mp3. The mp3s find their way onto my phone and a microSD card for playback in my car. I wouldn't be able to carry as many songs with me otherwise. Mp3 sounds fine in the car, considering the audio competes with roar of the engine and road and wind noise...

Bobsama

markmarc wrote: »

Couldn't agree more with what others have said. Just make sure to invest in a quality DAC, don't go cheap for cheap's sake. You've heard others mention Benchmark and Bryston, both of which kick up the resolution over the budget level DAC's out there. Take your time and use your ears, I'm on my third DAC, the first was a Promitheus-ridiculously quiet for the price. Second came the Neko D100- which gave up a bit of resolution when I compared it in a blind test to the Bryston, but added warmth. Now I have the SimAudio D300- all the musicality of the Neko, and equals the resolution of the Bryston IMHO. Gear matching with DAC's is critical, be patient Grasshopper.

Three things...

First, never convert from one lossy format to another. You're only losing more information.

Second, mess around with your DAC's settings to figure out if there's something in there that sounds good. My Little Dot DAC_I (entry level: $259 MSRP) is fine with its "slow" digital filter but some music becomes grating with its "fast" filter. Mess around a bit and find what fits you.

Third, data redundancy! In most cases, people have a single copy on hard drive and a single copy on CD. Do yourself a favor and start backing up. I cannot suggest it more strongly: even 100 CD's takes a while to rip. If you're recording vinyl, I consider it practically a requirement. (Also, find a good capture box.)



A poor man's data redundancy probably looks like a single internal storage drive that's regularly (ie: weekly) backed up (perhaps by a program like Karen's Replicator) onto an external hard drive of sufficient size. When not in use, it's stored safely and NOT running. That way, if you need to "bug out" for any reason, you have a copy of your data in an easily-carried form factor. Common reasons include weather, acts of God, and traveling.

A slightly more expensive option may be to have a second external hard drive as well. Make two copies and store one in another safe place--like at work or a relative's house. Diversification is insurance. If the first drive is backed up weekly, backup the second drive monthly.

Another option is to have a single server with data redundancy. That means either software (via Windows Dynamic Disk) or hardware (via motherboard RAID controller or, preferably above all, a PCI or PCI-Express RAID controller) RAID-1. I'd suggest the second route as an improper or unexpected shutdown is enough to give W-D-D a heart attack. RAID1 is also the simplest RAID method--the two drives are direct copies of each other. There's also RAID-1+0 (for performance and redundancy), RAID-3 (now uncommon, with a single parity drive), RAID-5 (RAID-0 except with striped parity), and RAID-6 (like RAID-5 except with twice as much parity data). RAID1 or RAID5 are the most frequent used.

A third option is to use two computers, preferably both with data redundancy. The idea is that if you lose 2 drives (which likely causes data losses in all but RAID6) or some other hardware dies (like a power supply or motherboard), you still have a second copy. While you're waiting for replacement parts, shutdown and unplug it--just to make sure you don't lose what's remaining. If you lost your RAID controller (often by losing the motherboard), you can replace it and reuse the hard drives in a new array. As part of that, I'd suggest you choose only high-quality power supplies (look for 80 PLUS certified units at a bare minimum, though I suggest Seasonic or Zippy brands) and modular RAID controllers (a PCI or PCI-Express card, like a Highpoint RocketRAID or any number of other controllers).

A fourth option is to rely on a 3rd party to do backups for you. This can get really pricey as you often rent space by the gigabyte. You're also bandwidth limited: you need a fast and reliable connection without data caps to really use this method. Third, your provider could quite literally disappear overnight--and you're out your data. Now you have to find another provider and upload everything again. And trust me, if you transfer a terabyte over your home connection, your ISP WILL take notice! If you or anyone else in your house uses peer-to-peer, that could mean your connection is shutoff. If they see it's legitimate, they'll just watch. Believe me--they monitor their bandwidth closely. Something like 90% of their bandwidth is used by 10% of their subscribers.



My own setup is rather simple--I use "method 2". My server has a pair of 2TB drives in RAID-1.

Another setup I've seen is a bit more complex--it's basically option 3. The new primary server is using three 1TB drives (WD RE4's) for a 2TB RAID-5, controlled by a RocketRAID 2310. It's then backed up to a second computer with a RAID-0 array (no redundancy in that box). The idea is that it can sustain ANY hardware loss and that the likelihood of losing the RAID-0 at the same time is pretty low. If the RAID-0 dies randomly, it doesn't matter as the drive can be replaced, a new array built, and a fresh backup made. I'm still advocating that the RAID0, when it fails, is replaced by something with its internal redundancy.

BlueFox

Bobsama wrote: »

First, never convert from one lossy format to another. You're only losing more information.

All good points. Let me add one more.

Step zero: Never have a lossy format at all. Never buy music from iTunes (the store), or any other site (Amazon, etc.) that only sells lossy music. Give bad press to any on-line music store that only offers lossy music for sale. Never use an on-line cloud service for storing music if they only store lossy files. Never support any business that does not offer the option of lossless and lossy for sale/rent, etc. Give bad press to any musician who only releases their digital music in lossy formats. As a side note, give bad press to any musician who releases a compressed CD, since it sucks as much as a lossy file. Always expect the best when you spend your money.

sucks2beme

I have two drives running with the same data in the music folder.
I also have a 2nd pc with the same player and all the music on it. I also have an
external back up drive just for music. I also have kept all my Cd's.
Take that RIAA. All legal here.

SolidSqual

Keiko wrote: »

For the price tag that thing commands, it oughta be. Nice!

You sure know how to make a guy feel inferior, SS. :redface:

Want an affordable DAC that sounds better that a W4S Dac2 and will allow you to eliminate a preamp from the equation? Look no further: http://www.apogeedigital.com/products/duet2.php

Pro companies just do digital better. They have more R&D resources and have been using the tech longer. Try this piece and you will have no doubt.

tonyb

Looks like a neet device Mike, but only works on Mac's ?? Can't say I'd have use for all the other gizmos on there either though for the price seems like it should be up somones alley.

tonyb

Is their anything NOT up your alley Mike ? I mean that with lots of love brother.:cheesygrin:

SolidSqual

Keiko wrote: »

Yeah, mine! :razz:

Don't have all the funds right now, so gonna go with the AIOS for 99.00 and see how it works out. Plenty of time to upgrade later on.

The Mac platform is used heavily in the sound and video editing industries as you are well aware. I think one reason is that Apple computers offer a stable and predictable platform. Less hardware variations meas less bugs and a better sounding product.

mjg

This could not have come at a better time for me. I am looking to move away from the CDP as it is a pain always having to change CD's. I did not have a clue how to proceed and what I needed to buy. As I understand it, I should start by purchasing DB Power Amp and Squeezebox Touch( combined about $270.00). Would I then need to buy a DAC, or could I just use the Touch? My 2 channel sytem consists of a Audio Mirror T-61 pre, Bryston 4B-ST amp and Salk Songtower speakers. (I do also own 2 sets of Polks, Moniter 5's and 7's with the 7's now in a bedroom system) I have a windows 7 machine with about 880 GB spare on the hard drive. Should I store the files there or purchase an external drive for that purpose? Do I need a seperate program for playback or do I use the DB Power amp? I know this is a lot of questions, but I can't afford to spend money 2 or 3 times to try and get it right. I would like to get it right the first time. Thanks in advance for any help you can give. Maurice

tonyb

Maurice, re read this thread as your answers are all there. Down load DB power amp then rip your cd's with that, in flac. Store the files in either Media monkey or J rivers. I also have a windows 7 machine and have about 400 cd's ripped with only 30 gigs of memory used up. I also use Rhapsody music service which is nice and find I don't have to rip too much anymore because alot of what I like is available on Rhapsody. Try it first without an additional dac and see how you like it, can always add one later.

mjg

Thanks tonyb, Do you recomend the free version of MM or the gold?

Bobsama

You can setup file management in dbPowerAmp so the files are put into their appropriate folders. Here's the string I use for mine...

[album artist]\([year]) [album]\[disc].[track] [title]

Also, buying a license is unnecessary, at least to start. Try using it and let the trial expire. If any features you use are now missing, then you should buy a license. It's really worthwhile. I use Foobar2000 it displays my library "by folder structure", so I need those consistent folders and file names.

If you need a Squeezebox or not really depends on how you want the system setup. It's still suggested that you use an external DAC, especially if this is setup on a coffee table. You'll probably need a long cable, too, to reach either preamp (RCA) or DAC (S/PDIF optical or coax). I'd also suggest a wired network connection, instead of relying upon WiFi.