MP3 player through my system

heiney9

madmax wrote: »

Some day I need to know what that means...
madmax

EAC- Exact Audio Copy
Ripping- Copying digital information from one medium to another
FLAC- Free Lossless Audio Codec

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Lossless_Audio_Codec

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exact_Audio_Copy



H9

Lowell_M

heiney9 wrote: »

Well Apple lossless isn't the same as a real cd.
H9

Why not? I've been using Apple lossless for my library and periodically writing a mixed CD. My ears can't hear a difference between the originally and a ripped, then re-burnt copy. An original track that is HDCD, comes through as HDCD when re-burnt and everythign sounds like it is still there.

Did I miss your point, or am I just mis-informed? I've spent a boat load of time ripping to Apple lossless, so if FLAC is better I'd rather switch now and build from here.

What program do you use to manage the FLAC files? I'm interested in giving it a shot if it is better.

Lowell_M

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lossless_comparison#Comparison_Table

I haven't read to see what this tells me yet, but looks like there's lots o'info there about lossless formats. Looks like FLAC is definately the most flexible. Not sure about the comparison from Apple lossless to FLAC yet.

heiney9

Aaron it's my undertanding that Apple lossless is NOT and exact copy of the original. I was raised <lol> on FLAC and using it in conjuction with EAC gives absolute bit perfect copies.

I admit I don't have much real world experience with Apple lossless but I have read and been told that while it sounds great it's not an exact copy so I never bothered to use it. Right now I just use FOOBAR to play FLAC files because I can set it for Kernel streaming which is a pure digital feed. Many,if not all other, software playbac programs do some sort of processing which means it's no longer the pure 1's and 0's anymore.

I occasionally use WINAMP but it always uses a processor when outputting and I find a slight degredation is SQ using WINAMP vs. FOOBAR. I am in the process of planning to buy more HD space and set up a server using the Squeezbox connected to my DAC. I just want to do it right the first time like my brother did, except on a smaller less complicated and more budget friendly scale.

I also prefer ripping and archiving my own music....not purchasing it from Amazon or Apple or whatever. I want complete control over the process to ensure it's the best possible. Plus, I'm not paying for compressed music unless it's extremely rare or only offered in that format like several rarities at www.wolfgangsvault.com

H9

P.s. When we get together again we can discuss furthur and if Blakeh (my brother) is there he can really get much more technical than I can about the computer end of it.

wingnut4772

So how do we get our music to FLAC EAC. I am assuming this would only apply to ripping our cds?

heiney9

wingnut4772 wrote: »

So how do we get our music to FLAC EAC. I am assuming this would only apply to ripping our cds?

Yes, but I think you will find in the future more places may offer FLAC files. I'm not sure how they rip though. It is possible to make poor FLAC files. It's also possible for a recording studio to transfer high amounts of jitter to a pressing or master pressing and it will be there forever.

H9

Face

I've been using WMP lossless, sounds great to me and is very simple to use. For playback, Foobar sounds probably the best, then winamp, and WMP.

Face

Ok...here we go.

I'm listening to Nirvana's Bleach on LP on a Rega P1, Goldring Electra Cartridge. At the same time I have Bleach playing on my PC via Foobar2000 and ripped WMP lossless.

The rest of my equipment is Tannoy Saturn S8 towers, Signal Ultra Bi-Wire speaker cables, McIntosh MX115 tuner/pre, McIntosh MC7270 amp, Camelot Arthur v3.0 DAC, Goertz/Alpha Core Sapphire Interconnects. Pure AV PF60 for line conditioning.

I've been switching between the two sources to compare them.

Granted, this isn't the best source recording, but the only album I can find both on CD and LP that I can appreciate.

The detail seems to be a little better on the LP, and the LP is also warmer. For some reason, the digital source sounds a little further away? That's the best way I could put it. Regardless, they both sound great to me.

I'm going to do some more listening and see if I can come up with anything else.

EDIT: the digital's brightness is partially due to the crappy interconnect on the TT compared to the pricey silver I/C between the DAC and pre.

Yashu

I hear the P1 is a fine starter TT. Stereophile did a review and you should check it out and see if what you are hearing matches up with what they heard... then you can know if it is the TT/cartridge, or the ICs.

Also... are both albums issued from the same master? Stuff that has been remastered for CD can be a little lifeless once the record label steps in and tells the engineer to make it louder.

sucks2beme

As always, the medium for music playback is subject to the source material.
Garbage in, Garbage out! The best source can be undone by a sound guy pushing all the sliders to top!

Face

sucks2beme wrote: »

Garbage in, Garbage out! The best source can be undone by a sound guy pushing all the sliders to top!

I couldn't agree more. My system is very revealing and it's very disappointing to hear CDs released from popular artists that sound like garbage. Spend the money to have it done right.

Yashu

They spend a lot of money to make them sound as bad as they do... it is not overly expensive to make a good recording. I listen to mostly indie stuff, and there are a lot of wonderful recordings done in makeshift studios across the globe. Some of the best classical music recordings are done with a very minimal setup... with vintage equipment, no less.

When you are a band in modern times, having a big label sign you is pretty much akin to signing away your soul, or at least your rights to make your records sound the way you want. The big labels have studios costing millions and millions... it is almost a crime what they do.

bigaudiofanatic

HAHAHa well i am just telling you the apple lossless is NOT compressed at all thats why it takes to much room and useing a 3.5 headphone jak to a set of rca is just terreable and compramises your sound plus that means the the built in sound in the computer has to amplify it before it even sends it to the reciever. But hey whatever I entered my 2 cents take it or leave it.

bigaudiofanatic

This is somewhat true maximun pc even did a test it was last mounths issue about compressed audio and some pros could not tell the difference but like i said this is my opinion on the situation and me personaly i own over 230 cd's and have all of them in itunes in lossless and it might be that i dont own very expensive front speakers but i can not hear the difference.

shack

Sona wrote:

Shack, ouch! You should be wearing earplugs while mowing! What is that doing to your ears? I don't know those headphones though, maybe they enable you to listen to very low volumes over mower noise, but it just sounds wrong!

I've been mowing yards for 45 years WITHOUT earplugs. No need to start now and my hearing is still just fine. (BTW the Sens aren't used outdoors...that is for the POS earbuds.)

Yashu

Well, the sens are open headphones, it wouldn't make sense to use them outdoors.

Is apple lossless m4a? Because this is not lossless. This is a lossy mpeg 4 format.

shack

Yashu wrote: »

Well, the sens are open headphones, it wouldn't make sense to use them outdoors.

Didn't bother to look at the picture did you? If it wasn't obvious from the picture...the model #HD280Pro might have been the next clue. They are a fully closed set of headphones.

Lowell_M

Yashu wrote: »

Well, the sens are open headphones, it wouldn't make sense to use them outdoors.

Is apple lossless m4a? Because this is not lossless. This is a lossy mpeg 4 format.

Apple Lossless isn't mpeg 4, it's...well... Apple lossless.

mpeg 4 is compressed and NOT lossless.

wingnut4772

Got my squeezebox today. I can't play the Flac files wireless right?

heiney9

wingnut4772 wrote: »

Got my squeezebox today. I can't play the Flac files wireless right?

You CAN play FLAC files wireless, if you are wireless capable. Run that **** thru the Benchmark

wingnut4772

heiney9 wrote: »

You CAN play FLAC files wireless, if you are wireless capable. Run that **** thru the Benchmark

Doin' it right now. But is that as good as the exact copy or is it compressed?

Music Joe

disregard

heiney9

wingnut4772 wrote: »

Doin' it right now. But is that as good as the exact copy or is it compressed?

FLAC is lossless compression. And your question is a loaded one. There is a difference between exact copy and lossless, maybe I'm splitting hairs but here it goes.

FLAC allows you to get a bit perfect copy IF you use EAC and have it optimized for your computer drive.

If you don't use EAC and have the settings set properly, technically it's not a bit perfect copy. Can one hear a difference some say they can some not.

So to sum up. FLAC is lossless and will make files indistinguishable from the original but it would only be considered BIT PERFECT if it's ripped accordingly. SO FLAC is NOT the culpret for less than exact bit perfect copies.

However FLAC, IMO is the best/only lossless format available if you are looking for audiophile/exact copies of your cd's.

H9

wingnut4772

heiney9 wrote: »

FLAC is lossless compression. And your question is a loaded one. There is a difference between exact copy and lossless, maybe I'm splitting hairs but here it goes.

FLAC allows you to get a bit perfect copy IF you use EAC and have it optimized for your computer drive.

If you don't use EAC and have the settings set properly, technically it's not a bit perfect copy. Can one hear a difference some say they can some not.

So to sum up. FLAC is lossless and will make files indistinguishable from the original but it would only be considered BIT PERFECT if it's ripped accordingly. SO FLAC is NOT the culpret for less than exact bit perfect copies.

However FLAC, IMO is the best lossless format available if you are looking for audiophile/exact copies of your cd's.

H9

I did use EAC. Thanks for the links Music Joe

wingnut4772

WOWEE! This thing sounds so sweet with the Benchmark!:D

heiney9

wingnut4772 wrote: »

WOWEE! This thing sounds so sweet with the Benchmark!:D

:cool: :cool:

Yashu

m4a is a lossy format. You can choose your encoding bitrate just like you can with mp3... like 128, or 192.

If m4a is truly what apple calls it's lossless format, then it is not at all lossless.

I KNOW m4a is lossy, but I do not know if m4a is the format that apple calls "apple lossless". I can't say whether apple lossless is truly what it says because I don't know. I only know that .m4a is a lossy format.

wingnut4772

Does the router matter?

heiney9

Sona wrote: »

If not, with large, low cost hard drives you might want to keep your library completely uncompressed.

EAC ripped WAV files converted to FLAC = exact bit fot bit copies at about 20-30% file size vs. uncompressed WAV files. That's where it's at.

Music Joe

wingnut4772 wrote: »

WOWEE! This thing sounds so sweet with the Benchmark!:D

Right on!
I'm streaming WMA lossless via wireless no problems.

Have you played with the Internet music streams? The ambient stations sound pretty decent for shocking low stream rates.