Finally. Converting my stuff

bigaudiofanatic

Pauly wrote: »

Sounds like i might have to rethink. The Gems i have are CD or DVD or already Lossless, just wanted to try all my other stuff.... Will see if i hear a diff


Pauly

Ya Pauly you have to rip from the source so you have to get your cd's and start ripping. That is the only way you are going to get the best quality.

disneyjoe7

reeltrouble1 wrote: »

But I see no answers here so I guess I will just wait a bit more, no hurry, I will be visiting with my favorite Geek, a highly trained electronic technician near the House of the Mouse

Is that me.

Pauly

reeltrouble1 wrote: »

oh, enjoy the speaks Pauly, hopefully I will see you soon.

RT1

Yeah i just gotta get on I-4 and head East towards the house of mouse and pick them up. Hopefully this weekend.

Thanks again

Pauly

BlueFox

reeltrouble1 wrote: »

no, I got it from several sources far better than the internet.........but the report indicates what is lost does not matter.....

Still, that does not make it true. Lossless is lossless, nothing is lost. I have already posted on this subject in other threads so I am not going to bother anymore. stereophile compared an uncompressed Apple Lossless file to a .wav file and stated they were bit for bit identical. Nothing lost, nothing added.

bigaudiofanatic

I agree with blue on this one.

disneyjoe7

BlueFox wrote: »

Still, that does not make it true. Lossless is lossless, nothing is lost.

Don't believe everything your read. Believe what you believe in.

reeltrouble1

not looking to start a war about it, just different views from other knowlegeable Geeks, I do not have a clue if it actually is or is not, but I do have an advanced degree in Disinformation Bullshitiness and Spin........after all I live in a freakin Rabbit Hole (well sometimes I do)

its a huge step for me, yea, I am old and stubborn and like my music. so lets just say they are the same.........oK, so still how come I see bits is bits for HDMI wire, its still a signal, no actual number onesies or twosies just a representation through so called square waves......seems the same as a representation of an audio analog wave....no?????? I am just gestalting on the actual signal right now, so how are representations of these signals less important if digital over analog. So do you agree usb wire is a poor transmiter of the electrical signal sterophile reported it is not......ok ,maybe respresentation is not a good word, since they are both real electric signals which are able to be deciphered into sound.

and yes you little Mouse House Geek, I meant you...........btw did Tom call you?????????

also, ShackDaddy may have something coming from me for broaching the subject......and Doro....hooking that hideous looking thingy to my pre......I had to wait three days before the BAT circuits washed themselves clean from left over i-pod thingy imprints on their insides.

RT1

mmadden28

BlueFox wrote: »

Still, that does not make it true. Lossless is lossless, nothing is lost. I have already posted on this subject in other threads so I am not going to bother anymore. stereophile compared an uncompressed Apple Lossless file to a .wav file and stated they were bit for bit identical. Nothing lost, nothing added.

What did they compare? The resulting file after an Apple Lossless file was converted/decoded back to wav and they were identical?

I'm just puzzled how two different encoding schemes/algorithms can possibly result in a bit for bit identical file. UNLESS we are talking about the file once its converted back to WAV form from the Apple lossless file (in which case its no longer an Apple Lossless encoded file).

I'm going to have to try this and do some file checksum comparisons.

vc69

Theoretically, a lossless file, when converted back to its uncompressed PCM source, should be identical. The algorithm (codec) used to compress/decompress the file accomplishes this through some mathmagical (to me anyway) computations. MP3 slaughters the original data and has to guess at what used to be there upon decode. Lossless knows exactly what used to be there and puts it back upon decode.

I can pick an MP3 out blind every time. I can never tell the difference between FLAC and wave files. YMMV

BlueFox

mmadden28 wrote: »

What did they compare? The resulting file after an Apple Lossless file was converted/decoded back to wav and they were identical?

Yes. They did this in the review of the Wadia iTransport.

"Footnote 2: 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/budgetcomponents/1008wad/index.html

heiney9

EAC (Exact Audio Copy) is the only ripping program I am aware of that can rip bit for bit perfect copies. You have to run a series of tests with your drive so EAC can be optimized and then when you rip a WAV file it IS a bit for bit perfect copy.

A perfect bit of digital data includes many more parameters than "loosing" data. Bluefox you are equating bit perfect copies of data with no loss of data; when in fact you can use a lossless format and still not have a bit for bit exact perfect match of data because there are other parameters involved not just the "loss" of data.

Now the debate begins as to whether or not we can hear the difference's between a bit for bit perfect copy vs. a std "point and click" rip of a WAV file. I personally have tried in vain for a couple years now to hear a difference; and I can't. I was as skeptical as Ted is about digital wireless music (using a Squeezebox) and after about a year now I am completely and throughly pleased with the convenience of having a wireless server and I don't feel I have compromised anything (not one bit---pun intended) converting my cd's to FLAC files and streaming them wirelessly to the SQB which is run thru an outboard DAC.

Ted is correct in being super paranoid..............because much of it does no compute to us old folks who need to super analyze something like this.

I am not saying there isn't a difference between the cd and a ripped WAV file I just haven't been able to detect it and I'm a super anal audiophile who hears every little change. (not talking about then converting it to lossless)

H9

vc69

Not to mention the "jitter free" aspect of reading files from a HD vs a spinning disc/transport.
There is a case to be made that it (H9's approach) is a superior way of playing back digitally encoded music.

BlueFox

vc69 wrote: »

Not to mention the "jitter free" aspect of reading files from a HD vs a spinning disc/transport.
There is a case to be made that it (H9's approach) is a superior way of playing back digitally encoded music.

You still get jitter from a HD. However, it appears to be reduced, but other areas can add it back in. A good digital interconnect cable and a good DAC can greatly reduce it to below audibility.

One thing that is overlooked in these discussions is that with the right digital music server you can download high-rez master files (24 bit 96K sampling, etc.) before they get "compressed" to CD quality (16 bit 44K sampling). That is my next digital purchase.

I just have to find the right device at the right price. Then the only CDs that need to be bought are the ones with no high-res files available for online purchase. Of course, I will have to buy a DVD or BR disk burner to make backups, but that should be a minor expense.

vc69

I use a HTPC to play back 24/96 files. The only ones that I have that are source confirmed are bootlegs recorded at 24/96 and not downrezzed and "The Slip" from NiN as a free download. You can go to NIN.com for details.

reeltrouble1

well I karma'd my NIN disc.....not for me.....ok I am getting little bits (hehehe) out of this....and i do love each of you and your geek speak. we all dig music.

brock yes, some of what you said is in the research I have been doing about the so-named lossless

so nobody has a way to get my SACD/DVD-A's (I have about 175 of them) onto some harddrive??? I am certainly not going to buy these again even if available, so then what is the point....all things equal SACD sounds much better than RedBook to me, but of course I still listen to Redbook and it seems I always will.

RT1

WilliamM2

so nobody has a way to get my SACD/DVD-A's (I have about 175 of them) onto some harddrive???

SACD is not able to be transferred to a HD.

I use my SACD player to play all SACD's, but still like having all my CD's on a hard drive. CD's make up the bulk of my collection anyways.

bigaudiofanatic

SACD's can not be ripped to the hard drive. None of the drives support them. Also people an argue all they want about lossless and all but the thing is you compress music "takes up less space" and it you rip that same thing in lossless it takes up "more space" so plain and simple things go missing when compressed and can not be recovered.

reeltrouble1

bummer......but that is what I thought about hi-rez but hoped someone had a reach around. OK so that ends that thought since I have a player that does the job for SACD and Redbook I might as well stand pat for now. Thanks though. or maybe not......if I got a SACD player with a super dac inside it and a digital input I could use some sort of "you cannot hear the difference" lossless format and load my redbook into some sort of decent HD transport then I could sit my arse in the seat I guess, except for the vinyl......hopeless, I use too many formats......doro said something about simplifying, maybe this is what he was getting at, but I sure do love vinyl.

RT1

LessisNevermore

reeltrouble1 wrote: »

so nobody has a way to get my SACD/DVD-A's (I have about 175 of them) onto some harddrive??? I am certainly not going to buy these again even if available, so then what is the point....all things equal SACD sounds much better than RedBook to me, but of course I still listen to Redbook and it seems I always will.

RT1

RT1, I was able to extract the 2-channel 24/96 track from a DVD-A with this program.(saved as FLAC) It comes as an unrestricted 30 day demo, but if you have enough discs to warrant the purchase, it's not a bad little program.

Tagging of the individual tracks doesn't seem to be part of the program, though you could easily do this with another program.

http://www.castudio.org/dvdaudioextractor/

I can't believe no one has been able to crack the SACD format....It'd be nice to have the option to back them up.

heiney9

bigaudiofanatic wrote: »

Also people an argue all they want about lossless and all but the thing is you compress music "takes up less space" and it you rip that same thing in lossless it takes up "more space" so plain and simple things go missing when compressed and can not be recovered.

That is a grossly untrue statement. Lossless Compression DOES NOT equal loss of data. Compression or conversion or ripping may not give you a bit perfect duplicate but it has nothing to do with loss of data; PERIOD!

reeltrouble1

LessisNevermore wrote: »

RT1, I was able to extract the 2-channel 24/96 track from a DVD-A with this program.(saved as FLAC) It comes as an unrestricted 30 day demo, but if you have enough discs to warrant the purchase, it's not a bad little program.

hmmm.......interesting then I would not need a seperate DVD-A player....I only have a few DVD-A about five or so but I like them.....Eagles, Queen, Fagen, Sinatra, Fleetwood Mac and a couple others, I keep a universal in the rack for back-up sacd source and to play the DVD-A when I want to......that component and wire and foundation and energy source could be eliminated along with my back-up Redbook only player and its related foundation, energy and cabling requirements.......so I might be able to lose two components and there other requirements for one big hard drive transport thing along with its related requirements. still though if the one SACD goes down...I am SOL until it returns, one problem with hi-fi pieces is although it sounds great its finicky stuff prone to anomolies of all manner.

Thanks lessisnm.

RT1

heiney9

Bigaudio,

Compression using a lossy format will discard whole bits of info it doesn't deem necessary in order to decrease the file size. Ex. 100 bits is reduced 65 bits by discarding 35 bits of information, never to be recovered.

Compression using a lossless format will retain all the bits of info; Ex. 100 bits is still 100 bits. The compression scheme is just like WINZIP it retains all the original information but packs into a smaller file.

Both of the above example require extraction from the original WAV file. This is where exact bit for bit copies of the original might be compromised by a poor extraction program or process. All the bits are present but they may not be an exact, perfect, mirror image, duplicate of the original bit of information.

The debate (for me) comes at this point, are the very slight differences in the original bits of info on the cd discernable from the extracted bits used to make either a WAV file or lossless file? To me, I haven't been able to hear a difference.

If you use a Ripping (extracting) program like EAC (Exact Audio Copy) and have it optimized for your cd-rom drive then you should be getting exact bit for bit copies of digital information contained on whatever media your copying.

H9

heiney9

LessisNevermore wrote: »

RT1, I was able to extract the 2-channel 24/96 track from a DVD-A with this program.(saved as FLAC) It comes as an unrestricted 30 day demo, but if you have enough discs to warrant the purchase, it's not a bad little program.

Tagging of the individual tracks doesn't seem to be part of the program, though you could easily do this with another program.

http://www.castudio.org/dvdaudioextractor/

I can't believe no one has been able to crack the SACD format....It'd be nice to have the option to back them up.

Don;t you need a DAC capable of decoding SACD or DVD-A then? Or are you talking just for archival purposes or ripping for friends, etc.?

reeltrouble1

yea brock I think you would, crap.

I think I will just buy some speakers..................hehehehehehe

RT1

tcrossma

heiney9 wrote: »

The debate (for me) comes at this point, are the very slight differences in the original bits of info on the cd discernable from the extracted bits used to make either a WAV file or lossless file? To me, I haven't been able to hear a difference.H9

Not trying to take this thread on too much of a tangent, but are you saying that if I were to rip a CD to a .WAV file 5 times, that each resulting .WAV file would be slightly different? Or are you thinking that the drive might read it (incorrectly) the same way every time?

LessisNevermore

heiney9 wrote: »

Don;t you need a DAC capable of decoding SACD or DVD-A then? Or are you talking just for archival purposes or ripping for friends, etc.?

Not possible for SACD. Ripping DVD-A, works the same as CD. The DAC I have truncates it to 48k vice 96. But the 24/96 file (stereo) is still in tact. A more capable (read:modern) DAC will handle these just fine. I haven't tried any multi-channel, because it won't work through a stereo only DAC.

heiney9

tcrossma wrote: »

Not trying to take this thread on too much of a tangent, but are you saying that if I were to rip a CD to a .WAV file 5 times, that each resulting .WAV file would be slightly different? Or are you thinking that the drive might read it (incorrectly) the same way every time?

Most likely the drive will read it the same way everytime. With EAC there is an optimization routine you go thru when you first set the program up (not sure how it works) but it somehow compensates or calculates the drives parameters and then everytime you use EAC with that drive it should extract bit perfect copies.

If you change drives then you need to run the optimization again after you install the new drive.

Many of the point and click type ripping programs will not make a bit for bit perfect copy that includes Apple, etc.

My only point is lossless is, just that, lossless and it doesn't mean you will get a bit perfect copy (depending on the program and the process you use), but just because you aren't getting a bit perfect copy doesn't mean information has been lost.

Also there are thousands of extraction programs out there, many of them I'm sure aren't concerned with bit for bit 100% accurate extraction. I have found EAC to be the most reliable and correct and it's been my preference for a very long time.

H9

vc69

tcrossma wrote: »

Not trying to take this thread on too much of a tangent, but are you saying that if I were to rip a CD to a .WAV file 5 times, that each resulting .WAV file would be slightly different? Or are you thinking that the drive might read it (incorrectly) the same way every time?

No. If you rip with EAC you will get exactly the same file every time. With exactly the same checksum.

SACD is not readable on any computer drive I have seen, and because it is a niche format, probably won't be supported.

DVD-A can be extracted as has been pointed out. It works pretty well and sounds great.

My take: I gave up ripping all my stuff to a server a while back due to lazyness/frustration. It's a lot of work and I use my HTPC for movie watching these days and need the HD space. I am less anal about that experience anyway.

heiney9

Ideally you should extract the WAV file as the first step (in EAC in secure mode) this will take forever. Then convert the WAV file to FLAC. I used to do that, but since I can't hear one iota difference between doing it that way or converting on the fly (which is about 10-50 times faster) I don;t do it the old way anymore. I'd be here a lifetime extracting then converting all my music if I did the former way.

tcrossma

H9 - I understand the difference between lossless and a bit-perfect copy. But what I was trying to ask is if you do NOT use EAC (let's assume just your standard Media Player RIP), will you get the same .WAV file every time?

How about if you rip the same CD with Media Player on a different computer (read: different CD drive). Will the .WAV file be different than the .WAV file that was created on the first computer?

If the .WAV file is created the exact same each time (and I don't know if they are or aren't, which is why I'm asking) then how can we think that it is not a perfect bit-for-bit copy being ripped?

It seems to me that if there was some type of "errors" being introduced when ripping, that the resulting .WAV file would be different each time. If you rip something 10 times and it's identical every time (especially across multiple computers), I don't see how there can be anything but a perfect bit-for-bit copy of the original.

I'm genuinely curios, and not trying to be argumentative.