Confessions of a Squeezebox NOOB!

mcgsxr · « **Reply #20 on:** 9 Dec 2005, 09:52 pm »

Wireless repeater from eBay arrived today - plug and play.

Wireless signal up from 30% to 92%...

Perfect.

JRace · « **Reply #21 on:** 9 Dec 2005, 10:53 pm »

Quote from: Gizmo

Has anyone tried Yahoo's Music engine? It allows you to rip your cd's in a number of different formats including FLAC. It seems like this would be easier than using the EAC/FLAC combo. I am totally clueless when it comes to this stuff, I was just looking for the simplest solution to archive my CD collection in the FLAC format.

I would appreciate someones opinion on whether this Yahoo ripper works the same way as the other ways described here.

Thanks,

David

EAC is recomended because it has been proven to do bit perfect extraction. Not sure if the Yahoo one does or not.

Papajin · « **Reply #22 on:** 10 Dec 2005, 05:17 am »

As to EAC, my only complaint is that the software seems rather unstable to me. I can be going along burning 20 CD's and suddenly it will stop with an error in the middle of a rip and shut itself down, etc. I've also had CD's it just wouldn't start the burn process -- it was really weird. Normally when I do a burn with my setup, I tell it to write an image with a cue sheet so at the start of the process it asks me what output filename I want to use. On several CD's the screen would flash for a second, and never show the dialogue. No error message or anything. It never even spins the drive up!

If most of you are like me your CD's are by and large in pristine condition so the benefits of EAC aren't nearly as important. All we really need is ripping software that will let us know if there were any errors in the rip. In most cases there won't be so EAC wouldn't be necessary. I'd just use EAC if I was having trouble with a CD in that case. I haven't yet investigated other software yet though to see if another ripper would do what I need and report if there were any problems with the read.

Oh and this is for Jrace:

Just wanted to say that I tried clicking on the link on the bottom of your sig about the Hand Crafted Guitars, and the link didn't work right. Might wanna look at that. I'm not really looking for one, just was curious.

beatdownvictim · « **Reply #23 on:** 14 Dec 2005, 10:53 am »

okay all, i'm absolutely and i mean absolutely in the most absolute terms, terrified, mortified and any "fied" in the dictionary with the prospect of using EAC.

Now that i've gotten that out of the way, would i be castigated and beaten with a baseball bat if i were to use apple lossless with the SB? Or god forbid, Windows Media Lossless???

I know this is about the trials and tribulations regarding EAC, but i've been known to destroy computers because i'm terrible, and i mean egregious when using computers.

But the question i have here is, how would apple lossless or Windows media Lossless compare with FLAC? what kind of advantages and disadvantages are there with using apple lossless? it's so much more simple, and even someone like myself could do it. Could somebody help or reassure me that Apple Lossless is a good medium? I feel like one of those kids that hang out on the playground by themselves, while everyone else is playing tag happily together.

Help! or is there an easier way to rip in FLAC? The EAC program is entirely way over my head. Sorry for ruining the winning steak.

Thanks all, and for all of you who understand how to use EAC with FLAC, props to all of you.

Regards,
Carson (the computer illiterate audio dude)

ctviggen · « **Reply #24 on:** 14 Dec 2005, 11:19 am »

"lossless" means that the original data (data on the hard drive, not the CD) can be exactly recreated. This means that if the input data is the same, Apple lossless and FLAC will produce the exact same output (after decompression). The benefit to EAC is that it attempts to get the data off the CD exactly correct, therefore meaning that the data stored on the hard drive will be "correct" as compared to the data on the CD. It's unclear how good of a job iTunes does at this. I currently have all of my music in AAC and it sounds good on my second system. I have, however, set up EAC and FLAC, but I need to get around to reburning all my CDs. Maybe when I do this, I'll have iTunes extract a few disks in Apple lossles and compare with the same disks extracted using EAC.

By the way, this is a relatively simple method for setting up EAC:

http://users.pandora.be/satcp/eac-qs-en.htm

JLM · « **Reply #25 on:** 14 Dec 2005, 11:35 am »

A "relatively simple" method for setting up one of three programs needed to use SB thats 25 pages long!

I've received a fully Vinnized SB3; have made the physical connections; and have downloaded (something?) from EAC, FLAC, and Slimdevices; but have yet to crack the nut (do whatever setup is required) in order to burn a single CD.

ctviggen · « **Reply #26 on:** 14 Dec 2005, 12:51 pm »

Sorry, I thought it was relatively simple, considereing it took me little time to download the programs and set them up as per the cited document. However, I'm also an engineer and don't find this stuff that complex. I can understand that not everyone thinks as I do, and you're right in that others might not consider it to be simple.

ctviggen · « **Reply #27 on:** 14 Dec 2005, 01:02 pm »

I do have to say that iTunes is about 1000 times easier to use than the SB. I simply abhor the web interface of the SB, especially compared to the iTunes interface. I personally find web interfaces clumsy and confusing. For instance, it's really easy to make a playlist in iTunes; in slim server, I had to read the manual and I have to read the manual each time I want to make a playlist. By contrast, I don't know if iTunes even has a manual.

You can download and use iTunes. Then, you just have slim server look at iTunes for your playlists, etc. I would just change in iTunes the AAC to Apple Lossless.

jp1 · « **Reply #28 on:** 14 Dec 2005, 09:37 pm »

I asked this question a million times in prior entries, and no one was able to point to a single technical reason that FLAC is better than ITunes for ripping. Just go with ITunes lossless, and be sure to click error correction on. FLAC is too much of a PITA.

JohnnyLightOn · « **Reply #29 on:** 14 Dec 2005, 10:41 pm »

Does iTunes have a secure ripping mode with the same type of error correction as EAC? If so, FLAC won't be any better than iTunes. But if iTunes does not have these features, you may not get as good a rip as using EAC. Does iTunes take as long as it needs, even a few hours if necessary, to get an accurate rip? If so, that would seem like a good indication that its error correction is similar to EAC.

EAC allows you to set the offset of your drive for better accuracy (you can look your drive up on a table, or download free software that will determine it for you) and has excellent secure-mode ripping with error correction. It may take a couple hours of learning and work to set it up, but once set it's very easy to use. Lots of things in this hobby take work, such as speaker positioning, trying out different gear and wires, etc. etc. You get out of it what you put into it.

iTunes is a fantastic program for controlling what music your computer plays from the computer keyboard itself, however. I use it every day on my laptop with headphones.

Horizons · « **Reply #30 on:** 15 Dec 2005, 12:11 am »

Quote from: jp1

I asked this question a million times in prior entries, and no one was able to point to a single technical reason that FLAC is better than ITunes for ripping. Just go with ITunes lossless, and be sure to click error correction on. FLAC is too much of a PITA.

I asked this question too on multiple message boards. On some boards, they will resort to calling you an idiot for not tackling and mastering EAC. Everyone touts the superiority of EAC but no one seems to want to use basic scientific processes to determine if ITunes can rip as accurately as EAC. I have a sneaking feeling that it does a similar job in all but the most heavily damaged CDs.

Just how much error correction is required with the average worn CD? I have over 1000 CDs and 99% of them are in pristine condition.

mcgsxr · « **Reply #31 on:** 15 Dec 2005, 01:17 am »

All good points, and interesting breadth of comfort with PC operation, it would seem too.

Here is my take - having only ripped 45 cd's, only 3 of them had errors, that had to be dealt with, using EAC - by this I mean that 42 of the 45 ripped simply, and 100% accurately, in less than 25 minutes each.

So, in my case, it is possible that, for those 42 cd's, ITUNES would have done the trick.

It took me about 2 tries, and probably around 1 hour, to get that 25 page tutorial working for me - the real thing to understand is that it addresses MANY differing external compression formats, and that takes up about 15-18 of those 25 pages.

Really, there is just the first section, that provides in detail with screenshots, how to setup EAC.

Then, it gets into what external compression format you want to use, and has an associated section, with screenshots, for each of those formats. If you are not using any but one of those formats, then you simply need to scroll down to the one you want, use those setup tips, and you are done.

For the simplest, could you not simply use WAV files? EAC will do that right out of the box, with no additional s/w of any kind.

Sure, you will need more hd space, but depending on the size of your library, it may not matter.

I do understand that not everyone has an easy time with s/w setup, but if you go really slowly, and keep reviewing the screenshots, that tutorial is actually the best I have found... which is to say, that if that one doesn't do it for you, perhaps you should use the ITUNES route, and use AAIF if that suits you.

Either way will get you your whole cd catalog on your PC, and make serving up your tunes dead simple, once it is all on your machine.

Hey, if this sales guy can do it...

jp1 · « **Reply #32 on:** 16 Dec 2005, 12:21 am »

carson:

Apple lossless & FLAC = music formats or codecs
itunes & EAC = burning software

Lossless formats are larger files than AAC, mpegs, etc because they are sampled at lower rates per second than lossless. A lossless file is slightly compressed to the extent that NO music quality is lost. A WAV file is completely uncompressed, but is gigantic and offers NO sound quality improvement over Lossless. if you want to never have to rip your cds again, go with lossless, as the music can be converted downwards, but never upwards into lossess from a lower-quality rip.
one thing to keep in mind is that the standard itunes rip is in 128kbps, where itunes lossless files are 10-12 times the size. (lossless files are 60% of WAV file size) you may have to purchase an external hard drive so that you dont completely overwhelm your pc.

Apple Lossless is an excellent format into which to burn your cds.
the only difference between flac and itunes is that flac is a non-proprietary codec, and itunes is "owned" by apple. in itunes favor however, there are ways of converting itunes lossless files to flac and back again, so you are not really locked in to the itunes format once burned. you have to look around for it using google, but there are hackers that do provide software for this.

itunes is also virtually as good at burning as EAC. the main difference between the 2 relates to how perfectly the software copy is "proven to the user" . EAC has a way to ensure and prove that every 0110100101010 has been copied correctly, where itunes just has a button to select. However, ifyou have not dragged your cds through sand, you should be ok with itunes as your burner.

i know its tough, i went through the same thing a couple months ago.

beatdownvictim · « **Reply #33 on:** 16 Dec 2005, 01:03 am »

ouch, thanks guys, i decided to go with itunes, and i've loaded 30 cds into my hard drive. I picked up an acomdata 160 gb external HD, and i think it's overkill. Anyway, thanks all again. I was going through the threads about flac and apple lossless and it doesn't seem too different, so i took the easy route. I haven't even hooked up my SB2 yet! damn, wireless b isn't going to help out much!

ToddSTS · « **Reply #34 on:** 16 Dec 2005, 04:54 am »

Quote from: mcgsxr

For the simplest, could you not simply use WAV files? EAC will do that right out of the box, with no additional s/w of any kind....

As I understand it, the big downside of wav is the lack of tags, besides the larger file size. The SB needs the tags to function properly right?

Todd

jp1 · « **Reply #35 on:** 16 Dec 2005, 07:20 pm »

not sure on the tags answer, but yes, lossless files are 60% of the size of wav files, with no corresponding loss in audio quality. go with lossless.

Rashiki · « **Reply #36 on:** 16 Dec 2005, 08:08 pm »

Quote from: ToddSTS

[As I understand it, the big downside of wav is the lack of tags, besides the larger file size. The SB needs the tags to function properly right?Todd

You can embed tags in your WAV files. I use a perl script to embed the artist, album, track name and track number tags in the WAV file. The slimserver distribution comes with the perl libraries to read/write tags in a WAV compatible format. I also have another perl script that scans through all of my WAV files and creates VBR MP3 files and embeds ID3 tags from the info stored in the WAV file. That way my CD ripping is very quick and I can do batch conversion to MP3 later. I store the WAV files for use with the squeezebox and use the MP3 files for my iPod and other players.

-Rob