Lossless--Better late than never...

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 3782 times.

craig in SD

Lossless--Better late than never...
« on: 9 Jan 2014, 04:29 am »
My large music collection is in various lossy formats, mostly 128 kbps - 320 kbps mp3 and ogg.  I began copying my CD collection to a hard drive about 11 years ago, when I got my first Audiotron (anyone remember those?)  Every few years I revisit my default ripping settings to optimize the sound quality/storage space tradeoff.  I've been very happy with the quality of 320 kbps mp3s lately, and given the convenience of downloading them directly online, have mostly stopped collecting shiny discs in favor of such downloads.  For example, a 320 kbps mp3 download from Amazon of the Minnesota Orchestra performing Copeland's Appalachian Spring (Oue) sounds rather amazing.  The original recording and mastering has an awful lot to do with the final sound quality.

But for Christmas I did receive a copy of John Williams' Star Wars Episode I soundtrack on CD.  I haven't ripped a serious recording (not talkiin' Taylor Swift or Salena Gomez here) for over a year I think.  For the heck of it I ripped the John Williams to mp3 and FLAC to do a side-by-side comparison in my relatively new listening room, with new NAD D7050 and new-to-me Squeezebox Touch (both less than a year old) driving my 13 year old Monitor Audio Silver 5s.  I'll be darned if I didn't immediatly hear the improvement in the lossless version, and I mean things went from 10 to 11!  I suppose I never had gear until recently that allowed me to discern the difference, and by then I was committed to a downloading lifestyle. 

My new D7050 already gave me the bug to rediscover my whole music collection, and this FLAC exercise has just stoked the fire.  Well, I have a terabyte of NAS storage and can easily add more, so I have no reason not to start re-ripping all my high-quality CDs to FLAC now, starting with my favorites.  Except for a really busy job, 2 kids, a new puppy, and the fact that we will be moving in a few months and I'm likely to lose my listening room :-(  Damn this hobby!  I started with my Chesky HDCD remasters of the Beethoven Symphonies.

Where do you folks buy your music?  How many still buy CDs and rip them to a server yourselves?  How many exclusively download music online?  I don't necessarily want to pay the sometimes exorbitant prices for high-res (24/96, 24/192) downloads, but I'd like to migrate to buying FLAC files for serious listening, and I sure prefer downloading to handling silver discs.  I've found quite a few download sites for Hi-Res downloads, especially of esoteric recordings, but not a lot of redbook-quality lossless downloads of mainstream recordings.  Does anyone have suggestions for music download sites?  I should say that I'm a dedicated Linux and Android user, so even HD Tracks is a PITA to use, but Amazon's Android app works great.  They just don't offer lossless formats.

Cheers!
Craig

dB Cooper

Re: Lossless--Better late than never...
« Reply #1 on: 9 Jan 2014, 12:52 pm »
I (mostly) buy CDs because a lot of music is still only available that way and I can often buy a CD on the used market for the same or less as a download from itunes or amazon. But there is s growing part of my library where I have never even played the actual CD. Straight to FLAC they go and that's what I play. I keep a lossless copy on an external HD and a lower rate copy on my computer.

I have found that by the time I get to 320K AAC or mp3 that I would need a direct A-B to dependably tell the difference (versus FLAC). But it's there. Roger Sanders, maker of electrostatic speakers, says the difference between 192K mp3 and anything higher is inaudible. (There's an active thread here containing an interview where he says just that. I don't agree.)

I didn't know amazon had 320K material; thought everything there was 256K. Gotta look into that. Have you ever listened to the BBC 320K stream? It sounds great. It is accessible through itunes or I can send you the url if you PM me.

Ripping is a chore. Got (or know) a teenager you could bribe to do it? BTW, turns out all rippers do not deliver bit perfect rips. EAC seems to be the ripper of choice on Windows and XLD on the Mac.

toddbagwell

Re: Lossless--Better late than never...
« Reply #2 on: 9 Jan 2014, 01:21 pm »
I buy most of my CD's from amazon, great selection and with a prime account, shipping is free. Good used selection on lots of albums as well.

I generally only browse HDtracks for HiRez downloads. I've ripped a few DVD-A and Blu-ray discs, but haven't gotten in the habit of buying these to rip.

Don't sweat the rips, do your favorite discs every so often, especially if you have other versions you can listen to.
I've been using dbpoweramp to do my rips, seems to do a good job.

to summarize:
CDs-> amazon
Hirez-> HDtracks or rip bluray
Dbpoweramp to rip.


todd

toocool4

Re: Lossless--Better late than never...
« Reply #3 on: 9 Jan 2014, 01:24 pm »
Have you seen this debate about FLAC Vs WAV ?

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=120268.0

fiveoclockfriday

Re: Lossless--Better late than never...
« Reply #4 on: 9 Jan 2014, 01:28 pm »
There are some places to buy lossless but not high res (or not specifically high res like HD Tracks). I've had good luck with all of these, but much of it is lesser known artists and things.

- Bandcamp http://www.bandcamp.com
- Bleep http://www.bleep.com
- Boomkat http://www.boomkat.com
- Qobuz http://www.qobuz.com (the site is French but you can use PayPal and it works just fine for US customers)
- CD Baby http://www.cdbaby.com



JerryLove

Re: Lossless--Better late than never...
« Reply #5 on: 9 Jan 2014, 06:17 pm »
But for Christmas I did receive a copy of John Williams' Star Wars Episode I soundtrack on CD.  I haven't ripped a serious recording (not talkiin' Taylor Swift or Salena Gomez here) for over a year I think.  For the heck of it I ripped the John Williams to mp3 and FLAC to do a side-by-side comparison in my relatively new listening room, with new NAD D7050 and new-to-me Squeezebox Touch (both less than a year old) driving my 13 year old Monitor Audio Silver 5s.  I'll be darned if I didn't immediatly hear the improvement in the lossless version, and I mean things went from 10 to 11!  I suppose I never had gear until recently that allowed me to discern the difference, and by then I was committed to a downloading lifestyle. 
Meh. The best argument for ripping loss-less is that you won't get generational loss if you convert formats in the future. Given the very low costs of storage: the space-saving advantage of lossy formats is not existent.

If you perceive a superior output: that's icing on the cake.

Quote
Where do you folks buy your music?
Mostly from Amazon; but wherever I can find the best copy at the lowest price.

Quote
  How many still buy CDs and rip them to a server yourselves?  How many exclusively download music online?
I do both. Amazon has a lovely "buy the CD and we'll give you the MP3s now" program. Since I'm a prime member (free shipping) buying the CD is oft cheaper.

Quote
I've found quite a few download sites for Hi-Res downloads, especially of esoteric recordings, but not a lot of redbook-quality lossless downloads of mainstream recordings.  Does anyone have suggestions for music download sites?
The real problem with recording quality right now is the lack of dynamic range.

I've got a bunch of the lossless "Studio Master" quality stuff from Linn; and much of it is 6-9db of dynamic range and sounds poor (by contrast: one of my CD's has a song with 20db DR). A common problem seems to be the focus on the medium's dynamic limits (bit depth) and frequency limits (sample rate) with little regard for the actual range *used* by the recording. 16/44 is a *lot* of music if fully used.

craig in SD

Re: Lossless--Better late than never...
« Reply #6 on: 9 Jan 2014, 06:50 pm »
Well, this thread got me wondering what format dominates my collection.  I could actually only find one 320 kbps mp3, and it is _So_, recently downloaded directly from PeterGabriel.com, not amazon.  I was surprised to see my recent mp3 rip of the John Williams was only 190 kbps--I need to go check my default settings in Sound Juicer!  This more than anything else might explain the difference I heard compared to FLAC.  Most of my recent amazon purchases have been around 256 kbps.



Jerry: I totally agree about the dynamic range issue in most cases.  Its the reason I havent really bothered to try and obtain hi res tracks.  A decent mp3 of a good master generally sounds really good to me, and the trick is finding recordings that were captured and mastered well.  (I have a secret desire to make audio engineering my next career.)  Its also the reason I was surprised to recognize the difference in this Williams recording, but now I suspect that some change in ripper settings (think "up"grade (?)) might have been the real culprit.  I just do'nt rip many discs any more and guess I didn't catch it.


Out of curiosity, do 'lossless' and 'bit perfect' mean different things in this context?  Can the redbook data on a CD be perfectly reconstructed, theoreticlly, from a FLAC file?

JerryLove

Re: Lossless--Better late than never...
« Reply #7 on: 9 Jan 2014, 07:01 pm »
Out of curiosity, do 'lossless' and 'bit perfect' mean different things in this context?  Can the redbook data on a CD be perfectly reconstructed, theoreticlly, from a FLAC file?
Theoretically and in practice. You can decompress a FLAC back to a PCM-encoded wave-file and have the exact same wave as the original.

Think of FLAC like ZIP or RAR but optimized for sound.

JEaton

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 472
Re: Lossless--Better late than never...
« Reply #8 on: 9 Jan 2014, 07:53 pm »
Now... do it right. A couple of hours of research and testing before you begin can make a huge difference and can save you from wanting to repeat this exercise again in a couple of years.

(1)
First, make sure you have enough hard drive space. Hard drives are inexpensive, so there's no excuse for running out of space in the middle of your project and scrambling to shuffle everything around as you're ripping a large collection. Easiest is to keep a dedicated hard drive for just your CD collection in FLAC. Figure about 1/3 of a GB per CD, or around 2800 albums per 1TB of drive space (931GB of actual capacity on a 1TB drive). Could be more or less, depending on the vintage of the recordings and the material; my library averages 0.315 GB per album.

(2)
Before you begin, have a rock solid backup solution in place and know exactly how to use it. The easiest thing is to just use external USB or eSATA hard drives of the same size as your music library hard drives and mirror the main drive(s) to the backup drives. When you first rip your library you may be adding many new albums per day, so backup your work often, ideally each day. After you complete the job you may only add a couple of new CDs each month and monthly backups may make more sense. There have been other discussions on good backup/mirroring software, so do a search in the forum or ask some questions. Consider going one step further and having two backups, with one copy kept in a different location, such as at work or a friend's house.

(3)
Select a good _secure_ ripping program. Offhand, I can think of four to recommend:

EAC (Exact Audio Copy) has been the standard for many years, but it can be difficult to set up and hard to understand all the settings. If you have the time, or you find a decent setup guide on the 'net, use it. Make sure you configure and use (and understand) AccuRip, to assure the most accurate ripping possible. EAC is free.

dbpoweramp is a newer program that has some advantages over EAC. It can be faster to rip CDs, and for a large library the time savings can be substantial. It's available in both free and pay ($38) versions, but only the paid version utilizes AccuRip, which makes ripping faster (it automatically falls back from fast extraction with AccuRip verification to slower, secure ripping when the AccuRip verification fails).

Easy Audio Copy is a new program from the author of Exact Audio Copy. It's a commercial product ($30) that greatly simplifies the secure ripping process for most people. It too uses AcccuRip and, like dbpoweramp, should automatically fall back to secure ripping, so it should prove to be very fast.

For use under Mac OS X, XLD has become the standard for secure ripping. It also takes advantage of AccuRip.

(4)
Download and install a good tagging program. For Windows, Mp3tag is highly recommended. You will use it to fix and/or add metadata (tagging) to files after you've ripped them. Even if you have no need to add new tags, you'll be discovering small typos in the data for years and will need a way to edit it. You'll soon find Mp3tag to be invaluable.

(5)
This can be the most time-consuming part of the preparation process. Design a workflow for ripping each CD that suits you and that will help speed up the process. I recommend taking one CD and ripping it five, ten, twenty ... as many times as you need until you get the process down pat. Then grab another CD and do the same. You may run into snags with some CDs that you didn't anticipate. And a third CD, etc.

After you have maybe five CDs ripped, load the files into your preferred playback software. Are they tagged appropriately? You may find that you want to add some tags. (Logitech Media Server, for instance can use ARTISTSORT tags for names, so "Johnny Cash" could be sorted under "Cash, Johnny"). If not, go back and refine your process.

Only when you're certain you have it down should you launch into the job of ripping hundreds or thousands of CDs. The last thing you want is to rip 100 CDs and find that you didn't do it right and want to start over.

(*)
One other recommendation. Most (maybe all) of the ripping programs above have a means of downloading cover artwork for your CDs. You can often find much higher quality artwork at Album Art Exchange, but you'll have to search for it and download it manually. IMO, it's well worth the effort. What I do as part of my standard ripping procedure is to go out and download high quality cover art while the CD is being ripped. If I can't fine one, I scan the artwork that comes with the original CD.





raysracing

Re: Lossless--Better late than never...
« Reply #9 on: 9 Jan 2014, 08:07 pm »
JEaton -that is a stellar post. I have been ripping CD's occcasionally and just used the settings in iTunes (and now Jriver) without a single thought to the process or quality. I just figured whatever they had at their best setting was as good as I could get. 

Thank you for, as you stated pointing me in the correct direction before I realized I needed to start again.

JerryLove

Re: Lossless--Better late than never...
« Reply #10 on: 9 Jan 2014, 08:20 pm »
Easiest is to keep a dedicated hard drive for just your CD collection in FLAC. Figure about 1/3 of a GB per CD, or around 2800 albums per 1TB of drive space (931GB of actual capacity on a 1TB drive).
I'm seeing half that in my rips. You may want to check tour setting.

Quote
Could be more or less, depending on the vintage of the recordings and the material; my library averages 0.315 GB per album.
That seems unlikely. Duration and sample/bit rate seem to be the major factors.

Quote
Before you begin, have a rock solid backup solution in place and know exactly how to use it.
Google Music is free and will backup all your music files. It may take some time to catch up to your ripping rate.

Quote
Make sure you configure and use (and understand) AccuRip, to assure the most accurate ripping possible. EAC is free.
We are reading bits off a disc. Can you point me at any indication that any ripping software is not accurate? Windows Media Player, for example.

dB Cooper

Re: Lossless--Better late than never...
« Reply #11 on: 10 Jan 2014, 01:22 am »
I use XLD with FLAC compression set to its highest and JEaton's numbers sound about what I have been getting. I have seen 40-60% compression rates quoted and this is in the range I see. Obviously a CD with 40 minutes of music will take up less space than one with 71. I haven't been able to figure out (aside from play time) why one CD seems to compress down more than another.

For tagging on a Mac, I recommend Metadatics (available through the Mac App store for ten smackers.)