Re-ripping everything....

PhilNYC · « **Reply #20 on:** 31 Jan 2007, 12:12 am »

Quote from: Porter on 30 Jan 2007, 11:46 pm

I don't get it.

Why would you use Apple Lossless? You shouldn't feel constrained by iTunes on the Mac... there is a lot of really great software on the Mac platform that is far superior to iTunes for media ripping and organization.

You can use FLAC easily on the Mac... use Cog as a media player and use Max as a ripper/encoder to FLAC.

Max is similar to EAC on the PC... secure rips and external compressor calls, with integrated tagging. It also supports LAME Mp3 encoding if you need to encode for a portable device.

There are a few transcoding apps that may help you also... iTunes-To-FLAC is a key one, and MacFLAC will help in transcoding FLAC to whatever output codec you want to use if you need a lossy copy down the road for portable media.

Thanks for the info. I use iTunes mostly out of convenience (it was already on my Mac), and I didn't really feel like Apple Lossless was constraining me in any specific way asides from the fast-forward/rewind issue on the Transporter/Squeezebox.

Porter · « **Reply #21 on:** 31 Jan 2007, 05:11 am »

Quote from: alan m. kafton on 31 Jan 2007, 12:02 am

Don't discount LAME 320 as an encoder. I recently (again) heard a comparison CD-R with the following error-corrected selections.

1. Bit perfect original CD copy
2. Bit perfect FLAC lossless copy
3. LAME mp3 maximum @ 320kps
4. LAME mp3 normal @ 320kps

To my ears, and a friend's, we both felt that the LAME "normal" @ 320k sounded the most natural, clear, and coherent, even over the FLAC track. On paper, the FLAC should be better (it certainly was vs. the original error-corrected CD copy), but go figure....the "lossy" 320 was clearly more musical.

That's a result of LAME's psychoacoustic modeling. It sounds very good but it's not 100% accurate to the source. It is mathematically repeatable though.

I'm in the process of transitioning to FLAC from LAME 192 VBR... which is a big deal since I'm probably going to re-rip everything from scratch. I currently have over 120GB of Mp3s, and if I can re-rip even 10 percent of that over the next few months I'll feel good about it.

alan m. kafton · « **Reply #22 on:** 31 Jan 2007, 07:27 am »

Porter....have you ripped or listened to LAME 320? Just curious what you heard vs. FLAC. If not, why not rip to 320 if it indeed sounds better (after error correction, of course)?

Btw....the original source that suggested using LAME 320 was none other than Ed Meitner. The gent that recommended it to me spoke extensively with Ed (about this) some time ago.

Porter · « **Reply #23 on:** 31 Jan 2007, 01:54 pm »

Ripping at LAME 320 eliminates the filesize benefit of using a lossy codec. That's the whole reason to use mp3 in the first place, to reduce filesize to what was (at the time) "manageable" levels of 3-4mb per song. If your per-song filesize is double or triple that, it eliminates the rationale for the format.

If the filesize is going to be similar to FLAC anyway, it makes more sense to use the archival format. FLAC is a far more modern algorithm for music storage anyway, at least compared to mp3. Its integrated support for advanced tagging and cover art is also extremely convenient for large collections, because the dependence on highly structured directory trees for coherency is reduced.

Porter · « **Reply #24 on:** 31 Jan 2007, 01:58 pm »

Quote from: PhilNYC on 31 Jan 2007, 12:12 am

Thanks for the info. I use iTunes mostly out of convenience (it was already on my Mac), and I didn't really feel like Apple Lossless was constraining me in any specific way asides from the fast-forward/rewind issue on the Transporter/Squeezebox.

The other major issue with iTunes is that it's a poor CD ripping tool. The same album ripped 3 times will often have different checksums.

A secure ripper like Max on OSX, or ExactAudioCopy on Windows, makes all the difference in the end result. Jitter becomes a non-issue because the audio isn't being streamed off of the transport, making the final rip higher in achievable output sound quality than the original CD (when played on a commercial non-jitter-correcting CD player).

PhilNYC · « **Reply #25 on:** 31 Jan 2007, 02:01 pm »

Quote from: Porter on 31 Jan 2007, 01:58 pm

The other major issue with iTunes is that it's a poor CD ripping tool. The same album ripped 3 times will often have different checksums.

What's a tool (on Mac) that I can use to check data accuracy of a rip?

Porter · « **Reply #26 on:** 31 Jan 2007, 02:07 pm »

That's a good question. I've never done a checksum comparison on the Mac platform... I use another tool on Windows.

EAC is still superior to Max (slightly) as a highly paranoid secure ripper, so I still do most of my ripping on the PC. AccurateRip makes it very easy to guarantee quality when using EAC, which is nice. Read offset correction on the drive is more important than many people realize.

Max is very good though, and the rips are very good that I've done with it. The author is in the process of implementing read offset correction now as well, which should give another bump to its already excellent featureset.

http://sbooth.org/max

I wish Ubernet.org was still up, I would direct you to the UberGuide for some insight.

PhilNYC · « **Reply #27 on:** 31 Jan 2007, 02:35 pm »

Btw - I've read a wide variety of opinions regarding iTunes' error correction methods on Mac, everything from "it sucks" to "it's more than good enough"...but no definitive article on what it actually does.

There does seem to be some consistency in the opinion that iTunes' error correction methods on Windows is poor....

Porter · « **Reply #28 on:** 31 Jan 2007, 03:06 pm »

Quote from: PhilNYC on 31 Jan 2007, 02:35 pm

Btw - I've read a wide variety of opinions regarding iTunes' error correction methods on Mac, everything from "it sucks" to "it's more than good enough"...but no definitive article on what it actually does.

There does seem to be some consistency in the opinion that iTunes' error correction methods on Windows is poor....

The CD drives in most modern Macs do fairly well at consistent data output from disc media, so the Mac has that going for it from the beginning.

iTunes in general is not an error-correcting ripping engine. It will take advantage of some drive-based error correction (C2) but that is not very reliable in general. iTunes simply takes what the drive gives it and encodes to a target format. The application is built around speed and convenience, not around accuracy or ultimate quality. As a simple "get some music on the PC" solution, it's excellent. As a source for archival-quality music reproduction, it is less than stellar. Apple Lossless isn't a bad format at face value, but it is only as good as the data stream you feed into it. It's worth noting that Max will also encode to Apple Lossless with better results than iTunes.

Mp3 as a format is of course universal and ubiquitous, while FLAC is not as widespread, but is becoming more so. As the de facto "audiophile" format, FLAC offers a lot of really valuable features that I think are worth the potential hassle of learning a new interface for disc ripping and encoding.

alan m. kafton · « **Reply #29 on:** 31 Jan 2007, 06:48 pm »

Check this out:

http://www.nch.com.au/switch/plus.html

Porter · « **Reply #30 on:** 31 Jan 2007, 08:01 pm »

Quote from: alan m. kafton on 31 Jan 2007, 06:48 pm

Check this out:

http://www.nch.com.au/switch/plus.html

Switch does not use the LAME mp3 compressor. I would avoid it if having the highest quality output is a concern.

Otherwise, a good program, though I'm not sure that I would pay to use it considering all of the open source alternatives.

alan m. kafton · « **Reply #31 on:** 31 Jan 2007, 08:04 pm »

I would avoid it if having the highest quality output is a concern.

To clarify....to you mean avoid Switch? Or Lame 320?

I'm thinking of sticking with Lame 320 for the 16-bit rips (primarily because of sound quality....unless someone can inform me otherwise), but would like the opportunity to rip 24 bit recordings, which I'm seeing now I need to do with a lossless codec. A new Macbook would afford me the opportunity of using the Mac OS for some things, and Windows for others. Presuming I use Poikosoft for error-corrected ripping, this requires the Window OS regardless.

Pardon my lack of knowledge....I'm still learning. I appreciate all the good information you've offered.

Porter · « **Reply #32 on:** 31 Jan 2007, 08:12 pm »

Quote from: alan m. kafton on 31 Jan 2007, 08:04 pm

To clarify....avoid Switch? Or Lame 320?

Switch. It works great on simple downconversion, and is a great program to have around if you have your music stored in an archival format like FLAC, because you can do a one-step conversion to mp3 for use on non-compliant portable gear.

It is NOT, however, appropriate for WAV-to-MP3 conversion for the purposes of building a digital music collection. LAME is a much better solution. I just noticed that Switch has gone free for their basic version, which is great. As a downconverting tool from archival lossless to mp3 for portable use where quality is not critical, it is great.

For mp3s you are going to listen to on a higher resolution system, I recommend LAME used at 192k VBR, which is in my opinion the most rational target bitrate for mp3 audio. Really, if you're going over 200k VBR in order to achieve a quality target, it makes much more sense to encode directly to FLAC or WavPack.

For anything over 16bit/48khz, I would use FLAC or WavPack. WavPack has the best compression rate but FLAC is more widely supported. They both support high resolution with integrated tagging/metadata.

Big Red Machine · « **Reply #33 on:** 31 Jan 2007, 08:16 pm »

Help me catch up:

1. Does EAC tag a file when you rip it as FLAC?
2. What does a tag look like? How do I know it is tagged?
3. What does a tag do?

I have lots of WAV files now and am going to try both a SB and the Sonos (with a DAC).

4. How would I grab all the WAV files and convert them to FLAC when they are embedded in individual artist folders under one huge folder called FLAC (created by EAC)?

Thanks.

Porter · « **Reply #34 on:** 31 Jan 2007, 08:36 pm »

You can configure EAC to automatically compress with FLAC and tag via online CD information databases.

A "tag" is an integrated string of metadata built into the file that contains Album, Artist, Track and a host of other information. If you open the file in a player application and all of the correct information appears, then it is tagged.

A way to look at the files that you already have compressed to evaluate their metadata is by using the program MrQuestionMan, a very trick program from the same brilliant guy who coded Burrrn (the best CD audio writer application I know of). It's available here: http://www.burrrn.net/?page_id=5

The best manual tagging program that I know of is http://mp3tag.de/en/

To convert to FLAC manually from WAV there are a number of ways... see the FLAC site for more in-depth information on transcoding. http://flac.sourceforge.net/

By far the best solution is to rip with EAC and have it call the FLAC (or other) compressor automatically, including tagging the file as it goes. You eliminate the problem of having gigs worth of WAV files cluttering up your hard drive, and you're guaranteed not to miss any tag information that you'll need later. This guide will get you started: http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=EAC_and_Flac

It is also possible to have EAC call multiple compressors, resulting in output in more than one format. That's a slightly more complex option if you have the need, and the patience.

alan m. kafton · « **Reply #35 on:** 31 Jan 2007, 09:09 pm »

Porter......thank you for all this great information.

whams · « **Reply #36 on:** 31 Jan 2007, 10:46 pm »

Quote from: Porter on 31 Jan 2007, 08:36 pm

This guide will get you started: http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=EAC_and_Flac

Thanks a lot for that link...what a great site!!

Wealth of info there....cheers

Big Red Machine · « **Reply #37 on:** 1 Feb 2007, 01:43 pm »

I have a SB due in any day so I have been playing with the Slimserver to see what it thinks my files contain. As stated previously when you use wav files they are not individually recognized as albums so w/o FLAC files and the tags it shows me just 2 albums. I ripped a CD with EAC to FLAC and whalla, the album showed up as a third album. This gave me confidence that the EAC program will properly tag and place the albums to be recognized by the SB. Can't wait to try it out.

Do you think I will be able to receive signals between my office and the basement 2 channel room 40 feet away? I have a wireless router hooked up but I might need a repeater of some sort. We'll see.

Anybody get equal fidelity results with a Sonos unit as compared to the SB?

You guys are very helpful and I might enter the 21st century sooner than I thought.

Pete

PhilNYC · « **Reply #38 on:** 1 Feb 2007, 01:54 pm »

Quote from: Big Red Machine on 1 Feb 2007, 01:43 pm

Do you think I will be able to receive signals between my office and the basement 2 channel room 40 feet away? I have a wireless router hooked up but I might need a repeater of some sort. We'll see.

That's about the same distance my wireless router is from my 2 channel system. Both SB and Transporter were able to pick the signal up, but I got a bigger antenna (+6db) for my router just to be safe...

mcgsxr · « **Reply #39 on:** 1 Feb 2007, 03:00 pm »

Big red - my server and router live on the 2nd floor of my home, in a spare bedroom. In the basement, on the opposite side of the house, lives my SB3. On the main floor there is 80%+ coverage by ceramic tile, and I assume, a light concrete base.

I typically see 38-40% wireless signal this way. It has to be at least 60 feet, and through 2 floors.

I would expect your situation to work out just fine.