[TONEPUB]

Without going through any technical information at all, with 1TB drives being so inexpensive,
why bother using any kind of compression in the first place? 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Without going through any technical information at all, with 1TB drives being so inexpensive,
why bother using any kind of compression in the first place? 

Exactly. Why rip something different than what comes on the CD? There will never be consensus on this topic. It is one of those things that people will have to decide for themselves while listening to their systems. Use an iPod with Apple earbuds. Then compress away. Use a system on the opposite end of that and this topic becomes much more important. I'll never tell someone they are crazy for liking either one. I don't sit between their ears and I really don't care to.

The manufacturer I was talking to said they ran several listening tests over periods of time and the dcision wasn't a tough one. He is so familiar with his gear that this was easy for him. Another thing he said was, at their office he had been playing AIFF files for a while. One guy couldn't figure out why his personal library of the same material was fatiguing and the music on the office was much better. I was an Apple lossless v. uncompressed thing.

[JDUBS]

Without going through any technical information at all, with 1TB drives being so inexpensive,
why bother using any kind of compression in the first place? 

I want my files in flac because of the tags.  Wav files are a pain to deal with.

-Jim 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Without going through any technical information at all, with 1TB drives being so inexpensive,
why bother using any kind of compression in the first place? 

I want my files in flac because of the tags.  Wav files are a pain to deal with.

-Jim 

What kind of tags can't you get with AIFF that you are geting with flac files?

[JDUBS]

Without going through any technical information at all, with 1TB drives being so inexpensive,
why bother using any kind of compression in the first place? 

I want my files in flac because of the tags.  Wav files are a pain to deal with.

-Jim 

What kind of tags can't you get with AIFF that you are geting with flac files?

I have no idea.  I was talking about wav files.

Flac tags are incredibly easy to manipulate using software like MediaMonkey.  I rip to flac using dBPowerAMP with AccurateRip and add additional tagging info / album covers with MediaMonkey. 

-Jim

[The Computer Audiophile]

I was using the line of thought that you used flac instead of any uncompressed format because of tags.

I got ya now.

[Philistine]

Jeff - The Wadia interface is a great concept, and the ability to have a mobile device that also serves as a HiFi source has to be applauded.
The concern is that the Wadia is based on the current/projected ipod format, which is evolving at a faster rate, and has greater risk in terms of future redundancy.  Who knows what the next ipod platform will be?

You're correct that Slimdevices/Sonos etc will upgrade their equipment but we'll still have access to files on our computers.the advantage that the Slimdevices/Sonos offerings have is that they're based on industry standards (macs/pc's) as storage/retrieval devices and hence a more robust platform.

Vinnie has done a great job with his ipod mods, but it must be a nightmare for him to keep pace with Apple.

I'm not trying to knock the Wadia, if your review is favorable then it supports the device as a great option with the caveat of future redundancy.     

I completely do not understand where you are coming from.  I rip all of my music files in uncompressed (wav.) files which ARE a standard format, so how does this make the Wadia/iPod any less valid than the Squeezebox or Sonos?  Both of which are companies with not much history.

Let me clarify something for you.  Music servers are strictly something that I enjoy playing with. There is no time in the near future that I plan on replacing my main source (digital or analog) with a music server, other than my living room system, where I don't have a lot of room.

All of this hardware, no matter who makes it has the high potential of being obsolete or unworkable at some point, that's the nature of the digital world. 

What makes the Wadia iDock so brilliant is that it is a crossover product.  It offers good sound for the MP3 generation and fantastic sound for the audiophile.  I'm much more interested in getting the kids my daughters age (14-17) interested in hi fi than I am in arguing about whether the Transporter is valid.  If you have a transporter and love it, that's great but it's not my cup of tea. 

I have a huge pile of interconnects all worth way more than 350 dollars that I no longer use, so buying a Wadia iDock on the premise that it MIGHT become obsolete at some point in time is not a valid argument for me.

I guarantee that Wadia will sell every one of these they can produce. And Im sure plenty of people that own
Transporters will want one too.  I know plenty of people that have two or three (or six) turntables that they
use for different reasons.  Why wouldn't you have more than one digital source too?  Especially if all of your
files are stored on one big server somewhere?

I've stated that the Wadia device is a great low cost innovative product, I'm not knocking the concept.

However, the ipod is a fast changing platform which WILL bring about future redundancy, Apples business model is now partly based on continuous ipod replacement to sustain growth.  As long as future owners are aware of this they can make their own choices.  Not all of us have the luxury of having multi-systems and access to review equipment, many of the members of the audio community have to base their equipment decisions carefully - which entails criteria such as value and longetivity.

You raise the Transporter as a comparison, this this has no relevance on my comments on the Wadia.  The Slimdevices products are just one example of devices based on PC's/Macs which have a more generic and robust industry standard and as such are less susceptible to change.  The ipod platform has, and is, continually evolving, as such it has the potential for inherent redundancy risk and longevity threat.  Supporting this - only last year I helped a friend install a bedroom system, one of the devices we looked at used a remote that the ipod Nano plugged into and the combination was used as a remote (a great idea), the introduction of the 3rd generation Nano made the product redundant overnight.  Also the Red Wine ipod mods have had to be re-enginered due to launch of the next generation ipod, with critical components having to be squeezed into the interconnect.
The sheer size of the ipod market dictates that accessory manufacturers cannot afford to ignore it.  At the same time if Apple decide to change the design/platform I don't believe they're going to think one minute about the impact on the accessory market.  

Repeating what I said - the Wadia device is a great low cost product, if your review confirms it has great sonic performance then it's an excellent option.  My caveat is that the device on which it is based, the ipod, is a disposable device whose design will change - on this basis a buyer can make his/her decision.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

My caveat is that the device on which it is based, the ipod, is a disposable device whose design will change

This is precisely why Wadia didn't include a DAC in the product or anything else. An obsolete $5,000 dock would be a whole different story.

[TONEPUB]

So please tell me what piece of digital hardware won't be obsolete sooner rather than later.

What are you going to do with your 4000 dollar modded transporter when ModWright
can't get parts from logitech to fix it anymore?  What am I going to do when I can't
get a laser for my 33 thousand dollar Naim CD555?  They will both be doorstops and
we will move on.

No reason not to enjoy something now...

Again, this isn't an expensive piece of gear.

[Philistine]

I'm glad we all agree on the Wadia   


Both of you raised the topic of lossless vs uncompressed.
If I need to revisit my ripping strategy, based on new findings, then I believe the topic needs more informed debate and not just: storage is cheap/a high end manufacturer prefers it/in my opinion its better. 
I'm not being facetious but new converts need guidance on how to rip, and the rest of us with existing FLAC files may need to investigate re-ripping to  uncompressed.  Particularly as FLAC has become the norm.

Isn't this worthy of a separate thread?

[Paul_Bui]

More and more people are coming out of the woodwork in support of Uncompressed over Lossless Compression. I won't go back to lossless compression as I find it fatiguing over long periods of time. I spoke with a very high end manufacturer Friday night about this very topic and he said they have done tests with their gear and notice a difference every time. One problem is all the hardcore fanatics who jump all over those of us who prefer uncompressed music. Why would Joe Sixpack voluntarily put himself through the ringer in one of these forums by stating he notices a difference between uncompressed and compressed music. I am used to it by now and I trust my ears over anyone's opinion.

Can't agree more.

By the way, someone please tell me where to get an iDock (Wadia's).

[The Computer Audiophile]

When they are available you'll be able to get them either through one of their dealers or Wadia.com

[kfr01]

As for the question about apple lossless, you are correct.  However the
codger in me says that every time data gets manipulated, there is a
chance of something getting lost or distorted.  Granted I know this is
unfounded from a scientific standpoint, so it's just me.

Well, at least you know your logic is unfounded. 

I suppose nobody ever said this hobby is logical. 

[kfr01]

If you have a whole library of Apple Lossless how do I convert to uncompressed? Rerip? If Im missing out on some sound then Im all for trying

Don't bother.  Lossless = uncompressed.  Don't let others' paranoia get to you.

[TONEPUB]

However, I have been talking to the folks at Naim, Wadia and Meridian to
get a straight story.  As soon as I have some concrete facts that have
a bit of science and engineering behind them, with results that anyone
can verify, we will publish an in-depth article.

It's not that I'm not intrigued!!

So until I can get a straight story, I'll just stick with uncompressed for now.

The answer is out there somewhere....

[kfr01]

The answer is out there somewhere....

Yes.  It is.  Uncompress and play a Flac file.  The result is bit for bit THE SAME as the original wav.  Every time.

The same = the same = the same.

[TONEPUB]

That's what the guys at Sooloos tell me.  But again, I'd like to investigate
a bit more and put it in some kind of format that everyone can understand...

Unless you are one of the worlds leading experts on digital audio,
I'm not going to take your word for it without a little more research.

[kfr01]

Unless you are one of the worlds leading experts on digital audio,
I'm not going to take your word for it without a little more research.

By all means, don't take my word for it.  Ask the experts.  Just a warning, you might not find a lot (or any) full-fledged articles out there.  I don't know of any engineers or computer scientists (including myself) that actually view this as a real issue.

You could also conduct an experiment of your own:

Rip a wav file. 
Compress it with any legitimate lossless format. 
Uncompress the losslessly compressed file. 
Measure the stream from the lossless file against the stream from the wav. (using any of a variety of methods)

The resulting bit streams will be exactly the same.  Every time. 

All this being said, your readership would certainly appreciate an article on the topic and the opinions from some industry experts!

edit:  see, for example, the following experiment. Note that the author of the cited article did not merely compress with one lossless program and then convert the resultant decode to the wave, but serially ran the wave through ---5--- different lossless compression algorithms.  The resulting decoded wave was still the same as the wave. 

From:  http://www.bobulous.org.uk/misc/lossless_audio_2006.html :
"To make sure that the audio stored in each lossless format really is the same as the original audio source, I used an uncompressed Wave file of Canon in D major from The Essential Classics Collection. This Wave file was examined using the handy HashTab Shell Extension, and the MD5, SHA1 and CRC-32 hash values for the file were noted down, as was the size of the Wave file in bytes. This Wave file was converted using dBpowerAMP into a FLAC file (using the same compression settings as used in the big comparison above), and the original Wave file was deleted. The FLAC file was converted into a Monkey's Audio file, which was converted into an OptimFROG file, which was converted into a Shorten file, which was converted into a WavPack file. Finally, the WavPack file was converted into an uncompressed Wave file.

The resulting Wave file was exactly the same size as the original Wave file, and the MD5, SHA1 and CRC-32 hash values matched exactly with the original. This is very strong evidence that each of the lossless formats tested preserves the original audio perfectly."

[TONEPUB]

Now that music servers and the like have gotten much more popular,
the high end digital community has become much more interested.

Again, I've been talking to the folks at Naim, Meridian and Wadia
about this quite extensively.  I have also been talking to a few others
and when we can put something together that seems somewhat conclusive,
i.e. with a little bit of science behind it, we will publish a full report.

Considering the amount of posts I've seen about how to rip files
and store them (not to mention backup!) I would like to cover these
subjects in a lot more depth going forward, as my competitors at
Stereophile, TAS and Hifi+ only see it as an anomaly.

But I think it's all the future and I've always been a big fan of
digital, so I remain enthused....

[kfr01]

I have also been talking to a few others
and when we can put something together that seems somewhat conclusive,
i.e. with a little bit of science behind it, we will publish a full report.

I'm sure there are quite a few readers of this thread that are confused as to what you're looking for, but I'll be glad to see the plain and simple fact that a decoded lossless file is exactly, precisely, and consistently the same as the original file verified (or re-verified) in a widely read consumer publication.  I sincerely appreciate your efforts.   

That said, I don't think I can stress enough how much of a non-issue this is.  We've been losslessly compressing data via software for many decades.

Further, even though there really isn't much of a need for it, many of the lossless compression encoders include multiple mechanisms for ensuring the decoded result is bit-for-bit perfect.

Take, for example, Flac:

Each frame of an encoded Flac file contains a 16 bit CRC portion so that the encoder or decoder can detect errors.  (The 16 bit CRC is a code for detecting errors wherein the code is based on the original data and included with the changed, encoded, or transmitted data).  A CRC (cyclic redundancy check) function (in the encoder or decoder) detects alteration of the data by comparing decoded data to the CRC. 

Furthermore, Flac uses an MD5 algorithm to process the original file and to produce a digital signature of the original file.  This digital signature is added to the encoded Flac file.  A decoder or tester can use the digital signature to verify that the decoded result is the same as the original file.

Finally, Flac includes a verbose encoding option that allows the user to verify encoding accuracy while encoding. The Flac encoder runs a decoder in parallel to the encoder and the decoder's output is compared against the original input.  Flac will error out or inform the user of errors. 


If decades of technology and double checks still aren't enough for you, there are many methods for conducting your own manual testing.  (EAC even includes one).

Decoded lossless == uncompressed original file.