New Mac Mini -What format to rip cd's ?

jdbrian · « **on:** 24 Jun 2010, 02:47 pm »

Hi folks

I got a new mini and want to rip my cd's onto a hard drive. So far I have ripped 1 cd in wav and played it back using the mini's toslink output. It sounded very good. I am just wondering if there is a prefered format for sound quality. I don't want to rip them all and then find out I used an inferior format. I also read somewhere that there are ways of optimizing the mini setup for sound quality but I can't remember where I saw it. If anyone can point me in the right direction I'd appreciate it.
I eventually want to go to a new DAC and USB but for now I am just getting used to the MAC having switched from PC.

Thanks
Brian

jtwrace · « **Reply #1 on:** 24 Jun 2010, 02:54 pm »

If you're using itunes use AIFF Encoder.

For setup use this: http://usbdacs.com/Macintosh/Macintosh.html

dvenardos · « **Reply #2 on:** 24 Jun 2010, 03:50 pm »

I would use a lossless format with compression (about 50% compression) either FLAC or ALAC (Apple Lossless). It depends on what player you want to use. iTunes only supports ALAC. Once you are in a lossless format you can convert from one to another without loss of fidelity.

Danny Richie · « **Reply #3 on:** 24 Jun 2010, 04:16 pm »

The AIFF format is the better sounding.

roscoeiii · « **Reply #4 on:** 24 Jun 2010, 04:34 pm »

AIFF vs. FLAC or ALAC will also depend on how much hard drive space you have available. AIFF files are much larger. Whether the extra size of the file is worth the space it takes up is something you will need to determine. Burn a familiar CD in each format you are considering and then see what the difference sounds like in your system and decide accordingly.

srb · « **Reply #5 on:** 24 Jun 2010, 04:36 pm »

If drive space is not a physical or monetary concern*, uncompressed file formats like AIFF eliminate any extra processor overhead to decompress them.

*A physical concern might be if you have a large library on an internal laptop drive of limited size. A monetary concern might be if you would prefer to have a solid state drive (SSD), which are still somewhat pricey for higher capacity drives required for large libraries. Otherwise conventional hard drive space is cheap.

AIFF will give you universal compatability between players while still supporting file tagging and metadata. iTunes cannot play FLAC and Squeezeserver cannot play Apple Lossless (ALAC), but both can play AIFF.

Steve

skunark · « **Reply #6 on:** 24 Jun 2010, 04:53 pm »

Quote from: Danny on 24 Jun 2010, 04:16 pm

The AIFF format is the better sounding.

In the end AIFF, WAV, FLAC and ALAC all have the same bits and hence should be no difference in sound.

skunark · « **Reply #7 on:** 24 Jun 2010, 04:59 pm »

Quote from: srb on 24 Jun 2010, 04:36 pm

If drive space is not a physical or monetary concern*, uncompressed file formats like AIFF eliminate any extra processor overhead to decompress them.

*A physical concern might be if you have a large library on an internal laptop drive of limited size. A monetary concern might be if you would prefer to have a solid state drive (SSD), which are still somewhat pricey for higher capacity drives required for large libraries. Otherwise conventional hard drive space is cheap.

AIFF will give you universal compatability between players while still supporting file tagging and metadata. iTunes cannot play FLAC and Squeezeserver cannot play Apple Lossless (ALAC), but both can play AIFF.

Steve

When considering processor overhead, you also have to consider the wait-states the processor consumes when fetching the next chunk of data from the file. Those wait-states are not idle states, so that argument, even though very difficult to prove either way, isn't at all that strong.

I work with extremely large files that we constantly gzip, and our software flow reads the compressed files without going through an extra uncompression step. Using a gzipped file has always been faster for highly computational based applications then the raw file. Another words, it takes much less CPU clocks to process the compressed data vs the uncompressed.

bunnyma357 · « **Reply #8 on:** 24 Jun 2010, 05:12 pm »

Quote from: srb on 24 Jun 2010, 04:36 pm

AIFF will give you universal compatability between players while still supporting file tagging and metadata. iTunes cannot play FLAC and Squeezeserver cannot play Apple Lossless (ALAC), but both can play AIFF.

Steve

I don't know if things have changed, but I believe the Squeezebox will play ALAC, but you can't FF or REW - it may use the host computer to decompress. I believe the Squeezebox hardware natively handles FLAC, so transmitting the compressed files over a network may lead to fewer potential dropouts than transmitting uncompressed. Probably depends on your network traffic & robustness.

There is a utility called FLUKE that adds FLAC support to iTunes. So you can usually get whatever you decide on to work in most cases. If you plan on using a program to enhance iTunes playback like Amarra or Pure Vinyl/Pure Music, you might look into the formats they suggest as an ideal format.

If you can deal with the larger file sizes, then AIFF is most compatible. Since I started years ago, file size & drive space were concerns. What I have is my library in several formats - I rip to FLAC (for the Squeezebox), make a back up that is converted to (ALAC) (for Pure Vinyl), and also keep a low res copy of the library already converted for the iPOD. Then I make a back up of the FLAC library, so I have 3 lossless compressed copies of my library, since all hard drives will eventually fail.

Jim C

dvenardos · « **Reply #9 on:** 24 Jun 2010, 05:28 pm »

Yes, the squeezebox can handle ALAC but has to transcode it and handles FLAC natively.

Rclark · « **Reply #10 on:** 24 Jun 2010, 06:02 pm »

I can't believe you guys listen to compressed audio on your hifi. I'm cd only, in fact, I've been buying nothing but cd's for the past 5 years and have no intention of stopping. The day I stop buying cd's is the day the recording industry adopts a new hi fidelity digital recording format that is at least on par with DVD-A. Until then, forget it. I'll be spinnin' cd's.

Danny Richie · « **Reply #11 on:** 24 Jun 2010, 06:06 pm »

I still buy CD's but I'll never play form another one if I don't have to. Playing from a hard drive sounds MUCH better.

Rclark · « **Reply #12 on:** 24 Jun 2010, 06:08 pm »

how so?

Voncarlos · « **Reply #13 on:** 24 Jun 2010, 06:18 pm »

Lots of good info on The Apple Core circle.
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?board=131.0

jdbrian · « **Reply #14 on:** 24 Jun 2010, 06:20 pm »

Hi

Lots of good info. and advice here. The way I look at it is that hard drive space is cheap and I don't want to compromise sound quality in order to save space. I wondered about the overhead of decompressing files as well. It may not be an issue with a modern dual core processor and a DAC that is optimized to deal with jitter like the Tranquility or the Benchmark.
There is an interesting article on the Decware site in the documentation for his new ZDAC about the advantages of HD music storage versus playback by a transport.

Brian

Danny Richie · « **Reply #15 on:** 24 Jun 2010, 06:26 pm »

Quote

how so?

For the same reasons that two different transports can sound vastly different.

Even the playback software can have a pretty dramatic effect.

mms3 · « **Reply #16 on:** 24 Jun 2010, 06:30 pm »

Quote from: Danny on 24 Jun 2010, 06:26 pm

For the same reasons that two different transports can sound vastly different.

Even the playback software can have a pretty dramatic effect.

and not having to deal with scratches on CD's

bunnyma357 · « **Reply #17 on:** 24 Jun 2010, 06:31 pm »

Quote from: Rclark on 24 Jun 2010, 06:08 pm

how so?

Here are a few reasons, but I'm sure there are others. CD's don't have to be ripped in real time - allowing multiple passes to ensure the data is correct. A transport has to do it in real time and depends on the condition or quality of the media - there is more likely to be errors.

Another advantage is that on a music server the files can be buffered into memory, not having to rely on a mechanical interface and avoiding any data bottlenecks.

Compression isn't really the issue, it is whether it is lossless or not. Performance in decoding lossless compressed files does require more processing, so it may sound worse on some systems, but I would guess that it is system dependent and less of an issue as computers improve.

A final advantage is the convenience, a music server makes the process of listening to music very easy. Music is much easier to find and much quicker to start playing. The same CD can be listened to in many rooms without having to physically retrieve it. Also the CD becomes an archive - not being used, so that it remains in pristine condition if you should ever have to re-rip it.

Jim C

skunark · « **Reply #18 on:** 24 Jun 2010, 06:33 pm »

Quote from: Rclark on 24 Jun 2010, 06:02 pm

I can't believe you guys listen to compressed audio on your hifi. I'm cd only, in fact, I've been buying nothing but cd's for the past 5 years and have no intention of stopping. The day I stop buying cd's is the day the recording industry adopts a new hi fidelity digital recording format that is at least on par with DVD-A. Until then, forget it. I'll be spinnin' cd's.

AIFF, WAV, ALAC, FLAC are all lossless and bit compatible with the CD, most folks uses a ripper that performs a checksum such that they can guarantee that it's bit equivalent to the CD by checking an online database. That's much more reliable than actually using a CD player, if the cd-player is functional and the CDs are clean then you probably wouldn't notice a difference.

Mike Nomad · « **Reply #19 on:** 24 Jun 2010, 06:36 pm »

I use iTunes to up-sample on the rip: I use AIFF @ 16/48, and have always have great results.