 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jul 31, 2021 - 7:25 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
mistermike
(Member)
|
This discussion reminds me of when I used to dub an entire movie's audio on a reel to reel tape recorder (this practice dated back to the 1960s), recording it off the TV, then I would spend HOURS dubbing just the music to cassette. I did this for maybe half a dozen films, but I spent so much time listening to this music, editing it, etc., etc., that I NEVER listened to the cassettes of this music EVER again.
Same experience with Hawaii Five-O episodes. I would record them from TV, then dub them to T-160 VHS tapes where I could store 3 episodes, each 50 minutes or less. While doing this, I would edit out the commercials, and I had a dubbing VCR with flying erase heads so the places where the commercials were removed was a totally smooth transition. I did this for almost all of the 278 episodes of the show to get a "complete collection." Again, I never watched the vast majority of these shows again. And, of course, DVDs came out later anyway, starting in 2007!
I did watch all the H50 shows on DVD when they were first released, and more recently I watched every episode again for a re-viewing, since many of the early reviews had opinions and observations dating back to the mid-1990s. I finished doing this re-view recently ... it took me almost 3 years. (Shameless plug, drop by and visit! http://www.fiveohomepage.com )
But then the other day I had to double-check one episode for something, and noticed 3 or 4 things that I missed during all previous viewings. Do I have to watch them all over again (augh)?
The business of dubbing (a.k.a. "backing up") your CD collection reminds me of Biblical "begats." Like with movies, going from VHS to laser disc to DVD to Blu Ray to 4K, and multiple variations of each, you become obsessed with dealing with the same material over and over.
With CDs, there is so much hassle in organizing how this is done (what program to use, will that program continue to be available, do you need to make backups of backups, and so forth), not to mention tagging selections (I tried this with just a couple of my CD collection, and the tracks for those particular CDs were totally messed up as far as the iTunes database was concerned ... forget it!).
As has been expressed above, spend more time just enjoying the music!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is sometimes so much misinformation out there, you really have to wonder.
https://everpresent.com/flac-vs-wav/#:~:text=People%20often%20favor%20FLAC%20because,opting%20for%20FLAC%20over%20WAV.
This article "FLAC VS. WAV: HOW TO CHOOSE THE BEST AUDIO FILE FORMAT", is a good example.
In this article are statements like:
"A lossy audio file type is one that will lose quality when either compressed or converted. As mentioned above, WAV and FLAC files are classified as lossless, thus allowing them to be compressed and converted while experiencing a negligible loss in sound quality."
"Unless you’re a music professional, you won’t notice any discernible difference in sound quality when opting for FLAC over WAV."
"There is little difference in the sound quality of FLAC or WAV."
Some of this is simply not and verifiably not true. I suppose the misunderstanding comes from the fact that WAV is uncompressed while FLAC is compressed, but when a FLAC is played back, it is the uncompressed sound file that gets played, the exact same bits are played back as if you played a WAV file.
It's like the difference between sending a BMP file or a BMP file in a Zip container. The files will be identical when looked at (played back), just one will be delivered compressed in a container. If you said "hey, they both look good, the one sent zipped almost looks as good as the ones sent unzipped" it wouldn't make sense. They are identical.
There is A LOT of such misinformation on the NET that is simply inaccurate or downright not true.
A CD converted to WAV converted to FLAC converted to AIFF converted to ALAC and converted back to WAV.. all of these files will sound 100% identical to the original CD, provided the rip was "OK" (as can be checked with AccurateRip).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A CD converted to WAV converted to FLAC converted to AIFF converted to ALAC and converted back to WAV.. all of these files will sound 100% identical to the original CD, provided the rip was "OK" (as can be checked with AccurateRip).
Not only will WAV converted to FLAV to AIFF to ALAC to WAV sound indentical, it'll BE indentical in the same way "qwerty" is identical to "qwerty".
Yes, of course. That is why they cannot sound differently. That's why this text is just plain wrong, as it insinuates differences between WAV and FLAC in sound quality (even if it states they are "negligible") that just cannot be there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I also tried Roon....it absolutely does not gel with the way I tag things and it creates a huge mess for DIRs that aren't full albums (and even ones that are when it can't find the in its database).
That's to say nothing about its expense...
I will update my NAS next year (towards the end of next year) and will have to select appropriate server software.
So I said... but I still haven't done it. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Say I've got a new Mac computer and an external CD drive, do I need to install anything further to begin ripping and tagging?
Anything beyond the standard Mac music "app"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Say I've got a new Mac computer and an external CD drive, do I need to install anything further to begin ripping and tagging?
Anything beyond the standard Mac music "app"?
I use the music app. It gives you the option to rip uncompressed, mp3, AAC and ALAC (Apple lossless).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For my old iPod (now nearly 20 years old & still going strong...with a few problems) I ripped my CDs just using MP3, but at a decent setting. I have a couple of newer DAPs & I use FLAC, I do wonder if my old ears can tell the difference on a blind test.
I don't know. I did a blind test years ago, and once I knew what to listen for, I could easily make out the difference between MP3 and lossless FLAC. But codecs have advanced. However, I would say that being able to tell the difference in a blind test is not the only reason to go with lossless rather than lossy compression. Unless disc space is a matter of consideration (which it isn't in my case), a lossless format has many other advantages. First of all, should you ever "need" a certain other (lossy) format, you can always make copies from the original, rather than make lossy copy from a lossy copy. Secondly, you can always verify the files and easily detect mistakes. AccurateRip etc. can easily verify that the files you have on your disc/NAS/wherever are 100% bit-for-bit identical without errors when compared to the original CD. Should you ever have problems in your collection or a hard disc failure/error/problems, you could easily identify those files affected if you have a collection of thousands of ALACs/FLACs. You cannot do that with a lossy format such as MP3. Thirdly, I would never compromise even theoretical sound quality in the files. That's because I see the files as "forever"... the equipment, system, etc. may come and go, but the files will stay. Could well be that if one listens via Bluetooth headphones nowadays, no difference between MP3 and FLAC can be detected, but one may upgrade the sound system one day to a high end system, and the difference may be very apparent. With a lossless format, you always know that that you are playing the best possible file. And last but not least, when it comes to ripped CDs, if you ever hear a "mistake" in a file, such as a crack, a distortion, whatever, if you have a lossless file, you can easily check (with such tools as PerfectTunes or AccurateRip) if that mistake is a defect rip or defect file, or whether that mistake is already present on the original CD. No such possibility when you use MP3, all you could do then is put on the CD and compare by ear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For my old iPod (now nearly 20 years old & still going strong...with a few problems) I ripped my CDs just using MP3, but at a decent setting. I have a couple of newer DAPs & I use FLAC, I do wonder if my old ears can tell the difference on a blind test.
I don't know. I did a blind test years ago, and once I knew what to listen for, I could easily make out the difference between MP3 and lossless FLAC. But codecs have advanced. However, I would say that being able to tell the difference in a blind test is not the only reason to go with lossless rather than lossy compression. Unless disc space is a matter of consideration (which it isn't in my case), a lossless format has many other advantages. First of all, should you ever "need" a certain other (lossy) format, you can always make copies from the original, rather than make lossy copy from a lossy copy. Secondly, you can always verify the files and easily detect mistakes. AccurateRip etc. can easily verify that the files you have on your disc/NAS/wherever are 100% bit-for-bit identical without errors when compared to the original CD. Should you ever have problems in your collection or a hard disc failure/error/problems, you could easily identify those files affected if you have a collection of thousands of ALACs/FLACs. You cannot do that with a lossy format such as MP3. Thirdly, I would never compromise even theoretical sound quality in the files. That's because I see the files as "forever"... the equipment, system, etc. may come and go, but the files will stay. Could well be that if one listens via Bluetooth headphones nowadays, no difference between MP3 and FLAC can be detected, but one may upgrade the sound system one day to a high end system, and the difference may be very apparent. With a lossless format, you always know that that you are playing the best possible file. And last but not least, when it comes to ripped CDs, if you ever hear a "mistake" in a file, such as a crack, a distortion, whatever, if you have a lossless file, you can easily check (with such tools as PerfectTunes or AccurateRip) if that mistake is a defect rip or defect file, or whether that mistake is already present on the original CD. No such possibility when you use MP3, all you could do then is put on the CD and compare by ear.
Having originally ripped all my music into iTunes in 128 kps, I went through a brief phase (a month, if that...!) of doing them in 256 kps until realising that, as you say, you may as well just have them in lossless and then they are there forever (transferring to backups/replacement hard drives notwithstanding). Disc drives cost peanuts these days so getting a big enough drive and backup(s) is no more than a couple of hundred quid.
Whatever the faults of iTunes/Music, the fact that you can set it to down convert your music to 128/192/256 kps when copying to your iPhone, is a massively useful feature and not (as far as I am aware) one that any other smart phone can do automatically. Of course, you can have them on your iPhone in the same format as is on your computer, but obviously storage is more likely to be at a premium (even if you have a 1 Tb iPhone, or 512 Gb as I currently have).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On the other hand a wifi or USB connection will be completely uncompressed (at least up to red book CD standard) and could reveal differences depending on the equipment used and the quality of the files.
Yes, WiFi, USB, LAN, etc., all these go way beyond red book standard. Even 24bit/192kHz streams/files can be played via those connections.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I also tried Roon....it absolutely does not gel with the way I tag things and it creates a huge mess for DIRs that aren't full albums (and even ones that are when it can't find the in its database).
That's to say nothing about its expense...
That's very interesting; because I am now finally at the point where I try out Roon.
Because for one, I upgraded my NAS this year (finally!) to a more powerful model, and just today I got an offer for a Black Friday three month trial for ROON. Okay, three months, that's a fair deal of time, so I will try it out.
Always wanted to try it, though I'm not sure what Roon bringst to my table which I do not already have, especially for that money. But okay, I will now try it out.
My situation:
My own music is on a QNAP NAS. All files are in ALAC format, from 16bit/44,1kHz to 24bit/192kHz.
All files are tagged systematically (e.g. no "Rachmaninov" and "Rachmaninoff") and "correctly" (meaning useful for me). I would not want Roon to change any tags, but as far as I know Roon does not do that (at least not automatically?).
I have tried several MusicServer programs and the one I have chosen is MinimSever, which lets me configure many things, has (easy to configure) art for "Artists" and "Album Artists" and even "Composer"; I have a lot of classical music and Minim seems to understand "classical music" listeners a bit more. (Though I also found Asset UPnP very good.)
My music streaming service is Qobuz, which I use to listen and try out new albums (I especially sometimes enjoy listening to various different performances of the very same piece, far more than I would ever buy... can't buy 'em all. :-D ).
Most of my listening I do on my home stereo setup; I can access my own music or play Qobuz (or even play a CD) and so that works great.
So I am not sure if and what Roon will really bring to the table, or if it brings anything at all (yes, nice cross-references with various artists and albums, neat, but not essential... in classical music, that information is often already in booklets anyway) but I am willing to try it out for three months. :-D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you are a music fan, you shouldn‘t be listening to mp3. It‘s as easy as that. There are much better audio options, we have huge possibilities in storage, there is no excuse really for mp3s. Musicians give their best, recording engineers give their best, labels try their best, no reason to destroy it afterwards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I also tried Roon....it absolutely does not gel with the way I tag things and it creates a huge mess for DIRs that aren't full albums (and even ones that are when it can't find the in its database).
That's to say nothing about its expense...
That's very interesting; because I am now finally at the point where I try out Roon.
Because for one, I upgraded my NAS this year (finally!) to a more powerful model, and just today I got an offer for a Black Friday three month trial for ROON. Okay, three months, that's a fair deal of time, so I will try it out.
Always wanted to try it, though I'm not sure what Roon bringst to my table which I do not already have, especially for that money. But okay, I will now try it out.
My situation:
My own music is on a QNAP NAS. All files are in ALAC format, from 16bit/44,1kHz to 24bit/192kHz.
All files are tagged systematically (e.g. no "Rachmaninov" and "Rachmaninoff") and "correctly" (meaning useful for me). I would not want Roon to change any tags, but as far as I know Roon does not do that (at least not automatically?).
I have tried several MusicServer programs and the one I have chosen is MinimSever, which lets me configure many things, has (easy to configure) art for "Artists" and "Album Artists" and even "Composer"; I have a lot of classical music and Minim seems to understand "classical music" listeners a bit more. (Though I also found Asset UPnP very good.)
My music streaming service is Qobuz, which I use to listen and try out new albums (I especially sometimes enjoy listening to various different performances of the very same piece, far more than I would ever buy... can't buy 'em all. :-D ).
Most of my listening I do on my home stereo setup; I can access my own music or play Qobuz (or even play a CD) and so that works great.
So I am not sure if and what Roon will really bring to the table, or if it brings anything at all (yes, nice cross-references with various artists and albums, neat, but not essential... in classical music, that information is often already in booklets anyway) but I am willing to try it out for three months. :-D
Let me know what you think of it after the eval period.
We use it extensively for demos here, since it passes all different formats at their native resolution to hardware that supports those resolutions. It's optimized for sound quality above all else. It also has a very good DSP section for EQ and other effects - often it can be used to surgically fix problems with speakers that benefit from EQ.
It also lets you get into the weeds re: recording formats, codecs, etc.
As you know, I don't think there is much difference at all in the various resolutions and bit depths assuming you are listening to the same master. And, ironically, it's Roon that we've used to demonstrate that. For example, if you have three different versions of the same recording at various sampling rates and bit depths, on my Trinnov pre-pro it keeps ALL those different versions at their native resolutions, even before applying it's own internal processing. So if the recording is 44/16 or 96/24 or 192/24, it passes through everything *natively* by speaking directly with the hardware inside the pre-pro (that's what it means when an end unit component is "Roon Ready" or ideally a "Roon Endpoint"). During our listening tests, that means I can switch directly between the various different masters and we can do blind tests.
In my home my JBL 4329P active speakers are Roon Endpoints, as is my Trinnov Altitude32 processor. They talk directly with the software to make sure there are no extra D/A or A/D conversions, and that the software and hardware are communicating with each other directly. Using the Roon app, for example, I can directly control the volume of the playback components.
It also lets you make playlists by blending your own library with streaming tracks and if you use Roon ARC, you can stream those in your car or two your phone as well.
Their big play is sound quality and library integration, but it all depends on how important those things are to you. Since we do high end demos all the time, I want to make sure I have an unimpeachable source at all times and Roon satisfies the audio snobs we get from time to time. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
