View Full Version : <sigh> Digital to Analogue
northwest
26-01-2012, 20:42
This post should serve as a warning to anyone who joins this forum!
Since joining, I have become acutely aware that I am lacking, seriously lacking some pieces of important kit - well, make that WAS lacking!
I am now the proud owner of a Beresford Caiman DAC, I have reformatted my Samsung Netbook and formatted a couple of 200 gig notebook hard drives. I have all of my 'digital' files on a couple of terrabyte HDD's (full disclosure - I have been busy emptying the Internet since 1994, they were the good old days usenet was populated with some good people back then. Then Napster, remember that? Although some of the files are pretty poor a good number are irreplaceable so I can play them through something other than the iPod).
So now I am about to embark on the Digital Journey. Prepare yourselves for some really dumb ass questions:lol:
First up - what do you think I should use for software on the Netbook? I have NEVER used Windoze Media player and Winamp was my player of choice, it is still around but I was wondering what you are all using?
I am not proud, I'll take all the help I can get!
Not that John will agree with me but also consider Jplay for a eaiser life and great sounds
northwest
26-01-2012, 21:13
Next post down ;)
Wow! Bloody clairvoyant! You don't happen to have six numbers for Saturday?
northwest
26-01-2012, 21:28
All joking aside, which other software were you going to suggest John? Jplayer is not cheap at 99Euros and TBH I can as swift install linux on the netbook and I would be certain that there would be something decent about for that.
Any more suggestions guys?
Nope, sry, can't help with the numbers.
What I can do is help you get Linux up and running which, depending on the spec of the netbook you have, may be the only sensible option.
If you're stuck send me a PM and I'll get you sorted; and no it wont cost you anything. ;)
You might want to have a go at :
1) Andy's Minimalist Player - no frills memory player (no GUI even) and it's free..
2) Foobar2000 - lightweight, very customisable. Freeware.
3) J River Media Centre - pay usd50 and get this to better Foobar a wee bit.
Use them with Wasapi, set to Play from Memory and you'll cuss at yourself for not getting into all this digital shite much earlier.. :eyebrows:
bobbasrah
27-01-2012, 07:51
Sorry for being a little puzzled Graham, but however laudible the above recommendations are, there is too little information on what your basepoint and objective are IMHO....
I have to guess from what has been said that you have you been using mp3 as your library base, which however fine for portable use, will not really show digital at it's best through the Caiman. So pardon me for asking these seemingly dumb questions...
1 What way physically are you feeding the DAC from the Netbook, usb, optical, coaxial???
2 What OS are you currently using, and does it need/share duty for browsing, office work, etc.?
3 Are you intending to feed FLAC/WAV/Hirez to the Caiman in future?
4 Do you have a load of CDs to play or convert, and if so do you have a suitable drive?
5 How are you going to listen to the Caiman's output on by way of the audio chain?
The first thing that hit me were the 2 drives of 200Gb, which are going to restrict storage. eg There is not a single storage drive in my home under 1000Gb, and my FLAC library just fits a 1Tb.
FLAC/WAV are the very least you should want in your library if you want to improve things later, as it is probable that mp3 limitations will show up somewhere down the road in this new adventure....
Following on from Bob, I would have thought that spreading your files over a few drives makes life that bit harder. One big disk would make things easier both in terms of organising your media and backup (I'm sure you've got this covered;)).
My choice was to buy a NAS with resilience (mirrored disks etc), so in itself its pretty reliable. It makes backup to other devices a breeze - I plug in a USB drive, push a button and then once complete, hand it to a friend for safe keeping (I rotate 2 drives). The NAS also supports various media streaming protocols (iTunes, Squeezebox, DLNA etc) as well as filesharing. My 'clients' (the devices that request & receive the media from the NAS) happen to be Squeezeboxes, but equally you could use your laptop. My NAS is a Netgear ReadyNAS Duo, but there are plenty of options out there.
Further benefits of the NAS approach are that they can be low power (green) with various options to reduce this further (configurable on/off times, wake-on-LAN etc) and they can be used to stream other media, such as digital photos (eg I show mine on the TV via a PS3 - all very convenient). Downside for you is that you would have to buy more kit, with disks being more expensive than usual at the moment due to the Thailand floods.
In direct answer to the OP, I use EAC to rip CDs and Foobar2000 to organise my music and occasionally play it on my PCs. I also use (and this is getting a bit techy) Putty and WinSCP to 'log in' to my NAS and Squeezeboxes so I can tinker with them (they run Linux/UNIX).
Vincent Kars
27-01-2012, 10:16
Nothing wrong with using WMP.
Like iTunes it is a simple interface allowing you to do the basics.
Excellent media player for a starters.
If you have FLAC, you have a problem as this popular lossless format is not supported.
If you have WAV you have another problem as WMP won’t tag WAV.
The biggest impact on sound quality in my opinion is the audio driver.
WMP uses DS (Direct Sound) only.
You can get better results using a bit transparent driver like ASIO or WASAPI.
Not only do you bypass the Win mixer (dither) but they allow for automatic sample rate switching as well.
A player like Foobar fulfills these requirements.
Personally I could never get used to the interface.
A nice alternative is MusicBee, kind of JRiver light.
I use JRiver.
It is very feature rich.
For ripping and format conversions I use dbPoweramp.
AccurateRip support, fast and rock solid.
A bit more about JRiver: http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/SW/Players/MC14/MC14_intro.htm
northwest
27-01-2012, 13:42
Well gentlemen, thank you very much for all of your well considered replies, a great deal of food for thought.
In response to Bob's query, I will be feeding the DAC from a USB port it is all it has. The Netbook is blank, nothing on it right now, though I do have a HDD with Win7 on it I could put in.
The machine will be exclusively for this task. Although multi-tasking is a laudable objective, in this case the Netbook would be exclusively for the music.
I am not going to be converting anything right now as I actually enjoy the whole ritual of selecting a CD/Record, putting it in/on the machine and firing it up. I am going through a heavily modified Quad 34 pre and 303 Power amps into ESL 57's.
I am not unfamiliar with a command prompt in Unix;)
The deal is this. I started collecting a VAST number of MP3's way back when and I would like to improve their presentation. There is nothing I can do about the files now, I have what I have.
As much as I love to think I can spend time sitting down enjoying my 'wonderful collection' practicalities are otherwise. I travel a LOT so my iPod and headphone amp are my friend. I have slowed down a bit with the "away from home" thing so slowly I am getting back into my home setup. If I can find either Vinyl or CD replacements for some of the music in MP3 format, I buy it. But that is not always the case.
At the end of the day, the Squeezebox and NAS proprietory solutions are just consumer boxes for ease of use and configuration - I am not decrying them, I use them myself with good effect - but it would take me all of ten minutes to build one myself with a couple of terrabytres in a RAID 5 array. I DO NOT WANT THIS. I have a storage box already and it is not always on. It is a matter of minutes for me to drag stuff accross the network onto a notebook hard drive and plug it into the netbook. Also, i get to put a compilation together for that evening.
Following on from Bob, I would have thought that spreading your files over a few drives makes life that bit harder. One big disk would make things easier both in terms of organising your media and backup (I'm sure you've got this covered).
With the deepest respect I have recovered a LOT of data during the last twenty years and I get extremely tense when everything is on one drive. Okay, I could put it all on one drive from a number of drives but then what happens is you become lazy as it is easier to just keep updating that drive. Then you wreck! Remind me to tell you sometime about the RAID array that failed and the backup drive that hadn't sometime.
What I want to do is just connect my Netbook to the Hi-Fi and play music. I realise there will be a bewildering number of options available to me - But never having tried this I am not anxious to re-invent the wheel - So Here I Am!
Thanks everyone for the suggestions so far.
Dominic.
I would say from reading above, you're on the path to digital audio Nirvana...bar the Dac :ner:
Multiple external drives..esssscellent :) Raid is aptly named, every now and then it does just that. I had it for gaming and Raid did all the playing. :rolleyes:
For audio only with a nice readable music player and tweaking potential that isn't too fussy regarding hardware; Lubuntu/mpd/DeaDBeef. You'll have the option of streaming.
Voyage/mpd/mpc is great IF you have the right hardware and don't mind having two computers running, albeit one may only be hand held. ;)
Nothing wrong with Win7 in Hog mode but why have an all singing all dancing OS if you're going to keep it in at night and strip it of its dresses, dancing shoes etc and keep it in the kitchen (?)
Add to that Prince Charming will have to move in to stop her wanting to go out at night and as you've found out, the Prince costs :eek:
Course,once you've got it all sorted the writing of a guide of how you did it in English is mandatory. :eyebrows:
Still a big fan of RAID here :ner:. My NAS just sits in the corner and does a good job, like a faithful hound. Of course I have to feed and water it and occasionally brush its coat, but no trips to the vet yet :).
bobbasrah
27-01-2012, 15:18
Ok John, Dominic is in another thread, and I understand your views on Windoze, but have had no such issues here with Win7. As Graham has the capability to switch drives and work through a Linux solution at leisure should he feel inclined, Win7 seems a more immediate solution might I suggest, flouncy, regal, overbloated or otherwise?
In that case, any of the suggested free players will do fine (try them all if you like Graham) and look at Vincent's site for tips on setting it up WASAPI etc. as it makes a big difference on digital. It's quite straightforward.
You seem happy enough with the CDP and your current arrangement, but it might be worth an experiment at say some point with a FLAC or WAV of one of your CDs or a Hirez file to see how a file via the Caiman can perform and compares to the DAC implementation of your CDP. It can be surprising sometimes.
All 3 of my standalone standard non-esoteric players are gathering dust, the CDs are boxed, and a 2Tb drive gives immediate access to my entire music collection of mp3, Redbook, and hirez, all backed up of course. Listening to a hirez of soul Cages as I type this..... Bliss
I don't wish to appear rude Bob, but WTF are you on about? :lol:
I don't have a CD player.
I've done the Windows bit, XP, Vista, Win7.
I've tried numerous Windows players, including foobar2000 and Winamp.
99% of my files are flac; see my ripping guide.
I've got a rather knackered but serviceable Mac, 2 PC's, a laptop and a purpose built music server.
Oh arr, I've got 16/44.1, 16/48, 24/96 and a few 24/192 files.
Yer pissed right ? :lol:
bobbasrah
27-01-2012, 15:43
I don't wish to appear rude Bob, but WTF are you on about? :lol:
I don't have a CD player.
I've done the Windows bit, XP, Vista, Win7.
I've tried numerous Windows players, including foobar2000 and Winamp.
99% of my files are flac; see my ripping guide.
I've got a rather knackered but serviceable Mac, 2 PC's, a laptop and a purpose built music server.
Oh arr, I've got 16/44.1, 16/48, 24/96 and a few 24/192 files.
Yer pissed right ? :lol:
Stone cold sober matey.....You?:scratch:
I was only correcting you on calling Graham Dominic, the rest of the message was to Dominic.:eek:
If the objective is to get fired up on mp3 to the stereo via the Standac, would have thought using what is already ar hand would be simpler.:scratch:
No?:doh:
Ooops, my bad :doh:
Take all that back then an I'll go an take my pills :)
bobbasrah
27-01-2012, 15:53
Ooops, my bad :doh:
It's them blue tablets again John, you know what they do to you...:rolleyes: . Put em back in the toilet cistern there's a good lad...:lol:
Them blue tablets is jest fine mate; ask my girlfeind :eyebrows::D
bobbasrah
27-01-2012, 15:58
Them blue tablets is jest fine mate; ask my girlfeind :eyebrows::D
She likes camphor breath freshener obviously....:scratch:
I was thinking more of small blue tablets.....:eyebrows:
Still, i reckon i know where you keep your stash now ;)
bobbasrah
27-01-2012, 16:08
I was thinking more of small blue tablets.....:eyebrows:
Still, i reckon i know where you keep your stash now ;)
Oh. You mean the little ones for.......little ones....:scratch: Not required here....:D
I'll send my girlfeind over to check ;)
A bit like Hi Fi really, the assertions of exceptional performance never quite match the reality. :D
Prolly thread wrecked enough. get modded shortly :doh:
bobbasrah
27-01-2012, 16:36
I'll send my girlfeind over to check ;)
A bit like Hi Fi really, the assertions of exceptional performance never quite match the reality. :D
Prolly thread wrecked enough. get modded shortly :doh:
True.... And Graham (and indeed Dominic) is wondering what a bunch we all are too...:mental:
As an aside to the OP, it is curious how mp3 remains the main portable choice for both myself and Graham, despite the increasing numbers using FLAC.:rolleyes:
It would never occur to me to use mp3 on the stereo because all the originals are ripped CD to to FLAC or downloaded as such, and the mp3's made from those. They reside in the same library solely to update the portable...:mental:. Maybe it's time to update the player to a flac and dump all the old mp3s.....:eyebrows:
northwest
27-01-2012, 17:39
True.... And Graham (and indeed Dominic) is wondering what a bunch we all are too...
Don't worry, I feel at home already!
I have a DAC, it has very pretty blue lights - Oooohhh! Shiny:) But so far I haven't had a tone out of it, thinking of sticking a cable onto the digital out on the CD player to it just to say I have used it. And to have an opinion of course!
Ali Tait
27-01-2012, 19:47
True.... And Graham (and indeed Dominic) is wondering what a bunch we all are too...:mental:
As an aside to the OP, it is curious how mp3 remains the main portable choice for both myself and Graham, despite the increasing numbers using FLAC.:rolleyes:
It would never occur to me to use mp3 on the stereo because all the originals are ripped CD to to FLAC or downloaded as such, and the mp3's made from those. They reside in the same library solely to update the portable...:mental:. Maybe it's time to update the player to a flac and dump all the old mp3s.....:eyebrows:
Nowt wrong with 320 Mp3's for portable use IMHO. I use them on a Walkman in the motor. Sound great, at least as good if not better than the cd player.
bobbasrah
27-01-2012, 19:58
Nowt wrong with 320 Mp3's for portable use IMHO. I use them on a Walkman in the motor. Sound great, at least as good if not better than the cd player.
Hmm.... The CDs sound better in the my motor, but not by much I grant you, and it is not as flash as your kit Ali.:stalks:
What I was getting at was keeping two versions of the same album seems a bit silly nowadays when flac players are now more common. :scratch: Whether I would have the same battery life or appreciate the quality difference on the earbuds is open to debate however.;)
Hmm.... The CDs sound better in the my motor, but not by much I grant you, and it is not as flash as your kit Ali.:stalks:
What I was getting at was keeping two versions of the same album seems a bit silly nowadays when flac players are now more common. :scratch: Whether I would have the same battery life or appreciate the quality difference on the earbuds is open to debate however.;)
Trouble is that flac will die and wav will be back - if we're talking sound quality. Why? The best players are in-memory. Flacs have to be "exploded" back in a wav for an in-memory player to work. Saving a bit a disk space is irrelevant today, let alone in the next year or two. The processing power used during the explode process with an i5 CPU results in a flac loading in the same time as a wav. Flacs are like disk compression, a passing fad this will be overcome be technology advances.
bobbasrah
27-01-2012, 20:29
Trouble is that flac will die and wav will be back - if we're talking sound quality. Why? The best players are in-memory. Flacs have to be "exploded" back in a wav for an in-memory player to work. Saving a bit a disk space is irrelevant today, let alone in the next year or two. The processing power used during the explode process with an i5 CPU results in a flac loading in the same time as a wav. Flacs are like disk compression, a passing fad this will be overcome be technology advances.
The same was said of mp3 many years ago....:scratch: But who knows what will come down the road next.... I never saw CD catching on at the time....:mental:
The only thing that does seem certain is that downloads will increase whatever the format becomes.....:cool:
Ali Tait
27-01-2012, 20:41
Hmm.... The CDs sound better in the my motor, but not by much I grant you, and it is not as flash as your kit Ali.:stalks:
What I was getting at was keeping two versions of the same album seems a bit silly nowadays when flac players are now more common. :scratch: Whether I would have the same battery life or appreciate the quality difference on the earbuds is open to debate however.;)
I did mean the cd player in the car. :D
Trouble is that flac will die and wav will be back - if we're talking sound quality. Why? The best players are in-memory. Flacs have to be "exploded" back in a wav for an in-memory player to work. Saving a bit a disk space is irrelevant today, let alone in the next year or two. The processing power used during the explode process with an i5 CPU results in a flac loading in the same time as a wav. Flacs are like disk compression, a passing fad this will be overcome be technology advances.
Not quite sure why you believe this to be true Clive.
If someone does convince audiophiles that there is an audible difference between Flac and WAV then perhaps a small section might just use WAV.
Nor sure that memory players by their nature give the best sound either.
Not quite sure why you believe this to be true Clive.
If someone does convince audiophiles that there is an audible difference between Flac and WAV then perhaps a small section might just use WAV.
Nor sure that memory players by their nature give the best sound either.
Do you use disk compression today? That's all flac is. It brings a little and rather unnecessary complexity in that it has to be unpacked. With internet speeds heading towards VoD usability then compression really is an anachronism. Just like shorthand too.
There are those that believe WAV sounds better though I've yet to hear that, clearly it must depend on the effect the unpacking has on the performance of the server.
Memory players that stop everything else working in // thus freeing up a lot of machine performance may not guarantee great sound but it's not a bad approach! In computing if you want Real-Time response, ie totally predictable and fast, you do everything in memory keeping other processes completely under control. This is what we want when feeding dac with data. There are of course various ways to achieve this in detail but this is the key to predictability.
IMO the FLAC advantage is in the tagging.
IMO the FLAC advantage is in the tagging.
I agree flac does have an advantage there. It's easily fixable with wav if a standard were developed, indeed that's an issue flac has. Different players and servers implement different levels so tagging so it's not universal but yes it's better than basic wav.
Interesting view of the future Clive.
Given the improvements in processor technology I'm not convinced the unpacking of Flac files is, or will be, enough of an issue to make Flac obsolete.
It seems that data volume will always have some bearing on data storage; portability for example. Perhaps the multiple TB flash cards aren't far away but even then if one can pack the same data into a smaller volume without sacrificing integrity or retrieval times then it seems to be in our nature to want to do this. Take mp3 as an example; what tends to happen is people store more music, not use the extra storage for another higher volume format. I can't see that changing for the majority.
As for predictability from storage to Dac and transfer speeds, well I think we will see more sophisticated on board Dac buffering so what goes on before will have minimal impact.
Interesting view of the future Clive.
Given the improvements in processor technology I'm not convinced the unpacking of Flac files is, or will be, enough of an issue to make Flac obsolete.
It seems that data volume will always have some bearing on data storage; portability for example. Perhaps the multiple TB flash cards aren't far away but even then if one can pack the same data into a smaller volume without sacrificing integrity or retrieval times then it seems to be in our nature to want to do this. Take mp3 as an example; what tends to happen is people store more music, not use the extra storage for another higher volume format. I can't see that changing for the majority.
As for predictability from storage to Dac and transfer speeds, well I think we will see more sophisticated on board Dac buffering so what goes on before will have minimal impact.
I did make the proviso "if we're talking sound quality" so I'm not so much talking about mobile music but the days of high compression of data are more behind us than in front of us - in the world of IT at any rate.
Buffering in dacs is quite a problem today, re-clocking of data in shallow buffers still needs a lot of help. Async usb improves re-clocked buffers so something more is needed. A deep buffer will give the best quality but it needs to be filled at the same rate or faster than it's emptied. Also if you have let's say a 10 sec buffer then you have a delay before the music starts. This is very much an issue for in-memory players until memory replaces disks by the TB; then it won't be a buffer in front the dac, it'll be the main data store. SD card players are perhaps the start of what's to come but they still seem rather gimmicky.
with the risk of sounding rude, the relience on hdd's is worrying! i might have missed any mention of backups in this thread, but I hope everyone has that side already covered.
on the safe side at least back up to tape drives and always have some file recovery software handy! eg r-studio is handy, managed to recover audio and video files off drives that had been accidently formatted...lol
northwest
28-01-2012, 04:02
at least back up to tape drives
Decent drives are not cheap and would cost more than many systems here. Backing up big chunks to DVD would be much more practical in many cases.
bobbasrah
28-01-2012, 06:51
Decent drives are not cheap and would cost more than many systems here. Backing up big chunks to DVD would be much more practical in many cases.
Have we completely lost the plot here. :mental:
Compression and decompression are techniques to compact file size for storage or transfer. That technique will be around for as long as required for it's purpose, which will not end anytime soon. :rolleyes:
If a program can decompress digital audio on the fly and play it so much the better, but it can be reconverted to satisfy the purists who believe they hear a difference, for whatever reason. The key is LOSSless. :cool:
I convert all my video to hard drives in a form which preserves video quality (depending on the movie) at a fraction of the feature packed original size, not because drives are cheap but to minimise wasted space, and the fact that the video player can handle the format. My eyes cannot tell the difference, but others might...:mental:
A decent 2Tb drive is/was around the 70 quid mark, so backing up changes is a breeze while retaining library folder structure. Hot swap or usb, the process is simple and fast. :eyebrows:
The notion of my backing up 700+Gb of FLAC to 170 odd DVD, manually selecting folders to backup the latest additions is frankly absurd in this day and age....;)
A decent 2Tb drive is/was around the 70 quid mark, so backing up changes is a breeze while retaining library folder structure. Hot swap or usb, the process is simple and fast.
+1
A decent 2Tb drive is/was around the 70 quid mark, so backing up changes is a breeze while retaining library folder structure. Hot swap or usb, the process is simple and fast. :eyebrows:
+2
Furthermore, I recommend using 2 backup drives. It's not a matter of if a drive fails, it's when. Just imagine, one drive fails so you buy another and during the copy of your remaining data this other copy of your data is lost. 2 backup drives...please!
I find it hard to believe that there are still people who don't seem to grasp the concept of adequate data backup.
One of the advantages of file based audio is given a sensible backup strategy you should always have available perfect copies of your music and be largely immune to theft, physical media damage,loss and if your smart even sticky fingered rugrats.:D
3 copies on separate drives is the minimum sensible option as Clive advocates.
If you must use your computer as a storage device then partition it so the operating system and applications are on one partition and your data is on another.
Keep passwords, email addresses, site logins and profiles on a flash drive.
About the only thing i keep on the computer hard drive these days are games simply because unless you have a fast SATA connected drive some games just wont render fast enough to be playable on external storage.
It really doesn't matter what method you use to backup; what's important is that you do it.
northwest
28-01-2012, 17:30
Have we completely lost the plot here.
I hate being mis-quoted - TAPE DRIVES BOY, tape drives. Hard drives are bobbins. The man was talking about backing up to TAPE drives. I don't advocate that. If you want a hard copy then DVD is good. If you want to back up to another HDD - go right ahead, knock yourself out.
bobbasrah
28-01-2012, 18:10
I hate being mis-quoted - TAPE DRIVES BOY, tape drives. Hard drives are bobbins. The man was talking about backing up to TAPE drives. I don't advocate that. If you want a hard copy then DVD is good. If you want to back up to another HDD - go right ahead, knock yourself out.
Ditto.
Your comment re tape drive was noted and I agree, but did not feel the need to comment further on it.
The rest of my post dealt with other elements that had been raised, which was the reason for the opening comment.
My last observation on your suggestion to use 170+ DVD as a backup stands in my own case, as these days hard drive is by far fastest and cheapest solution.
Yes, at least 2 backup drives - as Clive states, it is not a question of 'if' it is definitely a question of 'when'.
seoirse2002
28-01-2012, 18:29
I note that nobody is mentioning online backup....any reason why not?:cool:
northwest
28-01-2012, 18:31
Ditto.
Your comment re tape drive was noted and I agree, but did not feel the need to comment further on it.
The rest of my post dealt with other elements that had been raised, which was the reason for the opening comment.
My last observation on your suggestion to use 170+ DVD as a backup stands in my own case, as these days hard drive is by far fastest and cheapest solution.
Sorry, I don't mean to be contentious, a decent DAT drive is money and a good DLT drive is big money, in the scheme of things. I thought you had missed my reference to Tape Drives. When you consider the cost of HDD's these days they are good value for money. Fast too. However, sods law always intercedes (in my experience) and I prefer to have a backup on DVD too. It is pretty inert as a medium and I just feel comfortable seeing my backups stored neatly in their cases. Alongside a couple of terrabyte drives.
For the record, during the Christmas Holidays I put a hammer through five 500Gb drives after swapping them out of the enclosures. I personally destroy my data and on the day the paranoia checking and double checking that the backups are backed up is enough to make me physically ill:(
Stratmangler
28-01-2012, 21:41
I note that nobody is mentioning online backup....any reason why not?:cool:
I have not far short of 1TB of lossless files - what's the annual charge for backing that lot up, and how much DSL bandwidth would it take to accomplish the task.
Answer = rather a lot :eek:
im glad the backup side is being looked into with peoples precious collections, to be fair tape drives were a simple example if funds allow for it, in the case of long term care and storage whatever your choices are be it on other hdd's or dvds the main point like has been said is that everything is duplicated.
i didnt want go into the grandfather, father son routine lol but in any case single copies of anything precious should be a no no. Ive helped those whose choice has been dvd/hdd and tape and each have their own benefits and aslong as we stick to our chosen strategy recovery shouldnt be such a headache.
I like the wise words about your own files not being kept on system drives, on a similar note i installed windows 7 system on a small drive which was upgraded to a larger drive afterwards, I copied over the partition ensuring the new drive was bootable and have kept the other drive just in case...lol
the documents/videos/photos and music folders all reside on different drives.
Trouble is that flac will die and wav will be back - if we're talking sound quality. Why? The best players are in-memory. Flacs have to be "exploded" back in a wav for an in-memory player to work. Saving a bit a disk space is irrelevant today, let alone in the next year or two. The processing power used during the explode process with an i5 CPU results in a flac loading in the same time as a wav. Flacs are like disk compression, a passing fad this will be overcome be technology advances.
Welcome to the digital flat earth society :D
IMHO We shouldn't confuse implementation problems with the pros and cons of file formats. I am a long way from being convinced that there are any issues whatsoever getting the same bits out of a flac.
Stereophile's recent article suggested that wav to flac to wav conversion sounded inferior to the orginal wav file, which is absolutely bonkers. I think that a lot of the audiophile press don't really understand the technology and their brains are stuck in analogue thinking.
I'd really love to know why it is thought that playback of samples from an area of menory is superior to playback from disk, which is actually also playback from memory. I am waiting for someone to say that playback from processor cache is better than playback from main memory :lol:
StanleyB
29-01-2012, 15:21
I am a long way from being convinced that there are any issues whatsoever getting the same bits out of a flac.
Stereophile's recent article suggested that wav to flac to wav conversion sounded inferior to the orginal wav file, which is absolutely bonkers. I think that a lot of the audiophile press don't really understand the technology and their brains are stuck in analogue thinking.
I have been saying for some time now that FLAC sounds different/is less detailed than WAV. I tried different codecs/computers/etc. But it didn't change my opinion.
Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but referring to someone of a different opinion as bonkers has not stopped new inventions and development in technology ;).
Vincent Kars
29-01-2012, 15:58
The claim made in an article in TAS is that conversion from WAV1 > FLAC > WAV2 yields a WAV2 sounding inferior to WAV1.
In other words converting to FLAC corrupts the sound quality permanently.
This not about differences between WAV and FLAC but about converting from a lossless format to another lossless format resulting in permanent degradation in sound quality.
AlexM is two times wrong.
1 - It is TAS not Stereophile (they refused the article)
2 – Bonkers is ways to optimistic.
bobbasrah
29-01-2012, 16:11
The claim made in an article in TAS is that conversion from WAV1 > FLAC > WAV2 yields a WAV2 sounding inferior to WAV1.
In other words converting to FLAC corrupts the sound quality permanently.
This not about differences between WAV and FLAC but about converting from a lossless format to another lossless format resulting in permanent degradation in sound quality.
AlexM is two times wrong.
1 - It is TAS not Stereophile (they refused the article)
2 – Bonkers is ways to optimistic.
:cool:
Any advance on bonkers, or should that be a new thread ?
StanleyB
29-01-2012, 16:23
Of course, calling FLAC lossless is really stretching the truth. Maybe by as much as 50%.
WAV in itself is not lossless. Powerful error correction techniques are required to correct for the losses in the extracted WAV data from a CD. But the facts are often discarded in favour of dodgy sound bites.
I'd really love to know why it is thought that playback of samples from an area of menory is superior to playback from disk, which is actually also playback from memory. I am waiting for someone to say that playback from processor cache is better than playback from main memory :lol:
It's because the in-memory player is stopping lots of other windows processes working so they don't interrupt the music creating jitter / latency.
The claim made in an article in TAS is that conversion from WAV1 > FLAC > WAV2 yields a WAV2 sounding inferior to WAV1.
In other words converting to FLAC corrupts the sound quality permanently.
This not about differences between WAV and FLAC but about converting from a lossless format to another lossless format resulting in permanent degradation in sound quality.
AlexM is two times wrong.
1 - It is TAS not Stereophile (they refused the article)
2 – Bonkers is ways to optimistic.
Vincent,
Thank you for the corrections - correct on both counts!. The process of converting wavs to flac and back again is most definately lossless, and is is provable and not really debatable.
Stan, I know quite well how a cd is read, and how error correction works. In this instance we are talking about comparing a PCM data set created from the same source data in a WAV file, and the same data in a FLAC file. What I am saying is that both a wav file and a flac are both containers for PCM data. One is packed and one is not, but they contain EXACTLY the same data.
My point is any differences come in how the playout is implemented, not from the file format. This is why I call the TAS article bonkers.
Hope this clears up who I was being insulting to and why :lol:
Cheers,
Alex
Of course, calling FLAC lossless is really stretching the truth. Maybe by as much as 50%.
WAV in itself is not lossless. Powerful error correction techniques are required to correct for the losses in the extracted WAV data from a CD. But the facts are often discarded in favour of dodgy sound bites.
Stan,
Not sure what you are driving at here - can you expand?.
Regards,
Alex
StanleyB
29-01-2012, 18:14
What's the physical size of a FLAC file compared to its WAV equivalent? 50%? So 50% of info has vanished somehow, but the format is still considered lossless :scratch:.
bobbasrah
29-01-2012, 18:22
What's the physical size of a FLAC file compared to its WAV equivalent? 50%? So 50% of info has vanished somehow, but the format is still considered lossless :scratch:.
This cannot be serious :eek:
StanleyB
29-01-2012, 18:28
Why not? So many are avoiding to face the elephant in the room, but it can't be ignored forever. At 24/96 and 24/192 these minor things become major issues.
This may add to the debate...
I have applied soundcheck's mods (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com/2011/11/touch-toolbox-30.html) to my SB Touch. Part of the approach is to minimise the amount of processing the SBT has to carry out and this includes not decoding FLAC on the SBT but rather on the server delivering the files (in my case a small NAS). I'm happy with the mods like lots of folk and am comfortable that overall they provide something of an improvement in SQ.
By extrapolation (I know, a little tenious), could the same principle apply to DACs - the less work they've got to do, the better they sound?
Chris
Best to start another thread on FLAC vs. WAV?
This may add to the debate...
I have applied soundcheck's mods (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com/2011/11/touch-toolbox-30.html) to my SB Touch. Part of the approach is to minimise the amount of processing the SBT has to carry out and this includes not decoding FLAC on the SBT but rather on the server delivering the files (in my case a small NAS). I'm happy with the mods like lots of folk and am comfortable that overall they provide something of an improvement in SQ.
Chris
But isn't the CPU of the SB underpowered in the frst case? Mind you, aren't logitech still using an ancient Linux kernel on the device as well, which cannot help matters.
Apart for blue tablets, in-memory players get a coulpe of mentions in this thread, Including: "Flacs have to be "exploded" back in a wav for an in-memory player to work."
That one puzzles me. Surely FLAC has to be decoded whether you use a so called "in-memory player" or not.
On the subject of "in-memory players". Skeptics, and others can always try a free experiement. Try a Linux LiveCD that has the boot option to "copy2ram" ( also called toram). If you're PC has plenty of memory not only will the ENTIRE operating system and apps be loaded into memory but you'll have enough memory to load entire CDs into memory too. FLAC or WAV, it will play from memory. Use htop and iotop to check what's going on. There should be zero disk access, in fact once Linux has booted in this way and you've got your audio files in memory, which is simply a case of copying them in an appropriate directory of the loaded Linux system, you could disconnect all optical and hard drives to prove the point.
Does it sound any better? You tell me, it's your ears.
Vincent Kars
29-01-2012, 20:47
Best to start another thread on FLAC vs. WAV?
Better start a thread "Lossless compression for dummies”
bobbasrah
29-01-2012, 20:55
Better start a thread "Lossless compression for dummies”
As this is already into the twilight zone, particularly with regard to the OP, Alex and Vincent are absolutely correct.;)
Would you care to kick that off Stan?:D
Vincent Kars
29-01-2012, 20:56
That one puzzles me. Surely FLAC has to be decoded whether you use a so called "in-memory player" or not.
There is a concept called software induced jitter (Cplay)
The assumption is that the more activity is going on (and in case of a computer this is software doing something) the more RFI, EMI, ripples on the power rail, etc.
This is supposed to disturb the clock driving the DA or the SPDIF header.
The idea behind memory playback is to minimize the activity so do everything needed before playback start
- Read the file from the HD first
- Decode it to lpcm
- Store it in a buffer in memory
Now you have a buffer with “DAC ready” output.
That is why memory playback is often used as an argument in the WAV-FLAC debate.
If the decoding of FLAC (requires a bit more CPU than the decoding of WAV but about 40% less I/O) is the culprit then doing all this before playback starts should eliminated differences caused by the processing
StanleyB
29-01-2012, 21:01
I already stated my findings. I'll leave the formulas to the mathematicians :). No doubt the excuses for the differences will be disclosed soon.
bobbasrah
29-01-2012, 21:10
I already stated my findings. I'll leave the formulas to the mathematicians :). No doubt the excuses for the differences will be disclosed soon.
Just to clarify the mathematics Stan - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLAC
:cool:
StanleyB
29-01-2012, 23:10
I am quite aware what is claimed. But unlike text and numbers, audio and video don't do true lossless compression by algorithms. Data has to be discarded or lumped together in order to reduce size.
Try RAR on a video or audio file and see how much smaller the file is. In many cases it actually ends up larger. And the reason for that? Not much, if any, data that can be lumped together and discarded.
For a FLAC file to be so drastically reduced in size without any audio detail being disposed of is stretching the imagination. Just have a look at the source code of the encoding/decoding process to see how the data is handled in order to get an idea of things.
Of course, I am not here to re-educate the misguided souls who cling on to the believe that all is well in the lossless compression department. But a good degree in maths and knowledge of algorithms would be far more helpful than accepting the lossless claims as cast iron facts. Real audiophiles don't do things like that:).
Anyways...
I use DBPoweramp 12 for ripping and tagging, and my playback is via Squeebox touch and a CA 840C.
I have used Foobar and ASIO4All with USB Dacs, and felt that it sounded pretty good. w.r.t. the SB touch, I don't find there is any difference between server streaming FLAC to the SB Touch and streaming WAV files.
W.r.t. to players, I think you find one which best suits your needs in terms of media library handling, and go with that. Directplay will sound worst - anyting that provides bit-perfect output should sound similar!. to be honest working with a pc is a faff, so I went the NAS route with squeezebox media centre as the benefit of being able to access my library throughout the house is very desirable. The sb touch sounds great through my DAC on the main system and I use a couple of SB Booms elsewhere for casual listening.
Cheers,
Alex
Ali Tait
29-01-2012, 23:14
Anyone tried encoding a track in FLAC at different compression levels and noticed any difference?
Vincent Kars
29-01-2012, 23:29
But a good degree in maths and knowledge of algorithms would be far more helpful than accepting the lossless claims as cast iron facts.
Indeed, a good degree in math is exactly what you are missing.
Maybe this helps assuming you are able to handle Foobar
Take a WAV(1)
Convert it to FLAC
Convert it back to WAV(2)
Open the Foobar2000:Components/Binary Comparator and compare WAV1 with WAV1
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Foobar2000:Components_0.9/foo_bitcompare
I am quite aware what is claimed. But unlike text and numbers, audio and video don't do true lossless compression by algorithms. Data has to be discarded or lumped together in order to reduce size.
Try RAR on a video or audio file and see how much smaller the file is. In many cases it actually ends up larger. And the reason for that? Not much, if any, data that can be lumped together and discarded.
For a FLAC file to be so drastically reduced in size without any audio detail being disposed of is stretching the imagination. Just have a look at the source code of the encoding/decoding process to see how the data is handled in order to get an idea of things.
Of course, I am not here to re-educate the misguided souls who cling on to the believe that all is well in the lossless compression department. But a good degree in maths and knowledge of algorithms would be far more helpful than accepting the lossless claims as cast iron facts. Real audiophiles don't do things like that:).
Stan,
I think you are way off base here. You cant compare data reduction and data compression as they are different fundamentally. A LPCM file is just a file, and can be compressed without loss of information. All of the info is out there, and you need to read up a bit on this.
The agorythms dont lie, but I'm not disputing that some claim to hear a difference, but this (if true) is caused by something other than what you are saying.
This should be a good debate in another thread.
Regards,
Alex
Anyone tried encoding a track in FLAC at different compression levels and noticed any difference?
Actually I will because I want to see for myself whether FLAC level 1 or 5 sounds any different to a wav in my system.
If it does it wont be because the source data has been discarded along the way at each level. prob wont bother with level 8 as compression is a lot slower and the file sizes arent much smaller
Cheers,
Alex
Ali Tait
30-01-2012, 00:24
Ok, cheers Alex, be interested in your conclusions.
northwest
30-01-2012, 00:32
Just trying to alter the ships course a little here.
I have spent ALL FKN DAY pi**ing about with my audio files. I didn't realise I hadn't catalogued so many:(
Anyhow, I installed the SSD with win7 on it into the netbook (also forgot you have to dismantle the bloody thing) and installed Foobar to it as a starting point. Then attached an external drive and pointed the program at it. Great really, MUCH better than a cable from the headphone out (we've all been there). Not as good as my CD player -> pre-amp-> power amp but a marked improvement. After a while I was wondering how much battery the Netbook had so plugged the Power Supply into it to be on the safe side. bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ;(
Oh boy. Just what I need, another 'element' into the mix.
Sharing my experience..
WAV sounds much better than FLAC in my system.
As for FLAC files, the bigger the size the better they sound.
I will also choose WMA format over MP3 anyday.
If Audio & Hifi is a religion, I am that aloof blind faith Disciple :ner:
StanleyB
30-01-2012, 07:23
Stan,
I think you are way off base here. You cant compare data reduction and data compression as they are different fundamentally. A LPCM file is just a file, and can be compressed without loss of information. All of the info is out there, and you need to read up a bit on this.
I happen to have worked on compression software code, so I am not diving in blindly. It' partly the result of working on that side of things that caused me to develop a mp3 player in the late 90's :). Had the investors not been so scared of the new technology, I might have been a very rich guy by now :rolleyes:.
But I digress. I am aware that there is a lot of info out there on the net. So too is info on area51, perpetual motion, Roswell, etc.
bobbasrah
30-01-2012, 09:22
I happen to have worked on compression software code, so I am not diving in blindly. It' partly the result of working on that side of things that caused me to develop a mp3 player in the late 90's :). Had the investors not been so scared of the new technology, I might have been a very rich guy by now :rolleyes:.
But I digress. I am aware that there is a lot of info out there on the net. So too is info on area51, perpetual motion, Roswell, etc.
It is obvious that there are entrenched or conflicting opinions and experience over compaction/decompaction of digital files (audio in this instance) and software applications, but this is contributing nothing to Graham's original query, has been voiced as a diversion elsewhere, and really should be taken on in a new thread should the subject sufficiently merit discussion and examination... ;)
Come to that, the departure over John's little blue tablets did not help much either, although floppies are an uncommon subject these days....:mental:
Graham, there is certainly plenty of info to pick, choose and try a variety of players and experiment with, but I can wholeheartedy commend WASAPI (or ASIO if necessary) as an aid to audio quality/preservation, and is easy enough to apply in Win7/Foobar, etc... :cool:
The buzz that you have discovered is obviously a PSU related issue, either because of PSU, Netbook regulators, or the usb/link to the DAC. :scratch:
I have no experience with Stan's DAC, but believe not to be USB powered, so it may be worth decoupling/chopping the power line on a spare/cheap usb cable to see if this is the cause. I am not sure whether the Caiman is galvanically isolated. Stan could perhaps comment on this with some knowledge and authority.:D
Given a great many of us will have difficulty telling a fixed bit rate 320 mp3 from redbook, 16/44.1 from 16/48, 16/48 from 24/96 one amp from another (ahem ;)) any difference between Flac and WAV, should any exist, hardly seems worth worrying about. :)
I keep a WAV copy just in case the impossible happens and my hearing drastically improves as I get older.
If people believe they can hear a difference between one thing and another that's great.
There is just one thing that keeps me sceptical and that's something my Physics tutor used to say, "they profit by your ignorance". ;)
have now created another thread for FLAC vs. WAV discussion. Feel free to wade in.
Alex
StanleyB
30-01-2012, 10:44
It is obvious that there are entrenched or conflicting opinions and experience over compaction/decompaction of digital files (audio in this instance) and software applications, but this is contributing nothing to Graham's original query, has been voiced as a diversion elsewhere, and really should be taken on in a new thread should the subject sufficiently merit discussion and examination... ;)
That's a bit rich from you to say the least :).
Opinions and experiences are two different things. I speak from personal experience with regards to FLAC, and so do many others. Those that offer the opinion that there is no data lost in FLAC are not speaking from experience, but have the foundation of their argument embedded in what they have read somewhere on the net or a magazine.
That's a bit rich from you to say the least :).
Opinions and experiences are two different things. I speak from personal experience with regards to FLAC, and so do many others. Those that offer the opinion that there is no data lost in FLAC are not speaking from experience, but have the foundation of their argument embedded in what they have read somewhere on the net or a magazine.
Does this mean that unless you have personal experience of something any reports pertaining to how something works for example are to be taken with a pinch of salt? ;)
Stan,
No I'm not. I have direct, first-hand experience that is odds with your opinion. FLAC compression is completely reversable, and this is an experiment you can do yourself easily, so do it or don't do it, but please don't tell others that have and know the result that they are talking out of their hats as this is beyond doubt.
Now if you want to talk about why they might sound different then please enlighten us as exploring this might be enlightening and useful. Just out of curiosity, have you experienced this difference both via SPDIF and USB inputs on your products?.
Alex
bobbasrah
30-01-2012, 11:12
That's a bit rich from you to say the least :).
Opinions and experiences are two different things. I speak from personal experience with regards to FLAC, and so do many others. Those that offer the opinion that there is no data lost in FLAC are not speaking from experience, but have the foundation of their argument embedded in what they have read somewhere on the net or a magazine.
You may carry your presumption to the other thread specifically for this discussion Stan, and for the record it is not formed on the basis of what has been read, but rather the experiment to see for myself:D.
StanleyB
30-01-2012, 11:33
You may carry your presumption to the other thread specifically for this discussion Stan, and for the record it is not formed on the basis of what has been read, but rather the experiment to see for myself:D.
Get a better system :eyebrows:.
bobbasrah
30-01-2012, 14:28
The buzz that you have discovered is obviously a PSU related issue, either because of PSU, Netbook regulators, or the usb/link to the DAC. :scratch:
I have no experience with Stan's DAC, but believe not to be USB powered, so it may be worth decoupling/chopping the power line on a spare/cheap usb cable to see if this is the cause. I am not sure whether the Caiman is galvanically isolated. Stan could perhaps comment on this with some knowledge and authority.:D
:)
bobbasrah
31-01-2012, 05:22
Hi Graham, done very quiet here now.
Did you get anywhere with the annoying PSU buzz?
northwest
31-01-2012, 21:22
Hi Graham, done very quiet here now.
Did you get anywhere with the annoying PSU buzz?
Work intervened:eyebrows:
So tomorrow I have time. Definately gets much worse when I plug the power brick in:scratch:
Unplugging the USB cable and any sign of a hum goes away. Bloody annoying.
However, on the bright side I have waded through a couple of Terrabytes of digital files and I actually have nearly four hundred Gigabytes sorted now, only another onethousand two hundred odd gigabytes to sort now:stalks:
So tomorrow I have time. Definately gets much worse when I plug the power brick in:scratch:
Unplugging the USB cable and any sign of a hum goes away. Bloody annoying.
However, on the bright side I have waded through a couple of Terrabytes of digital files and I actually have nearly four hundred Gigabytes sorted now, only another onethousand two hundred odd gigabytes to sort now:stalks:
You have a ground loop caused by your power brick being earthed. Find a way to disable the earth on it, with a laptop this SHOULD be safe. I have the same with my laptop. I created a 6 inch extension lead with no earth connection. Or use a galvanic isolator on the USB.
northwest
31-01-2012, 21:53
You have a ground loop caused by your power brick being earthed. Find a way to disable the earth on it, with a laptop this SHOULD be safe. I have the same with my laptop. I created a 6 inch extension lead with no earth connection. Or use a galvanic isolator on the USB.
I can easily remove the eart and you are right, it should be fine. The annoying thing is that the laptop itself gives a slight hum without the power supply plugged in. Any suggestions for a galvanic isolator for the USB?
My whole grand Digital Plan is falling at the first hurdle here:(
I can easily remove the eart and you are right, it should be fine. The annoying thing is that the laptop itself gives a slight hum without the power supply plugged in. Any suggestions for a galvanic isolator for the USB?
My whole grand Digital Plan is falling at the first hurdle here:(
Cheap 'n cheerful one here, it works as long as fullspeed usb is all you need, won't work with hispeed.
http://electronicsshop.dk/?id=1038
northwest
31-01-2012, 22:43
Cheap 'n cheerful one here, it works as long as fullspeed usb is all you need, won't work with hispeed.
http://electronicsshop.dk/?id=1038
K have ordered one. I'll let you know how I get on with it.
K have ordered one. I'll let you know how I get on with it.
I hope it sorts your hum out! In one setup I tried it stopped a strange sound I was getting, an interaction between dac and laptop switched mode power supplies running at the same frequency.
bobbasrah
01-02-2012, 05:24
Work intervened:eyebrows:
So tomorrow I have time. Definately gets much worse when I plug the power brick in:scratch:
Unplugging the USB cable and any sign of a hum goes away. Bloody annoying.
However, on the bright side I have waded through a couple of Terrabytes of digital files and I actually have nearly four hundred Gigabytes sorted now, only another onethousand two hundred odd gigabytes to sort now:stalks:
So how on earth are you doing that with 2 by 200Gb drives then? :mental:
I have never tried doing what you are with a Netbook, only a full laptop, but apart from processing power, there is no reason to assume the netbook should be any less effective. The interference should soon be easily resolved as Clive pointed out. ;)
You will get there, then you can start experimenting....:rolleyes:
northwest
01-02-2012, 12:24
So how on earth are you doing that with 2 by 200Gb drives then? :mental:
I have never tried doing what you are with a Netbook, only a full laptop, but apart from processing power, there is no reason to assume the netbook should be any less effective. The interference should soon be easily resolved as Clive pointed out. ;)
You will get there, then you can start experimenting....:rolleyes:
Bob, I have 2 x 250Gb actually that I just use to temporarily store data in, I also have a box full of LaCie/Netgear/various other hard drive enclosures with drives in them ranging from 250 gb to 1TB. For the record I have a shed full of computers, some working, some not and if anyone fancies a 17" touch screen for their collection (this has just given me an idea) drop me a line. I have LOTS of computer stuff. Not all windows either - Mac, Sun and even a NEXT cube. That is aside from the telecomms gear. VoIP concentrator with 8 lines anyone?
northwest
01-02-2012, 12:29
I have never tried doing what you are with a Netbook, only a full laptop, but apart from processing power, there is no reason to assume the netbook should be any less effective. The interference should soon be easily resolved as Clive pointed out. ;)
You will get there, then you can start experimenting....:rolleyes:
And for the record. I am using the Netbook because it was an "essential" component of my HiFi, so now I have no portable computer I just HAD to replace it with an iPadII. You see the thinking here?
It worked for me:lol:
bobbasrah
01-02-2012, 12:56
And for the record. I am using the Netbook because it was an "essential" component of my HiFi, so now I have no portable computer I just HAD to replace it with an iPadII. You see the thinking here?
It worked for me:lol:
And there was me thinking SBT was a Logitech device....It's actually a human device...Sneaky Bloody Tike;)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.