| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
iPod, good sound possible?
Can anyone direct me to a basic discussion or explanation of what music
is available on downloaded files, such as iTunes, and whether there are any high-rez portable music systems conveniently workable that include a variety of classics and pop music, etc. I'm a complete novice relative to this technology. - I had understood that the audio quality of the typical iPod (or other similar systems) wasn't very good, so I haven't kept up with them at all. Actually, I have been impressed with the sound of some of the high-end walkmans and CD players. - How do the iPods compare with them. 1. - I have seen some articles about high-rez reproduction becoming available on some systems, using substantially more memory but providing decent sound. Are such systems commercially available, and if so, where? Also, can you get a good selection of music for them? 2. As to downloading music files, are the selections of music largely limited to current pop or rock music, or are older classics available? For example, I usually listen to classical, some pops, and some Stones music. Could I select a download that included Ruby Tuesday, Satisfaction, Start Me up, etc.? How about Sinatra music, such as All the Way, Witchcraft, New York, New York, or music of Dean Martin, etc. What about Peter, Paul & Mary, the Kingston Trio, etc. Or, what if I wanted to listen to Brahms' Second Piano Concerto, or Beethoven's Seventh Symphony, etc.? - How many "songs" would that be? The reason I ask is that I don't think my tastes correspond with the majority of those buying iPods and the like, so I'm wondering whether I would be able to download much of the music I actually like. - Are classics, or old standards such as the above, available, or are they only available at extra cost? Any information will be appreciated, but please remember that I'm a complete novice in this area. - If you're going to throw acronyms at me, please provide a translation. Thanks, Jim Cate |
|
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
iPod, good sound possible?
JimC wrote:
Can anyone direct me to a basic discussion or explanation of what music is available on downloaded files, such as iTunes, and whether there are any high-rez portable music systems conveniently workable that include a variety of classics and pop music, etc. I'm a complete novice relative to this technology. - I had understood that the audio quality of the typical iPod (or other similar systems) wasn't very good, so I haven't kept up with them at all. Actually, I have been impressed with the sound of some of the high-end walkmans and CD players. - How do the iPods compare with them. Basically, the sound quality of your iPod is going to depend on 2 factors: 1) the quality of your earbuds/headphones, and 2) the compression rate you're using for your music. If you rip music from your CDs, you can set the compression rate, so you can experiment with the best compromise between file size and sound quality. (I generally use 192kbps AAC.) If you download from the iTunes Music Store, what you get is 128kbps AAC.(AAC is the compression codec they use. It's similar to, but slightly better than, MP3.) It's not bad, but it's not "near-CD quality" either. Everybody has his own threshold. Try it and see. If you use a PC, you can download from other sites. Rhapsody, I think, downloads 192kbps AAC. I don't know whether you can put that on an iPod, however. There's a company called MusicGiants, which offers full-resolution (i.e., CD-quality) downloads. I suspect the selection is quite limited, but you could definitely get them on an iPod one way or another. 1. - I have seen some articles about high-rez reproduction becoming available on some systems, using substantially more memory but providing decent sound. Are such systems commercially available, and if so, where? Also, can you get a good selection of music for them? Check out MusicGiants: www.musicgiants.com. 2. As to downloading music files, are the selections of music largely limited to current pop or rock music, or are older classics available? For example, I usually listen to classical, some pops, and some Stones music. Could I select a download that included Ruby Tuesday, Satisfaction, Start Me up, etc.? How about Sinatra music, such as All the Way, Witchcraft, New York, New York, or music of Dean Martin, etc. What about Peter, Paul & Mary, the Kingston Trio, etc. Or, what if I wanted to listen to Brahms' Second Piano Concerto, or Beethoven's Seventh Symphony, etc.? - How many "songs" would that be? The reason I ask is that I don't think my tastes correspond with the majority of those buying iPods and the like, so I'm wondering whether I would be able to download much of the music I actually like. - Are classics, or old standards such as the above, available, or are they only available at extra cost? Believe it or not, classical's market share at the iTunes music store is actually higher than its share of the broader market. This despite the fact that searching for classical music there is a pain. The selection is surprisingly expansive. I think pricing is generally 99 cents a movement, or $9.99 for a full CD, though I haven't shopped there much so trust someone else before you trust me. My guess is that there will be plenty of every artist/genre you mentioned. But you can download the iTunes software for free from Apple, and check it out yourself. bob |
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
iPod, good sound possible?
JimC wrote:
Can anyone direct me to a basic discussion or explanation of what music is available on downloaded files, such as iTunes, and whether there are any high-rez portable music systems conveniently workable that include a variety of classics and pop music, etc. I'm a complete novice relative to this technology. - I had understood that the audio quality of the typical iPod (or other similar systems) wasn't very good, so I haven't kept up with them at all. I take it you do not own an iPod or any other music player? You should investigate a bit: Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itunes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zune http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairPlay and so forth; you will soon get the idea. Be aware that most (if not all) of these files will be encumbered by some or another form of Digital Rights Management scheme. DRM is a way the music companies make sure that you do not cheat them. The last thing you want is for the music industry to become suspicious of your motives, or have them take an interest in your activities. If this is not all done correctly, one day day you could find men knocking at your door, and then you will have to make a very long trip. Once you accept a particular DRM license, and once you pay a fee, you'll be able to download your songs and use them in whatever way the copyright holder thinks is in your best interest. As far as devices go, the iPod is typically considered the most cool and trendy of the lot. A newer device (known simply as Zune) is also available, however Zune is generally thought of as less cool, and certainly less trendy...unless you like brown, or things that squirt, or both; or are intrigued by fat men throwing chairs dancing to the sound of "Developers, Developers, Developers..." On the other hand, when you buy Zune you are helping to stamp out crime. It has been reported by Universal Music Group that these devices are simply repositories for stolen music. Therefore, the manufacturer of Zune (Microsoft) has graciously consented to pay $1.00 to UMG for each Zune sold. This manufacturer does not want to be associated with unethical people, or questionable business practices. After all, they have a reputation to maintain. If you use a Mac, the Apple product (iTunes) is probably the best deal. If you use a Windows PC, the Apple product is also probably the best deal. If you use a Linux PC, there is no deal. Linux users must subscribe to another service, of which there are several out there. Thus, before you decide on a player you must consider your options while keeping your existing hardware and software in mind. Fidelity? Again, you must consider your hardware. What gear are you going to be listening to your music on, and where? Portable music is usually meant to be listened to on portable players. If you mostly listen to your iPod with cheaper headphones while exercising on your treadmill, then you will not mind the quality. If you listen to your downloaded mp3s burned to a CD and played through a Benchmark DAC feeding Stax electrostatic headphones while concentrating on the recorded musical nuances, it might be a problem. So you must decide what you are trying to do, and what your aim is in all of this. Generally speaking, each song costs 99 cents, or thereabouts. With classical, each section (or movement) is considered a song. Thus, I guess, a symphony will set you back about 4 dollars. I have no idea how something like a Wagner opera is priced, or if it is even available at all. mp |
|
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
iPod, good sound possible?
JimC wrote:
Can anyone direct me to a basic discussion or explanation of what music is available on downloaded files, such as iTunes, and whether there are any high-rez portable music systems conveniently workable that include a variety of classics and pop music, etc. I'm a complete novice relative to this technology. - I had understood that the audio quality of the typical iPod (or other similar systems) wasn't very good, so I haven't kept up with them at all. Actually, I have been impressed with the sound of some of the high-end walkmans and CD players. - How do the iPods compare with them. iPod's have excellent DAC's and compare favorably with the best portable CD players. They are much better than Walkmans that use casettes. A couple of years ago, Stereophile tested the iPods of that generation, and the results were excellent. The newest iPods have fixed some shortcomings of the older generations, so make sure you buy the latest. Quality of sound from iPod's is therefore dependent on the source material: if you use 48Kbps mp3's, the best DACs in the world are not going to give you CD quality sound. iPod's can play uncompressed sound files, so those will sound identical to the CD's they are ripped from. The compressed files sound very good if the bit rate is kept high. It's very difficult, for example, to tell 320 Kbps mp3's or AAC's from the original. AAC (or mp4) is a format that is supported by Apple products only. If you want compatibility, use the mp3 format. wma is a format that is developed by Microsoft, and will not play natively on iPod's. 1. - I have seen some articles about high-rez reproduction becoming available on some systems, using substantially more memory but providing decent sound. Are such systems commercially available, and if so, where? Also, can you get a good selection of music for them? Well, SACD's and DVD-A's are higher resolution formats, meaning they use higher sample rates and/or higher bit depths. You have a decent selection of music in these formats, if you are willing to buy online. 2. As to downloading music files, are the selections of music largely limited to current pop or rock music, or are older classics available? For example, I usually listen to classical, some pops, and some Stones music. Could I select a download that included Ruby Tuesday, Satisfaction, Start Me up, etc.? How about Sinatra music, such as All the Way, Witchcraft, New York, New York, or music of Dean Martin, etc. What about Peter, Paul & Mary, the Kingston Trio, etc. Or, what if I wanted to listen to Brahms' Second Piano Concerto, or Beethoven's Seventh Symphony, etc.? - How many "songs" would that be? The reason I ask is that I don't think my tastes correspond with the majority of those buying iPods and the like, so I'm wondering whether I would be able to download much of the music I actually like. - Are classics, or old standards such as the above, available, or are they only available at extra cost? iTunes has an excellent selection; unfortunately they use a relatively low bit rate: 128 kbps. You can use your own CD's as the source for compressed music, and it takes very little time to rip a whole CD, perhaps at most 10 minutes. Some other music download services provide higher bit rates. You can download individual tracks as well as whole albums. But I recommend that you start with your own music collection. Any information will be appreciated, but please remember that I'm a complete novice in this area. - If you're going to throw acronyms at me, please provide a translation. Thanks, Jim Cate |
|
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
iPod, good sound possible?
JimC wrote:
Edit Actually, I have been impressed with the sound of some of the high-end walkmans and CD players. - How do the iPods compare with them. Thanks, Jim Cate The iPod will completely blow away any walkman and match or excel most any portable CD player in sound quality, and absolutely trounce them both in terms of convenience and portability. Upgrade the barely adequete headphones that came with the iPod to some really good but inexpensive ones like the Koss Portapro or SennHeiser PX100 or Grado SR 60. Upgraded headphones really let the iPod shine. iPods and iTunes allows the audiphile to save their music as WAV, AIFF, or better yet, Apple Lossless. These formats do not de-grade the sound at all, and Apple Lossless save some disk space, too. Usually around 50%. I have a 2 GB Nano with Koss Portapros and most of my music is in iTunes in Apple Lossless with some AAC. If you search the groups you can find my thread discussing making a high quality iTunes server. CD |
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
iPod, good sound possible?
JimC wrote:
Can anyone direct me to a basic discussion or explanation of what music is available on downloaded files, such as iTunes, and whether there are any high-rez portable music systems conveniently workable that include a variety of classics and pop music, etc. I'm a complete novice relative to this technology. - I had understood that the audio quality of the typical iPod (or other similar systems) wasn't very good, so I haven't kept up with them at all. Actually, I have been impressed with the sound of some of the high-end walkmans and CD players. - How do the iPods compare with them. 1. - I have seen some articles about high-rez reproduction becoming available on some systems, using substantially more memory but providing decent sound. Are such systems commercially available, and if so, where? Also, can you get a good selection of music for them? 2. As to downloading music files, are the selections of music largely limited to current pop or rock music, or are older classics available? For example, I usually listen to classical, some pops, and some Stones music. Could I select a download that included Ruby Tuesday, Satisfaction, Start Me up, etc.? How about Sinatra music, such as All the Way, Witchcraft, New York, New York, or music of Dean Martin, etc. What about Peter, Paul & Mary, the Kingston Trio, etc. Or, what if I wanted to listen to Brahms' Second Piano Concerto, or Beethoven's Seventh Symphony, etc.? - How many "songs" would that be? The reason I ask is that I don't think my tastes correspond with the majority of those buying iPods and the like, so I'm wondering whether I would be able to download much of the music I actually like. - Are classics, or old standards such as the above, available, or are they only available at extra cost? Any information will be appreciated, but please remember that I'm a complete novice in this area. - If you're going to throw acronyms at me, please provide a translation. Thanks, Jim Cate I've been on a quest for a portable player that was dedicated to lossless formats like WAV, WMA(lossless) WMA(pro) FLAC, etc. too. Not much luck so far. Any true audiophile will not bother with compressed music, why buy something that is sub-standard than the original CD? I prefer to buy the CD then rip the tracks to WAV then either use the WAV files or a lossless compression like FLAC, this is all well and good on the computer. But the problem is that without the computer (portable players) only support inferior lossy compressed formats like MP3, WMA, Apple, etc. I dont waste my time or money on music delivered in lossy compression formats, regardless of bit rate, they are corrupt. I have proven that soundstage and phase relationships are lost even at high bit rates in lossy formats. Just try removing the center channel vocal sound from an MP3 with Karaoke software, it fails because the critical phase relationships are gone. Whereas the center channel can be removed just fine from the same song in uncompressed WAV or PCM format. I have also proven that my FLAC compressed files checksum mathematically back to the original (master) CD's when decompressed. For years the music industry has foisted a load of low quality recordings on the world, not much better than FM radio quality with their use of junk technology like MP3. For my money I'll just buy CD's and rip them myself and know that I spent my money on something that is not corrupted with lossy compression. Rick |
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
iPod, good sound possible?
JimC wrote:
As I said, I'm a novice concerning this technology, so I have some pretty basic questions. - When downloading, do you normally download one song at a time, or can you download a "package" of music of a particular kind or artist? You can typically download individual songs, or whole albums. I think Apple charges you for the whole session, so you don't get hundreds of $0.99 entries on your credit card bill. How long would it take to download an hour of music (one symphony, for example). A minute of iTunes Store music is probably a little under a megabyte. What conection speed do you get? Do the math. Not long. Also, what's the process for getting the music from Apple's site to your iPod? - Once pay the fee, would you download the music files to your PC's hard drive, or through a CD burner, and then copy it to the memory in your iPod? The iTunes software will download the music and store it in the appropriate folder on your hard drive. You can then burn it to a CD, also using the iTunes software. Could you keep the files in your PC and copy them to another iPod if you bought another, for example? (I haven't read Apple's contract terms, but I'm assuming you couldn't legally copy them to your wife's or friend's iPod also without paying another fee.) Read the terms. There's a limit to how many computers you can listen on, but I don't think there's a limit on how many iPods you can use. Obviously, copying songs to a friend's iPod would violate at least the spirit of copyright law, and probably the letter. But there's nothing technically to stop you. - Or, would it be better, or is it required, that you download the files directly to your iPod instead of storing them in your PC hardrive? You can't download directly to an iPod. You have to download to the computer, and then transfer them to the iPod. You keep asking about downloads, but I just want to emphasize something: Anything you already own on CD you can put on your iPod (by transferring it to your computer first). For most of us with substantial music collections, that's the source of most if not all of what's on our iPods. bob |
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
iPod, good sound possible?
windcrest wrote:
I've been on a quest for a portable player that was dedicated to lossless formats like WAV, WMA(lossless) WMA(pro) FLAC, etc. too. YOu won't find any that are *dedicated* to lossless formats to the exclusion of lossy ones, but of course the iPod can play *Apple's* lossless format (ALAC). I would imagine the Zune can play WMA. A list of portables that play FLAC can be found here http://flac.sourceforge.net/links.html#hardware Not much luck so far. Any true audiophile will not bother with compressed music, why buy something that is sub-standard than the original CD? I wouldn't buy it, but I would certainly listen to it, when they're from CDs of mine I;'ve ripped and converted to mp3. I prefer to buy the CD then rip the tracks to WAV then either use the WAV files or a lossless compression like FLAC, this is all well and good on the computer. But the problem is that without the computer (portable players) only support inferior lossy compressed formats like MP3, WMA, Apple, etc. Nope. See above. Even the iPOd supports at least one lossless compressed format. ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
|
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
iPod, good sound possible?
windcrest wrote:
edit I've been on a quest for a portable player that was dedicated to lossless formats like WAV, WMA(lossless) WMA(pro) FLAC, etc. too. Not much luck so far. Any true audiophile will not bother with compressed music, why buy something that is sub-standard than the original CD?. Rick Don't forget Apple lossless. iTunes and all iPods (except the entry level iPod shuffle) support it. CD |
|
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
iPod, good sound possible?
|
|
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
iPod, good sound possible?
windcrest wrote:
wrote: windcrest wrote: edit I've been on a quest for a portable player that was dedicated to lossless formats like WAV, WMA(lossless) WMA(pro) FLAC, etc. too. Not much luck so far. Any true audiophile will not bother with compressed music, why buy something that is sub-standard than the original CD?. Rick Don't forget Apple lossless. iTunes and all iPods (except the entry level iPod shuffle) support it. CD Until it becomes more widely available on non-Apple players I'll probably stick to CD's ripped to FLAC. FLAC is a more widely available than Apple's proprietary format. And as it turns out, Windows' Zune *doesn't* support Windows Media Lossless, though it may support Windows Media Professional....and even *more* obscure lossless format. http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=50515 ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
|
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
iPod, good sound possible?
Steven Sullivan wrote:
windcrest wrote: wrote: windcrest wrote: edit I've been on a quest for a portable player that was dedicated to lossless formats like WAV, WMA(lossless) WMA(pro) FLAC, etc. too. Not much luck so far. Any true audiophile will not bother with compressed music, why buy something that is sub-standard than the original CD?. Rick Don't forget Apple lossless. iTunes and all iPods (except the entry level iPod shuffle) support it. CD Until it becomes more widely available on non-Apple players I'll probably stick to CD's ripped to FLAC. FLAC is a more widely available than Apple's proprietary format. And as it turns out, Windows' Zune *doesn't* support Windows Media Lossless, though it may support Windows Media Professional....and even *more* obscure lossless format. http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=50515 ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason A lost marketing opportunity by Microsoft to actually provide a value proposition to the public on why a Zune is not just like every other player out there. Now we know there is no distinction, so why buy a Zune? Too bad for them, there is definitely a niche in the market for an all-lossless player dedicated for high end audiophiles. Somebody (mayebe Krell, Adcom, etc) who notices that can make a killing in the market, while all these crap players continue to wallow in the mud. Apparently having a branded player, to Microsoft, is just the "cost of doing business" to get their music selling web sites up, which is all they really care about. "Lets sell more compressed audio in proprietary formats with loads of copy protection". I have no problem with copy protection, but wish somebody would get on the ball by offering lossless audio in well known formats like FLAC or WAV and simple digital rights management. |
|
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
iPod, good sound possible?
windcrest wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: windcrest wrote: wrote: windcrest wrote: edit I've been on a quest for a portable player that was dedicated to lossless formats like WAV, WMA(lossless) WMA(pro) FLAC, etc. too. Not much luck so far. Any true audiophile will not bother with compressed music, why buy something that is sub-standard than the original CD?. Rick Don't forget Apple lossless. iTunes and all iPods (except the entry level iPod shuffle) support it. CD Until it becomes more widely available on non-Apple players I'll probably stick to CD's ripped to FLAC. FLAC is a more widely available than Apple's proprietary format. And as it turns out, Windows' Zune *doesn't* support Windows Media Lossless, though it may support Windows Media Professional....and even *more* obscure lossless format. http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=50515 ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason A lost marketing opportunity by Microsoft to actually provide a value proposition to the public on why a Zune is not just like every other player out there. Now we know there is no distinction, so why buy a Zune? Too bad for them, there is definitely a niche in the market for an all-lossless player dedicated for high end audiophiles. Somebody (mayebe Krell, Adcom, etc) who notices that can make a killing in the market, while all these crap players continue to wallow in the mud. Apparently having a branded player, to Microsoft, is just the "cost of doing business" to get their music selling web sites up, which is all they really care about. "Lets sell more compressed audio in proprietary formats with loads of copy protection". I have no problem with copy protection, but wish somebody would get on the ball by offering lossless audio in well known formats like FLAC or WAV and simple digital rights management. Well, the Apple iPod plays .wav files, plus the Apple lossless format. What's wrong with the iPod? You want a player that plays only lossless formats? Why would one want a player that plays *only* lossless formats? The advantage of compression is not only in file size, but also in power savings, which translate to smaller size/weight and/or longer playing times. |
|
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
iPod, good sound possible?
windcrest wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: windcrest wrote: wrote: windcrest wrote: edit I've been on a quest for a portable player that was dedicated to lossless formats like WAV, WMA(lossless) WMA(pro) FLAC, etc. too. Not much luck so far. Any true audiophile will not bother with compressed music, why buy something that is sub-standard than the original CD?. Rick Don't forget Apple lossless. iTunes and all iPods (except the entry level iPod shuffle) support it. CD Until it becomes more widely available on non-Apple players I'll probably stick to CD's ripped to FLAC. FLAC is a more widely available than Apple's proprietary format. And as it turns out, Windows' Zune *doesn't* support Windows Media Lossless, though it may support Windows Media Professional....and even *more* obscure lossless format. http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=50515 ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason A lost marketing opportunity by Microsoft to actually provide a value proposition to the public on why a Zune is not just like every other player out there. Now we know there is no distinction, so why buy a Zune? Technically, you can *load* WM Lossless files onto a Zune, but it will convert them to lossy. Too bad for them, there is definitely a niche in the market for an all-lossless player dedicated for high end audiophiles. There's no need whatsoever to make a 'lossless compressed only' player, if that's what you're suggesting. It would be silly to offer a player that supports lossless files but NOT lossy files. (And it would be silly not to buy one because it isn't a 'pure' lossless player.) In fact the Rio Karma and a few other even more obscure portables support FLAC. The iPod supports lossless ALAC. Somebody (mayebe Krell, Adcom, etc) who notices that can make a killing in the market, while all these crap players continue to wallow in the mud. Rio doesn't seem to have made a killing, though the Karma has been out for a couple of years now. In fact, the Karma is no longer even actively marketed by Rio, though it can still be bought from distributors. Current Rio models don't appear to offer FLAC support. Apparently having a branded player, to Microsoft, is just the "cost of doing business" to get their music selling web sites up, which is all they really care about. "Lets sell more compressed audio in proprietary formats with loads of copy protection". For Apple and MS, which are offering their own music download services, for which the player is merely a conduit, it is greatly about copy protection. I have no problem with copy protection, but wish somebody would get on the ball by offering lossless audio in well known formats like FLAC or WAV and simple digital rights management. there are download services that offer lossless formats (though WAV files are too big to be attractive as downloads). A list of online music stores offering FLAC downloads is on this page: http://flac.sourceforge.net/links.html#music ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
|
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
iPod, good sound possible?
Steven Sullivan wrote:
windcrest wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: windcrest wrote: wrote: windcrest wrote: edit I've been on a quest for a portable player that was dedicated to lossless formats like WAV, WMA(lossless) WMA(pro) FLAC, etc. too. Not much luck so far. Any true audiophile will not bother with compressed music, why buy something that is sub-standard than the original CD?. Rick Don't forget Apple lossless. iTunes and all iPods (except the entry level iPod shuffle) support it. CD Until it becomes more widely available on non-Apple players I'll probably stick to CD's ripped to FLAC. FLAC is a more widely available than Apple's proprietary format. And as it turns out, Windows' Zune *doesn't* support Windows Media Lossless, though it may support Windows Media Professional....and even *more* obscure lossless format. http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=50515 ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason A lost marketing opportunity by Microsoft to actually provide a value proposition to the public on why a Zune is not just like every other player out there. Now we know there is no distinction, so why buy a Zune? Technically, you can *load* WM Lossless files onto a Zune, but it will convert them to lossy. Too bad for them, there is definitely a niche in the market for an all-lossless player dedicated for high end audiophiles. There's no need whatsoever to make a 'lossless compressed only' player, if that's what you're suggesting. It would be silly to offer a player that supports lossless files but NOT lossy files. (And it would be silly not to buy one because it isn't a 'pure' lossless player.) In fact the Rio Karma and a few other even more obscure portables support FLAC. The iPod supports lossless ALAC. Somebody (mayebe Krell, Adcom, etc) who notices that can make a killing in the market, while all these crap players continue to wallow in the mud. Rio doesn't seem to have made a killing, though the Karma has been out for a couple of years now. In fact, the Karma is no longer even actively marketed by Rio, though it can still be bought from distributors. Current Rio models don't appear to offer FLAC support. Apparently having a branded player, to Microsoft, is just the "cost of doing business" to get their music selling web sites up, which is all they really care about. "Lets sell more compressed audio in proprietary formats with loads of copy protection". For Apple and MS, which are offering their own music download services, for which the player is merely a conduit, it is greatly about copy protection. I have no problem with copy protection, but wish somebody would get on the ball by offering lossless audio in well known formats like FLAC or WAV and simple digital rights management. there are download services that offer lossless formats (though WAV files are too big to be attractive as downloads). A list of online music stores offering FLAC downloads is on this page: http://flac.sourceforge.net/links.html#music ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason Actually the player I'm thinking of would play compressed audio too. But it's emphasis would be on high quality D/A 24 bit conversion of lossless files and also have a high-end analog headphone amp and high-end line outs, and maybe even come with options for high end earbuds/phones. The player would be coupled to a web site that ONLY offers uncompressed files in WAV, FLAC, WMAL, etc. by all the major labels jazz, classical, rock, etc. This way the user is getting exactly the data the artists recorded, and if they want to compress it themselves they could. My thought is that iPods and Zunes eventually will be taken over by cell phones, because eventually people will not want to carry all this hardware around, and a cell phone can play compressed audio just as well as an iPod. Down the road the only real istinction in all these devices will be quality level as always, just like the progression from 78 to LP to cassette vs LP, to CD, to SACD, etc. |
|
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
iPod, good sound possible?
bob wrote:
JimC wrote: As I said, I'm a novice concerning this technology, so I have some pretty basic questions. You keep asking about downloads, but I just want to emphasize something: Anything you already own on CD you can put on your iPod (by transferring it to your computer first). For most of us with substantial music collections, that's the source of most if not all of what's on our iPods. bob Another "basic" question. - When downloading from your own CD (by transferring it to your computer first), what's the normal procedure. - Can you play the CD on a CD player and feed the output to your computer, or could you play the CD on a disk reader in the computer? I'm assuming that, in any case, this download will be in "real time" and take the same amount of time as the particular piece of music. - Is this correct, or is there a way to speed up the transfer? Thanks, Jim |
|
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
iPod, good sound possible?
JimC wrote:
bob wrote: JimC wrote: As I said, I'm a novice concerning this technology, so I have some pretty basic questions. You keep asking about downloads, but I just want to emphasize something: Anything you already own on CD you can put on your iPod (by transferring it to your computer first). For most of us with substantial music collections, that's the source of most if not all of what's on our iPods. bob Another "basic" question. - When downloading from your own CD (by transferring it to your computer first), what's the normal procedure. - Can you play the CD on a CD player and feed the output to your computer, or could you play the CD on a disk reader in the computer? I'm assuming that, in any case, this download will be in "real time" and take the same amount of time as the particular piece of music. - Is this correct, or is there a way to speed up the transfer? Thanks, Jim The CD goes into your computer CD (or DVD) drive. At that point you use software to "rip" the songs off the CD into files on your computer (1 file per CD track). The "natural" format to rip to (with no compression) is generally WAV files. The WAV file is mathematically equivalent to the PCM encoded music on the disk, (no loss). At that point it is up to you to either play the WAV files as-is or compress them to a non-lossy format like FLAC or WMA-lossless, etc. or compress them to a lossy format like MP3. Some rippers go straight from the CD to MP3 (but in the background they are still ripping to WAV first). The speed of the rip is not real-time, it is determined by many factors, mostly how fast your CD drive is, it's buffer memory size, the software being used, and your macine processor speed. Also if your CD drive is doing the transfer digitally (preferred) or analog. Generally on todays computers a 5 minute song can be ripped to WAV in well under 30 seconds. I keep a collection of about 500 CD's in WAV format on a couple external hard drives. I ripped them with audiograbber and/or eac. For a smaller player I'll compress a portfolio of music to MP3 then use it portably. But most of the time I use the WAV files directly off my homes local area network from other computers or played into my main audio system. |
|
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
iPod, good sound possible?
JimC wrote:
Another "basic" question. - When downloading from your own CD (by transferring it to your computer first), what's the normal procedure. - Can you play the CD on a CD player and feed the output to your computer, or could you play the CD on a disk reader in the computer? Generally you do not have to do much, at all. With XP you just plop in the disk and a dialog box asks you if you want to copy the disk. At least that is the way it works on the version of XP initially installed on my PC. God knows if it will be the same for you (if you use Win), since MS has so many different versions if Windows out there. For the majority of my PC use I boot into Linux. Here, a nifty and capable program called K3B (there are many others) allows me to copy a CD. Like Windows, when I insert the CD I am given several options of what I want to do--play, copy, convert... I'm guessing that with OS X the procedure is similar. You probably just insert the CD and are then given an option to copy, play, convert to mp3, and so forth. You really need to find a friend who will spend a few minutes with you explaining and showing you what can be done. This group is not really made for PC support issues, and you will likely be better served elsewhere. mp |
|
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
iPod, good sound possible?
JimC wrote:
bob wrote: JimC wrote: As I said, I'm a novice concerning this technology, so I have some pretty basic questions. You keep asking about downloads, but I just want to emphasize something: Anything you already own on CD you can put on your iPod (by transferring it to your computer first). For most of us with substantial music collections, that's the source of most if not all of what's on our iPods. bob Another "basic" question. - When downloading from your own CD (by transferring it to your computer first), what's the normal procedure. - Can you play the CD on a CD player and feed the output to your computer, or could you play the CD on a disk reader in the computer? You 'rip' the disc as data, from your computer's CD drive. I'm assuming that, in any case, this download will be in "real time" and take the same amount of time as the particular piece of music. - Is this correct, or is there a way to speed up the transfer? No, when you rip from a CD, it happens as much as 48 times faster than real time. The speed depends on your CD drive and the settings of your 'ripping' software. ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
|
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
iPod, good sound possible?
JimC wrote:
Another "basic" question. - When downloading from your own CD (by transferring it to your computer first), what's the normal procedure. - Can you play the CD on a CD player and feed the output to your computer, or could you play the CD on a disk reader in the computer? I'm assuming that, in any case, this download will be in "real time" and take the same amount of time as the particular piece of music. - Is this correct, or is there a way to speed up the transfer? I use a Mac and iTunes, but I presume the procedure is similar for PCs, and other softwa 1. Pop the CD into your computer's CDROM drive. 2. Launch iTunes, if it doesn't launch automatically. 3. Click "Import CD." This will copy the CD to your hard drive and place the songs in your iTunes library. This will take much less time than playing the CD. I haven't timed it, but the last one I did probably took well under 10 minutes. The key decision you have to make is what format you want to rip to. If you're using an iPod, the best choice is AAC, which is a codec like MP3, but offers better sound quality at equivalent bitrates. The choice of bitrates involves a compromise between sound quality and file size--and by extension, how much you can get on your player. 128kbps is "standard"--it's what you'll get if you buy from the iTunes Music Store, for example. It's 11:1 compression, so a 700MB CD takes up about 65MB. I use 192kbps, or 7:1 compression. At that rate, I get almost 12 hours of music per GB and sound quality I doubt I could tell from the original CD. bob |
|
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
iPod, good sound possible?
|
|
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
iPod, good sound possible?
In article , JimC
wrote: bob wrote: JimC wrote: As I said, I'm a novice concerning this technology, so I have some pretty basic questions. Another "basic" question. - When downloading from your own CD (by transferring it to your computer first), what's the normal procedure. - Can you play the CD on a CD player and feed the output to your computer, or could you play the CD on a disk reader in the computer? I'm assuming that, in any case, this download will be in "real time" and take the same amount of time as the particular piece of music. - Is this correct, or is there a way to speed up the transfer? "Downloading" from a CD is commonly called "ripping". Audio compact discs can be read directly by computer CD drives and turned into music data files on your computer. There is no need to play the CD on a player (converting the digital data into analog waveforms) and then re-digitize the analog data back into digital form. Doing so would likely add errors and distortions. Ripping is done as fast as your computer can read the CD, optionally convert the audio data to some format, and store the converted data on your hard drive. Your CD drive is probably rated as 16x, 48x, which gives you some idea of how much faster than real time the reading can be. Conversion and writing will take some time as well. The data on a CD is uncompressed (16 bits at 44,100 samples per seconds per channel). Most ripping programs can compress the audio to a variety of formats. iTunes is one program that can do this. |
|
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
iPod, good sound possible?
bob wrote:
JimC wrote: Another "basic" question. - When downloading from your own CD (by transferring it to your computer first), what's the normal procedure. - Can you play the CD on a CD player and feed the output to your computer, or could you play the CD on a disk reader in the computer? I'm assuming that, in any case, this download will be in "real time" and take the same amount of time as the particular piece of music. - Is this correct, or is there a way to speed up the transfer? I use a Mac and iTunes, but I presume the procedure is similar for PCs, and other softwa 1. Pop the CD into your computer's CDROM drive. 2. Launch iTunes, if it doesn't launch automatically. 3. Click "Import CD." This will copy the CD to your hard drive and place the songs in your iTunes library. This will take much less time than playing the CD. I haven't timed it, but the last one I did probably took well under 10 minutes. The key decision you have to make is what format you want to rip to. If you're using an iPod, the best choice is AAC, which is a codec like MP3, but offers better sound quality at equivalent bitrates. The choice of bitrates involves a compromise between sound quality and file size--and by extension, how much you can get on your player. 128kbps is "standard"--it's what you'll get if you buy from the iTunes Music Store, for example. It's 11:1 compression, so a 700MB CD takes up about 65MB. I use 192kbps, or 7:1 compression. At that rate, I get almost 12 hours of music per GB and sound quality I doubt I could tell from the original CD. bob Just want to make sure that JimC is clear about this, when you use iTunes you set up the importing options in Edit/Preferences/Advanced/Importing. You specify what format you want iTunes to rip to, and at what rate. You can experiment with different encoders and bit rates to see what works best for you. For a lot of us, anything above 192Kbps gets really close to the original, so that may be a good rate to start with. It's difficult for most of us to tell 320 kbps mp3's from the original CD. If you want the highest compatibility, you should rip to mp3 (import using MP3 encoder in iTunes). If you want the highest quality, you can rip to a lossless compressed format, like the Apple lossless format for example. The .wav format does not give you any compression, so that will result in the largest file size and the highest bit rate. FYI, CD format is 44.1K samples/sec. That translates to a bit rate of 44.1K * 16 *2 = 1.41 Megabits/sec. So a very high quality mp3 using 320 Kbps will give you a data compression rate of 4.4. That means the size required to store the music in that mp3 format is less than a quarter of what the .wav format requires. The compression rate is important because (a) it means you can store more music for a given storage capacity, and (b) the energy required to retrieve the music is less because there are fewer bits to read. The latter results in more playing time and/or smaller battery size. |
|
#25
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
iPod, good sound possible?
Chung wrote:
bob wrote: JimC wrote: Another "basic" question. - When downloading from your own CD (by transferring it to your computer first), what's the normal procedure. - Can you play the CD on a CD player and feed the output to your computer, or could you play the CD on a disk reader in the computer? I'm assuming that, in any case, this download will be in "real time" and take the same amount of time as the particular piece of music. - Is this correct, or is there a way to speed up the transfer? I use a Mac and iTunes, but I presume the procedure is similar for PCs, and other softwa 1. Pop the CD into your computer's CDROM drive. 2. Launch iTunes, if it doesn't launch automatically. 3. Click "Import CD." This will copy the CD to your hard drive and place the songs in your iTunes library. This will take much less time than playing the CD. I haven't timed it, but the last one I did probably took well under 10 minutes. The key decision you have to make is what format you want to rip to. If you're using an iPod, the best choice is AAC, which is a codec like MP3, but offers better sound quality at equivalent bitrates. The choice of bitrates involves a compromise between sound quality and file size--and by extension, how much you can get on your player. 128kbps is "standard"--it's what you'll get if you buy from the iTunes Music Store, for example. It's 11:1 compression, so a 700MB CD takes up about 65MB. I use 192kbps, or 7:1 compression. At that rate, I get almost 12 hours of music per GB and sound quality I doubt I could tell from the original CD. bob Just want to make sure that JimC is clear about this, when you use iTunes you set up the importing options in Edit/Preferences/Advanced/Importing. You specify what format you want iTunes to rip to, and at what rate. You can experiment with different encoders and bit rates to see what works best for you. For a lot of us, anything above 192Kbps gets really close to the original, so that may be a good rate to start with. It's difficult for most of us to tell 320 kbps mp3's from the original CD. I would strnongly suggest that you avoid the MP3 encoder within iTunes. It's lousy. Fast, but lousy. AAC is the best choice for compressed, lossy audio. If you want the highest compatibility, you should rip to mp3 (import using MP3 encoder in iTunes). If you want the highest quality, you can rip to a lossless compressed format, like the Apple lossless format for example. The .wav format does not give you any compression, so that will result in the largest file size and the highest bit rate. FYI, CD format is 44.1K samples/sec. That translates to a bit rate of 44.1K * 16 *2 = 1.41 Megabits/sec. So a very high quality mp3 using 320 Kbps will give you a data compression rate of 4.4. That means the size required to store the music in that mp3 format is less than a quarter of what the .wav format requires. The compression rate is important because (a) it means you can store more music for a given storage capacity, and (b) the energy required to retrieve the music is less because there are fewer bits to read. The latter results in more playing time and/or smaller battery size. Other than the quality issue of the MP3 encoder in iTunes, I agree with all else Chung has said. Just substitute AAC for MP3  Another thing to think about is, if you are starting to really like the idea of ripping your CDs to iTunes, here's a suggestion to help you speed things alongs when ripping CDs en masse; rip the CDs to iTunes using AIFF or WAV. These are uncompressed, perfectly lossless, and the FASTEST way to rip your CDs to iTunes. Then, once you've ripped all your CDs to AIFF or WAV, goto Edit/Preferences/Advanced/Importing and change the import method to AAC 912 Kbits or other lossy method your prefer. Hit OK and go back to your music library. Choose or select all the songs you just imported as AIFF or WAV. Goto the advanced menu and choose "convert selection to AAC." What this does is let the computer go about its business of converting all those possibly hundreds of files sitting on your hard drive to your preferred format without any intervention from you. Making an AAC or MP3 file requires the computer to process the data, so the conversion takes quite a bit longer than importing to AIFF or WAV. Since you have quickly imported all the music data to your computer, you can now leave the computer processing over night and come the next morning to find all the files converted to AAC. Now, you will find that all your files have been duplicated. No problem. With your Library hilighted/selected, goto the edit menu and choose show duplicate songs. In the column headings which say Name, Time, Artist etc, click on "Kind" This will re-order the list so all your AIFF, AAC, and WAV files are grouped together. Select all the AIFF or WAV files and choose DELETE. Done. On the bottom of the itunes windows you will see a Show all Songs button. Choose it and your itunes windows goes back to normal displaying all your songs in the library. Hope this helps CD |
|
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
iPod, good sound possible?
|
|
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
iPod, good sound possible?
bob wrote:
wrote: Another thing to think about is, if you are starting to really like the idea of ripping your CDs to iTunes, here's a suggestion to help you speed things alongs when ripping CDs en masse; rip the CDs to iTunes using AIFF or WAV. These are uncompressed, perfectly lossless, and the FASTEST way to rip your CDs to iTunes. This is really significantly faster than ripping in ALAC? Then, once you've ripped all your CDs to AIFF or WAV, goto Edit/Preferences/Advanced/Importing and change the import method to AAC 912 Kbits or other lossy method your prefer. Hit OK and go back to your music library. Choose or select all the songs you just imported as AIFF or WAV. Goto the advanced menu and choose "convert selection to AAC." What this does is let the computer go about its business of converting all those possibly hundreds of files sitting on your hard drive to your preferred format without any intervention from you. Making an AAC or MP3 file requires the computer to process the data, so the conversion takes quite a bit longer than importing to AIFF or WAV. Since you have quickly imported all the music data to your computer, you can now leave the computer processing over night and come the next morning to find all the files converted to AAC. Now, you will find that all your files have been duplicated. No problem. With your Library hilighted/selected, goto the edit menu and choose show duplicate songs. In the column headings which say Name, Time, Artist etc, click on "Kind" This will re-order the list so all your AIFF, AAC, and WAV files are grouped together. Select all the AIFF or WAV files and choose DELETE. Done. On the bottom of the itunes windows you will see a Show all Songs button. Choose it and your itunes windows goes back to normal displaying all your songs in the library. If you have the hard-drive space to hold all your CDs in WAV/AIFF format in the first place, why delete them? Create separate libraries for uncompressed and compressed music, and load your iPod from the compressed library. This will save you having to re-rip all your CDs when you're ready to ditch your CD player and use a computer as your source component. bob I agree, if you are going to spend the time to rip CD's you may as well have lossless "masters" for the future. Hard drive space these days is dirt cheap, in fact Frys electronics had a 1 TERRABYTE external drive for under $400 last week, this one drive will hold just about anybodys CD collection in WAV format easily. Having a lossless master also allows you to resell your CD to a used CD store and put that money towards more CD's which is what I do. I know in the future I will have a pristine, uncorrupted source for the data, and I just compress when I need to. Compression algorhythms will continue to improve and evolve, remember that 128kb MP3 sounds a lot better today than it did 8 years ago, and this is due to all the bugs fixed over the years just in the MP3 code. Why rip using a compression algorhythm that you know will be improved next year? Just rip to WAV and live without fear of obsolesence going forward. |
|
#28
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
iPod, good sound possible?
bob wrote:
wrote: Another thing to think about is, if you are starting to really like the idea of ripping your CDs to iTunes, here's a suggestion to help you speed things alongs when ripping CDs en masse; rip the CDs to iTunes using AIFF or WAV. These are uncompressed, perfectly lossless, and the FASTEST way to rip your CDs to iTunes. This is really significantly faster than ripping in ALAC? Here's my observations/experience: RIP to Library using WAV/AIFF=fastest, most space taken up. RIP to Library using AppleLossless=1/2 as fast, half the space. RIP to Library using AAC=slowest, usually 1/5 the speed, resulitng files (@160 kbps) 1/10 the size of AIFF or WAV Then, once you've ripped all your CDs to AIFF or WAV, goto Edit/Preferences/Advanced/Importing and change the import method to AAC 912 Kbits or other lossy method your prefer. Hit OK and go back to your music library. Choose or select all the songs you just imported as AIFF or WAV. Goto the advanced menu and choose "convert selection to AAC." What this does is let the computer go about its business of converting all those possibly hundreds of files sitting on your hard drive to your preferred format without any intervention from you. Making an AAC or MP3 file requires the computer to process the data, so the conversion takes quite a bit longer than importing to AIFF or WAV. Since you have quickly imported all the music data to your computer, you can now leave the computer processing over night and come the next morning to find all the files converted to AAC. Now, you will find that all your files have been duplicated. No problem. With your Library hilighted/selected, goto the edit menu and choose show duplicate songs. In the column headings which say Name, Time, Artist etc, click on "Kind" This will re-order the list so all your AIFF, AAC, and WAV files are grouped together. Select all the AIFF or WAV files and choose DELETE. Done. On the bottom of the itunes windows you will see a Show all Songs button. Choose it and your itunes windows goes back to normal displaying all your songs in the library. If you have the hard-drive space to hold all your CDs in WAV/AIFF format in the first place, why delete them? Create separate libraries for uncompressed and compressed music, and load your iPod from the compressed library. In my library I have mostly Apple Lossless to achive pretty much the same result. If the source file was not of pristine quality, like an old cassette, then I make it AAC. This will save you having to re-rip all your CDs when you're ready to ditch your CD player and use a computer as your source component. bob CD |
|
#29
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
iPod, good sound possible?
windcrest wrote:
I agree, if you are going to spend the time to rip CD's you may as well have lossless "masters" for the future. Hard drive space these days is dirt cheap, in fact Frys electronics had a 1 TERRABYTE external drive for under $400 last week, this one drive will hold just about anybodys CD collection in WAV format easily. Having a lossless master also allows you to resell your CD to a used CD store and put that money towards more CD's which is what I do. I know in the future I will have a pristine, uncorrupted source for the data, and I just compress when I need to. Compression algorhythms will continue to improve and evolve, remember that 128kb MP3 sounds a lot better today than it did 8 years ago, and this is due to all the bugs fixed over the years just in the MP3 code. Why rip using a compression algorhythm that you know will be improved next year? Just rip to WAV and live without fear of obsolesence going forward. Man, I break out every time I think of ripping all of my CDs in the future and having to spend days fixing the lablels in the software, which are generally terrible for classical. I know that it will have to happen someday, but I sure don't look forward to it. |
|
#30
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
iPod, good sound possible?
wrote:
bob wrote: wrote: rip the CDs to iTunes using AIFF or WAV. These are uncompressed, perfectly lossless, and the FASTEST way to rip your CDs to iTunes. This is really significantly faster than ripping in ALAC? Here's my observations/experience: RIP to Library using WAV/AIFF=fastest, most space taken up. RIP to Library using AppleLossless=1/2 as fast, half the space. RIP to Library using AAC=slowest, usually 1/5 the speed, resulitng files (@160 kbps) 1/10 the size of AIFF or WAV Your iTunes software is behaving very strangely. I just ripped a 4 minute song to the following formats: WAV: 29 seconds Apple Lossless: 29 seconds MP3 (128kbps): 29 seconds Notice a pattern? bob |
|
#31
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
iPod, good sound possible?
Jenn wrote:
windcrest wrote: I agree, if you are going to spend the time to rip CD's you may as well have lossless "masters" for the future. Hard drive space these days is dirt cheap, in fact Frys electronics had a 1 TERRABYTE external drive for under $400 last week, this one drive will hold just about anybodys CD collection in WAV format easily. Having a lossless master also allows you to resell your CD to a used CD store and put that money towards more CD's which is what I do. I know in the future I will have a pristine, uncorrupted source for the data, and I just compress when I need to. Compression algorhythms will continue to improve and evolve, remember that 128kb MP3 sounds a lot better today than it did 8 years ago, and this is due to all the bugs fixed over the years just in the MP3 code. Why rip using a compression algorhythm that you know will be improved next year? Just rip to WAV and live without fear of obsolesence going forward. Man, I break out every time I think of ripping all of my CDs in the future and having to spend days fixing the lablels in the software, which are generally terrible for classical. I know that it will have to happen someday, but I sure don't look forward to it. I initially did my collection of 500 or so CD's over the course of about a month, now I rip CD's about 3 or 4 times a year to catch up. I'm very glad that I did it to WAV files, it would not be worth my time ripping to compressed formats knowing that the compression algorithms are always changing and improving. I'd hate to think I spent all that time ripping through an algorithm that had a coding bug. I have a master base library now that is "hi res" so to speak, with no lost data that you can never get back from a lossy compressed format. If I want compression I can drag and drop the items I want from WAV files. |
|
#32
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
iPod, good sound possible?
windcrest wrote:
I initially did my collection of 500 or so CD's over the course of about a month, now I rip CD's about 3 or 4 times a year to catch up. I'm very glad that I did it to WAV files, it would not be worth my time ripping to compressed formats knowing that the compression algorithms are always changing and improving. I'd hate to think I spent all that time ripping through an algorithm that had a coding bug. I have a master base library now that is "hi res" so to speak, with no lost data that you can never get back from a lossy compressed format. If I want compression I can drag and drop the items I want from WAV files. A good approach. A lossless encoder, like FLAC or ALAC, would do just as well, however, and require less disk space. The other thing to remember is that hard drives fail. ("There are two types of computer users: Those who have lost data, and those who will lose data.") So get *two* hard drives, back everything up, and run diagnostics on both drives periodically to make sure they're still healthy. bob |
|
#33
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
iPod, good sound possible?
Jenn wrote:
Man, I break out every time I think of ripping all of my CDs in the future and having to spend days fixing the lablels in the software, which are generally terrible for classical. I know that it will have to happen someday, but I sure don't look forward to it. I've haven't ripped many classical CDs yet, but this is definitely a problem if you have a large collection (which *you* do!). This cries out for an open-source database where people who've straightened the data out can post it for others to access. Could someone please take care of this for us? bob |
|
#34
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
iPod, good sound possible?
windcrest wrote:
Jenn wrote: windcrest wrote: I agree, if you are going to spend the time to rip CD's you may as well have lossless "masters" for the future. Hard drive space these days is dirt cheap, in fact Frys electronics had a 1 TERRABYTE external drive for under $400 last week, this one drive will hold just about anybodys CD collection in WAV format easily. Having a lossless master also allows you to resell your CD to a used CD store and put that money towards more CD's which is what I do. I know in the future I will have a pristine, uncorrupted source for the data, and I just compress when I need to. Compression algorhythms will continue to improve and evolve, remember that 128kb MP3 sounds a lot better today than it did 8 years ago, and this is due to all the bugs fixed over the years just in the MP3 code. Why rip using a compression algorhythm that you know will be improved next year? Just rip to WAV and live without fear of obsolesence going forward. Man, I break out every time I think of ripping all of my CDs in the future and having to spend days fixing the lablels in the software, which are generally terrible for classical. I know that it will have to happen someday, but I sure don't look forward to it. I initially did my collection of 500 or so CD's over the course of about a month, now I rip CD's about 3 or 4 times a year to catch up. I'm very glad that I did it to WAV files, it would not be worth my time ripping to compressed formats knowing that the compression algorithms are always changing and improving. That would not be a problem for a lossless compressed archive. You can always expand them back to .wav and reencode in the 'new and improved' format. My collection is archived as lossless (FLAC). I save about a third in hard drive space, compared to the same archive as .wav. ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
|
#35
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
iPod, good sound possible?
I use ArcServe to do unattended backups, but the project for this year
will be to get one of those plug and play RAID boxes. We have lots of photos and movies too. bob wrote: windcrest wrote: I initially did my collection of 500 or so CD's over the course of about a month, now I rip CD's about 3 or 4 times a year to catch up. I'm very glad that I did it to WAV files, it would not be worth my time ripping to compressed formats knowing that the compression algorithms are always changing and improving. I'd hate to think I spent all that time ripping through an algorithm that had a coding bug. I have a master base library now that is "hi res" so to speak, with no lost data that you can never get back from a lossy compressed format. If I want compression I can drag and drop the items I want from WAV files. A good approach. A lossless encoder, like FLAC or ALAC, would do just as well, however, and require less disk space. The other thing to remember is that hard drives fail. ("There are two types of computer users: Those who have lost data, and those who will lose data.") So get *two* hard drives, back everything up, and run diagnostics on both drives periodically to make sure they're still healthy. bob |
|
#36
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
iPod, good sound possible?
Steven Sullivan wrote:
windcrest wrote: Jenn wrote: windcrest wrote: I agree, if you are going to spend the time to rip CD's you may as well have lossless "masters" for the future. Hard drive space these days is dirt cheap, in fact Frys electronics had a 1 TERRABYTE external drive for under $400 last week, this one drive will hold just about anybodys CD collection in WAV format easily. Having a lossless master also allows you to resell your CD to a used CD store and put that money towards more CD's which is what I do. I know in the future I will have a pristine, uncorrupted source for the data, and I just compress when I need to. Compression algorhythms will continue to improve and evolve, remember that 128kb MP3 sounds a lot better today than it did 8 years ago, and this is due to all the bugs fixed over the years just in the MP3 code. Why rip using a compression algorhythm that you know will be improved next year? Just rip to WAV and live without fear of obsolesence going forward. Man, I break out every time I think of ripping all of my CDs in the future and having to spend days fixing the lablels in the software, which are generally terrible for classical. I know that it will have to happen someday, but I sure don't look forward to it. I initially did my collection of 500 or so CD's over the course of about a month, now I rip CD's about 3 or 4 times a year to catch up. I'm very glad that I did it to WAV files, it would not be worth my time ripping to compressed formats knowing that the compression algorithms are always changing and improving. That would not be a problem for a lossless compressed archive. You can always expand them back to .wav and reencode in the 'new and improved' format. My collection is archived as lossless (FLAC). I save about a third in hard drive space, compared to the same archive as .wav. ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason Yes, I've verified that both FLAC and WMA lossless, when converted to WAV, checksum back to the original WAV. I just use WAV mainly because as a musician I have backing tracks that play in my looping pedals and mixing board, and these devices only accept WAV files. Also if I record my band live that is all in WAV format too. |
|
#37
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
iPod, good sound possible?
bob wrote:
wrote: bob wrote: wrote: rip the CDs to iTunes using AIFF or WAV. These are uncompressed, perfectly lossless, and the FASTEST way to rip your CDs to iTunes. This is really significantly faster than ripping in ALAC? Here's my observations/experience: RIP to Library using WAV/AIFF=fastest, most space taken up. RIP to Library using AppleLossless=1/2 as fast, half the space. RIP to Library using AAC=slowest, usually 1/5 the speed, resulitng files (@160 kbps) 1/10 the size of AIFF or WAV Your iTunes software is behaving very strangely. I just ripped a 4 minute song to the following formats: WAV: 29 seconds Apple Lossless: 29 seconds MP3 (128kbps): 29 seconds Notice a pattern? bob Of course our comparisions are not really complete unless we mention what hardware we are running on. My iTunes is running on a Power Mac G3, equivalent to a Pentium III 500 Mhz in power. From your compress times I would guess that your system consists of an AMD 2.4 Ghz cpu with an 800 FSB, no? Or perhaps an Intel P4 at 3 Ghz. I've noticed that AMDs are extremely good with compression when compared to Intels. CD |
|
#38
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
iPod, good sound possible?
wrote:
bob wrote: wrote: RIP to Library using WAV/AIFF=fastest, most space taken up. RIP to Library using AppleLossless=1/2 as fast, half the space. RIP to Library using AAC=slowest, usually 1/5 the speed, resulitng files (@160 kbps) 1/10 the size of AIFF or WAV Your iTunes software is behaving very strangely. I just ripped a 4 minute song to the following formats: WAV: 29 seconds Apple Lossless: 29 seconds MP3 (128kbps): 29 seconds Notice a pattern? bob Of course our comparisions are not really complete unless we mention what hardware we are running on. Processor speed is irrelevant to the point, which is that, contrary to your assertion, it should not take any longer to rip to MP3 than to WAV. The read time is the only real constraint. My iTunes is running on a Power Mac G3, equivalent to a Pentium III 500 Mhz in power. From your compress times I would guess that your system consists of an AMD 2.4 Ghz cpu with an 800 FSB, no? Or perhaps an Intel P4 at 3 Ghz. I've noticed that AMDs are extremely good with compression when compared to Intels. G4, 1.25 MHz. bob |
|
#39
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
iPod, good sound possible?
Thanks to everyone for the information and suggestions. It has been very
helpful. Jim Jim Gibson wrote: In article , JimC wrote: bob wrote: JimC wrote: As I said, I'm a novice concerning this technology, so I have some pretty basic questions. Another "basic" question. - When downloading from your own CD (by transferring it to your computer first), what's the normal procedure. - Can you play the CD on a CD player and feed the output to your computer, or could you play the CD on a disk reader in the computer? I'm assuming that, in any case, this download will be in "real time" and take the same amount of time as the particular piece of music. - Is this correct, or is there a way to speed up the transfer? "Downloading" from a CD is commonly called "ripping". Audio compact discs can be read directly by computer CD drives and turned into music data files on your computer. There is no need to play the CD on a player (converting the digital data into analog waveforms) and then re-digitize the analog data back into digital form. Doing so would likely add errors and distortions. Ripping is done as fast as your computer can read the CD, optionally convert the audio data to some format, and store the converted data on your hard drive. Your CD drive is probably rated as 16x, 48x, which gives you some idea of how much faster than real time the reading can be. Conversion and writing will take some time as well. The data on a CD is uncompressed (16 bits at 44,100 samples per seconds per channel). Most ripping programs can compress the audio to a variety of formats. iTunes is one program that can do this. |
|
#40
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
iPod, good sound possible?
JimC wrote:
Can anyone direct me to a basic discussion or explanation of what music is available on downloaded files, such as iTunes, and whether there are any high-rez portable music systems conveniently workable that include a variety of classics and pop music, etc. I'm a complete novice relative to this technology. - I had understood that the audio quality of the typical iPod (or other similar systems) wasn't very good, so I haven't kept up with them at all. Actually, I have been impressed with the sound of some of the high-end walkmans and CD players. - How do the iPods compare with them. The minidisc system is very good. I have had one for 10 years. Sony have a new system (Hi-MD) with even better resolution and higher capacity. See: http://www.minidisco.com/Sony-MZ-RH1?sc=7&category=10 |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| rec.audio.car FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (caution, this is HUGE) | Car Audio | |||
| Just for Ludovic | Audio Opinions | |||
| Some Recording Techniques | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
