I am buying an SACD player to go with my system until now frontended
solely by a VPI TNT turntable. All that is fine and clear more or
less. Additionally to the SACD player I was thinking of getting an
MP3 portable. So the question is this: what is the additional
equipment I need to convert my LPs and SACDs to MP3 files? Are there
other portable options, apart from MP3 I could consider? Thanks in
advance,
-Igor.

Igor Urisman wrote:

I am buying an SACD player to go with my system until now frontended
solely by a VPI TNT turntable. All that is fine and clear more or
less. Additionally to the SACD player I was thinking of getting an
MP3 portable. So the question is this: what is the additional
equipment I need to convert my LPs and SACDs to MP3 files? Are there
other portable options, apart from MP3 I could consider? Thanks in
advance,
-Igor.


I have a SACD player (and a DVD-A player, too), but I don't have too
many SACD records. The reason is that I cannot convert the SACD's into
mp3's or aac's or wavs that my portable player (iPod) can play, without
going through additional analog to digital conversions. This is an
important reason why I often would buy CD's even though both the CD and
the SACD's (the 2-channel only ones) are available for the same
recording. I guess hybrid's may solve that problem, although I have not
tried ripping the CD tracks from a hybrid disc yet.

So back to your question. You may prefer transferring from CD's to mp3's
rather than from LPs or SACD's. But if you still want to do the latter,
you need a sound card that accepts analog inputs. Some portable players
have analog line-in's that allow you to hook up directly to a source,
but that is not as flexible. Most sound cards will come with some
software that let you record from analog sources and save the results as
compressed files like mp3's. The latest Creative Labs Audigy 2 Platinum
ZS card seems to be very well received, and it goes for anywhere from
$120 to $200 retail. You can also download free ripper programs that
convert from .wavs to mp3's, and I recommend CDEx.

"Igor Urisman" wrote in message
newsNt1c.111469$4o.131757@attbi_s52...
I am buying an SACD player to go with my system until now frontended
solely by a VPI TNT turntable. All that is fine and clear more or
less. Additionally to the SACD player I was thinking of getting an
MP3 portable. So the question is this: what is the additional
equipment I need to convert my LPs and SACDs to MP3 files? Are there
other portable options, apart from MP3 I could consider? Thanks in
advance,

I just purchased an iRiver IHP-120 ($330 or so) for exactly this purpose.
It has a 20 Gigabyte hard drive and line in as well as digital in and out
via optical. For ripping my CDs to the player, I use my computer in
combination with Windows Media Player and then transfer the MP3's or WMA
files to the iRiver via the USB 2.0 cable. (Note for SACDs: you'd need to
either take the analog stereo output from the SACD player to the line in on
the iRiver, or rip them from the standard CD layer as you would for regular
CDs.) For ripping my LP's, I purchased a Midiman (now M-Audio) Flying Calf
A/D converter and feed the digital output to the iRiver (via a coax to
optical converter, as the Midiman only outputs digital over coax.)

The iRiver can directly MP3 encode the digital input as it records, or it
can record the PCM data stream as an uncompressed wav file. When recording
in this fashion, I was unable under blind conditions (with my daughter doing
the switching) to differentiate between the original LP and the digital
copy. As the iRiver functions as a USB 2.0 hard drive as well, I can plug
it right into my computer and clean up the surface noise using Cool Edit
2000.

chung wrote:
Igor Urisman wrote:

I am buying an SACD player to go with my system until now frontended
solely by a VPI TNT turntable. All that is fine and clear more or
less. Additionally to the SACD player I was thinking of getting an
MP3 portable. So the question is this: what is the additional
equipment I need to convert my LPs and SACDs to MP3 files? Are there
other portable options, apart from MP3 I could consider? Thanks in
advance,
-Igor.


I have a SACD player (and a DVD-A player, too), but I don't have too
many SACD records. The reason is that I cannot convert the SACD's into
mp3's or aac's or wavs that my portable player (iPod) can play, without
going through additional analog to digital conversions. This is an
important reason why I often would buy CD's even though both the CD and
the SACD's (the 2-channel only ones) are available for the same
recording. I guess hybrid's may solve that problem, although I have not
tried ripping the CD tracks from a hybrid disc yet.

I've had no problem ripping CD layers of SACD hybrids. But CD layers can
be different masterings than the SACD layers (one of the dirty
little secrets of the 'hi rez' hype machine), so I'm not
necessarily getting what I would get if I could rip the SACD layer.


$120 to $200 retail. You can also download free ripper programs that
convert from .wavs to mp3's, and I recommend CDEx.

The codec poohbahs at www.hydrogenaudio.org currently
recommend EAC + Lame 3.90.3 for ripping wavs and
compressing them as mp3s. I've been using that combo and
have been quite impressed with the results.




--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

Steven Sullivan wrote:

chung wrote:
Igor Urisman wrote:

I am buying an SACD player to go with my system until now frontended
solely by a VPI TNT turntable. All that is fine and clear more or
less. Additionally to the SACD player I was thinking of getting an
MP3 portable. So the question is this: what is the additional
equipment I need to convert my LPs and SACDs to MP3 files? Are there
other portable options, apart from MP3 I could consider? Thanks in
advance,
-Igor.


I have a SACD player (and a DVD-A player, too), but I don't have too
many SACD records. The reason is that I cannot convert the SACD's into
mp3's or aac's or wavs that my portable player (iPod) can play, without
going through additional analog to digital conversions. This is an
important reason why I often would buy CD's even though both the CD and
the SACD's (the 2-channel only ones) are available for the same
recording. I guess hybrid's may solve that problem, although I have not
tried ripping the CD tracks from a hybrid disc yet.

I've had no problem ripping CD layers of SACD hybrids. But CD layers can
be different masterings than the SACD layers (one of the dirty
little secrets of the 'hi rez' hype machine), so I'm not
necessarily getting what I would get if I could rip the SACD layer.


$120 to $200 retail. You can also download free ripper programs that
convert from .wavs to mp3's, and I recommend CDEx.

The codec poohbahs at www.hydrogenaudio.org currently
recommend EAC + Lame 3.90.3 for ripping wavs and
compressing them as mp3s. I've been using that combo and
have been quite impressed with the results.



The codec in CDEX is Lame 3.92, which is apparently very similar to
3.90.3 in performance. The ripper in CDEX has jitter reduction that you
can set. If I select jitter reduction, I never had any problems ripping
cleanly, it just takes so much longer .

chung wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

chung wrote:
Igor Urisman wrote:

I am buying an SACD player to go with my system until now frontended
solely by a VPI TNT turntable. All that is fine and clear more or
less. Additionally to the SACD player I was thinking of getting an
MP3 portable. So the question is this: what is the additional
equipment I need to convert my LPs and SACDs to MP3 files? Are there
other portable options, apart from MP3 I could consider? Thanks in
advance,
-Igor.


I have a SACD player (and a DVD-A player, too), but I don't have too
many SACD records. The reason is that I cannot convert the SACD's into
mp3's or aac's or wavs that my portable player (iPod) can play, without
going through additional analog to digital conversions. This is an
important reason why I often would buy CD's even though both the CD and
the SACD's (the 2-channel only ones) are available for the same
recording. I guess hybrid's may solve that problem, although I have not
tried ripping the CD tracks from a hybrid disc yet.

I've had no problem ripping CD layers of SACD hybrids. But CD layers can
be different masterings than the SACD layers (one of the dirty
little secrets of the 'hi rez' hype machine), so I'm not
necessarily getting what I would get if I could rip the SACD layer.


$120 to $200 retail. You can also download free ripper programs that
convert from .wavs to mp3's, and I recommend CDEx.

The codec poohbahs at www.hydrogenaudio.org currently
recommend EAC + Lame 3.90.3 for ripping wavs and
compressing them as mp3s. I've been using that combo and
have been quite impressed with the results.



The codec in CDEX is Lame 3.92, which is apparently very similar to
3.90.3 in performance. The ripper in CDEX has jitter reduction that you
can set. If I select jitter reduction, I never had any problems ripping
cleanly, it just takes so much longer .

Exact Audio Copy also has a user-adjustable error-correction...which
makes ripping take much longer for damaged discs. Btw, do you really think
the level of jitter is routinely high enough to be audible,a nd
therefore to require reduction?

I vaguely recall that the only caveat 3.92 on hydrogenaudio
was that it hadn't been listener-tested nearly as extensively as 3.90 for high-bitrate
compression. Apparently versions *after* 3.92 *are* somewhat suspect
quality-wise, though.

hydrogenaudio is firmly in the blind-testing camp, bts,
which offers a nice relief from other audio fora. ;


--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

Steven Sullivan wrote:


Exact Audio Copy also has a user-adjustable error-correction...which
makes ripping take much longer for damaged discs. Btw, do you really think
the level of jitter is routinely high enough to be audible,a nd
therefore to require reduction?

Well, the jitter they are trying to remove is not the jitter from DAC
clocking that audiophiles talk about.

The jitter reduction appears to make a difference when the disc is
dirty, but frankly, rarely do I need it.

When you have jitter problem in ripping, the effects are very
noticeable. They are errors.


I vaguely recall that the only caveat 3.92 on hydrogenaudio
was that it hadn't been listener-tested nearly as extensively as 3.90 for high-bitrate
compression. Apparently versions *after* 3.92 *are* somewhat suspect
quality-wise, though.

I read that there are some compiler setting changes in 3.92, which
should not affect the quality of the coder.

I also read that iTunes has a relatively poor mp3 coder, but the aac
coder is superb, IMO.

hydrogenaudio is firmly in the blind-testing camp, bts,
which offers a nice relief from other audio fora. ;



There is really no other way to compare subtle differences, like between
192K and 320K bit-rates for example. You really have to zero in on a
short snippet, and use instantaneous switching. Then you need the
blindness to make sure that you are biased. One reason why DBT is a lot
more accepted in those forums could be due to the age of the
participants. The younger enthusiasts seem to accept the DBT methodology
much more readily. Of course, they also tend to be much more skeptical
of cables, tweaks, etc., in general.

In article , chung wrote:

Exact Audio Copy also has a user-adjustable error-correction...which
makes ripping take much longer for damaged discs. Btw, do you really think
the level of jitter is routinely high enough to be audible,a nd
therefore to require reduction?

Well, the jitter they are trying to remove is not the jitter from DAC
clocking that audiophiles talk about.

The jitter reduction appears to make a difference when the disc is
dirty, but frankly, rarely do I need it.

When you have jitter problem in ripping, the effects are very
noticeable. They are errors.

Correct. I prefer to use the term "addressing imprecision" to the
sort of problem which occurs when ripping. It tends to result in the
omission, or duplication, of whole chunks of the audio data (often
1/75 of a second's worth at a time). It tends to sound like
stuttering, pops, and ticks.

Some drives don't suffer from it, thanks to some extra work their
manufacturers do in the firmware. Other drives suffer from it all the
time. If you have one of the latter, EAC (or cdparanoia on
Linux/Unix, or a similar program which can compare and match data) is
essential in order to get a good.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

chung wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:


Exact Audio Copy also has a user-adjustable error-correction...which
makes ripping take much longer for damaged discs. Btw, do you really think
the level of jitter is routinely high enough to be audible,a nd
therefore to require reduction?

Well, the jitter they are trying to remove is not the jitter from DAC
clocking that audiophiles talk about.

The jitter reduction appears to make a difference when the disc is
dirty, but frankly, rarely do I need it.

When you have jitter problem in ripping, the effects are very
noticeable. They are errors.

Agreed in that I've only ever seen the error-correction activate itself
on dirty or visibly damaged discs.

I vaguely recall that the only caveat 3.92 on hydrogenaudio
was that it hadn't been listener-tested nearly as extensively as 3.90 for high-bitrate
compression. Apparently versions *after* 3.92 *are* somewhat suspect
quality-wise, though.

I read that there are some compiler setting changes in 3.92, which
should not affect the quality of the coder.

I also read that iTunes has a relatively poor mp3 coder, but the aac
coder is superb, IMO.

Yes, well-implemented AAC has gotten high marks every place I've looked.

It's interesting that with all the talk in audio-land of SACD/DVD-A/CD
format wars, there's so llittle talk of the annoying proliferation of
competing lossy and lossless compression 'formats' -- mp3, AAC, Ogg, Shorten, etc.
Your avearge person on the street [probably has a vague idea what mp3 is,
but also probably would use the word 'mp3' to cover all the others too.
I had no clear idea of the choices until recently myself, and I'm
fairly well informed on consumer audio matters.

hydrogenaudio is firmly in the blind-testing camp, bts,
which offers a nice relief from other audio fora. ;



There is really no other way to compare subtle differences, like between
192K and 320K bit-rates for example. You really have to zero in on a
short snippet, and use instantaneous switching. Then you need the
blindness to make sure that you are biased. One reason why DBT is a lot
more accepted in those forums could be due to the age of the
participants. The younger enthusiasts seem to accept the DBT methodology
much more readily. Of course, they also tend to be much more skeptical
of cables, tweaks, etc., in general.

I've noticed that too. It seems to me too that those here who say DBTs
can't differentiate subtle differences are refuted handily by the
test of codecs and settings, where sometimes only the best-trained
listeners using the msot difficult-to-encode samples can pass the DBT.
I'd challenge the DBT refuters to try the same test and see if *they*
could do the same!

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director