snarlydwarf Wrote:
> Guess I should explain jitter for grins and cause I'm bored :P
> A hard drive doesn't (assuming it works) have that problem: it has
> external timing. In addition to the 8-64 bits that it transfers at
> once (ld MFM drives like the ST506 transferred 8 bits at a time but
Why do I need a CD player?
Last week a buddy gave me four CDs from two recent gigs he and his band
played. I came home and popped one in the CD player and was listening
30 seconds after walking through the door. It would have taken me a
minimum of 10-15 minutes per CD to rip them, then do BMF t
Digital in? Out? Want to buy my Sony CDP-CA9ES? It's served me
faithfully. I haven't used it in a couple months now. Why shuffle CDs
when all my music is stored safely on a RAID array out in the garage.
Besides, it isn't like ripping (and encoding) actually takes that long.
It takes more time to t
I'm in the market for a new CDP. Much as I love the Squeezebox and its
convenience, the software is quite a way from being complete enough to
allow the SB with SlimServer to totally replace my CD player. Having
to first rip a CD, then add the audio files to the SlimServer library,
and then havin
Lyonesse Wrote:
> I Use EAC to rip my CD's into wav files, (I use the action / test and
> copy selected tracks option in EAC). I then run through each track
> correcting glitches) Im sure theres an automated way to do this.
I've ripped many hundreds of CDs and have never had to fix a single
glitc
Wombat Wrote:
> Foobar does not change lossless files at all
No, but but the windows sound subsystem can. It's possible to get
bit-perfect output with the right combination of soundcard, drivers and
options but it's by no means a given with an average consumer setup.
> If your soundcard resample
Foobar does not change lossless files at all until you have a dsp
running so does the Sqeezebox.
What may be different is the digital out of your soundcard feeding your
DAC. If your soundcard resamples everything to 48kHz that may justify
some changes in sound, for sure not to the better!
How do
Sean I agree with your point about S/N, and for that, SB volume must be
maxed. I had read so many comments about using the SB direct to amp
before I bought it that it had become a belief, one that is now
refuted.
I got spiced because I thought you were referring to the danger of
putting unattenu
Lyonesse Wrote:
> I then run through each track correcting glitches)
Glitches? What exactly do you mean here? There shouldn't be glitches
and if there are you can't fix them.
>
> I may be mistaken (not very technically minded)but foobar does not use
> codecs but rather sends the pure signal to
I actually do have a loyalty, to Seagate. I've been buying drives for a
long time, and have long ago given up on WD. Maxtor aren't bad but
they're very noisy, the Samsung's are pretty good though. But Seagate
are quiet, large, often discounted and have a 5 year warranty (none of
the others do for
Ali-M Wrote:
> Roger that.
>
> Next question: How do you avoid the copy protection on audio cd's? I've
> got a bunch of cd's with this useless 'technology'...
The easiest thing to do is to simply defeat auto play on your CD
drives. That will defeat the majority of the copy protection schemes
o
ezkcdude Wrote:
> Now, you guys are getting into ripping versus encoding.
That's right. I brought it up as you need a correct rip before
encoding...
ezkcdude Wrote:
> FLAC is lossless. You can't change the quality of a FLAC-encoded file.
> You can *slightly* change the size of a FLAC file, bu
ezkcdude Wrote:
> Now, you guys are getting into ripping versus encoding. Ripping to WAV
> is something you have to do before do FLAC encoding. Errors can occur
> during the ripping process, but that is a different issue. Assuming the
> WAV file is a bit-for-bit copy, there is no way to produce "
There is no one outstanding hard drive manufacturers at the moment, like
wise there are none that you should go out of your way to avoid.
This isn't always the case and some manufacturers do go though bad
patches - IBM had a very bad period with a range of their DeskStar
drives that were known as
I use Seagate. Definitely do not go with Western Digital, if you value
your music collection.
--
ezkcdude
SB3->Derek Shek TDA1543/CS8412 NOS DAC->MIT Terminator 2
interconnects->Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)->Parasound
Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier->Speltz anti-cables->DIY 2-ways
Guess I should explain jitter for grins and cause I'm bored :P
A DAC receives a serial stream of data. Just one's and zeros:
1001100111001
The catch is that there is no clock in that data. There isn't a
seperate line saying "okay, here comes the next bit!" which would get
rid of the jitter ar
OK then...from a reliablity standpoint. What are the boards picks?
--
blah509
blah509's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1405
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=24616
The only argument for coax vs toslink or which transport is better is
Jitter.
If your hard drive has jitter, you will have bit errors.
If you have bit errors on a hard drive, it is broken: think of what a
bit error would do if it was in your OS. Changing a single bit in
"kernel32.sys" or whatev
Lyonesse Wrote:
>
> I Use EAC to rip my CD's into wav files
>
I'm assuming you rip to 44.1khz, 16bit? (by the way, you might want to
loook into FLAC as a way to save some space, make it easier to
tag/organize your music, and not lose any quality)
Lyonesse Wrote:
>
> Should I invest in a be
snarlydwarf Wrote:
>
>
> Look for 'reliable' (you don't want it to crash and eat your carefully
> ripped, tagged and organized music) and even with brand names that can
> be a crap-shoot: have backups of your music just in case your
> electricity burps and spits on your data.
I agree heavily!!
then why spend thousands of dollars on different cd transports if the
ones and zeros come out the same?
The same argument can then be said for different digital interconnects
such as Toslink and Coax can't it? They are just distributing ones and
zeros, aren't they?
Not being rude, just curious.
Now, you guys are getting into ripping versus encoding. Ripping to WAV
is something you have to do before do FLAC encoding. Errors can occur
during the ripping process, but that is a different issue. Assuming the
WAV file is a bit-for-bit copy, there is no way to produce "lower"
quality FLAC files
The hard drive won't affect sound quality. If it returns bits different
from the ones you put on it, it is broken.
The only way that it would have any effect at all is if your PC was in
your listening area and the drive was noisy.
Look for 'reliable' (you don't want it to crash and eat your car
What do you think?
g
--
blah509
blah509's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1405
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=24616
_
Hi
Thank you both for your posts!
I Use EAC to rip my CD's into wav files, (I use the action / test and
copy selected tracks option in EAC). I then run through each track
correcting glitches) Im sure theres an automated way to do this :)
No dsp running in the background but some surfing of the
Skunk Wrote:
> I selected 320, but I believe it's ignored for FLAC.
That is correct.
If you are obsessed about best possible quality, it is important that
the drive offset is set correctly and you rip in safe mode. Many people
use the AccurateRIP plugin as an extra precaution.
Of course, if
aj's right: It's going to come down to your source files. What format
are you using? If not using a lossless codec, then that's almost
certainly your problem. If lossless, then I fail to see how the
squeezebox could cause the changes you describe. I assume you used the
Bel Canto dac with your
PKFox wrote
Just got my Lite 60 DAC from Hong Kong ( GR-Research ),
Have been very tempted by the Dac 60 - especially with the sonicap
mods, and exchenged a couple of emails with GR-Research.
If you don't mind saying, how much VAT / duty did you have to pay?
Look forward to hearing how it sett
Hi Jack,
You've got a decent system there, but you are going to get a lot of
questions about your source files as this could be a big factor. I have
been running 256-320 kbs for a couple years, but recently ripped to
Applelossless with great results.
What I cannot understand from your post is y
Hi
Ive had my SB3 for three days now and although there is a lot more
detail to the sound than my previous CD player, I have so far been
distinctly unimpressed.
1..Brightness..its way too bright (too much treble). After tuning
Sibilence out of my system for the last year now its back with a
veng
I selected 320, but I believe it's ignored for FLAC.
--
Skunk
Skunk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2685
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=24602
__
On the "External Compression Tab" there is a selection for Bit rate and
the default is 192kBit/s. Should I select the highest possible or leave
as it for Flac encoding.
Thanks
--
rocky2889
rocky2889's Profile: http://foru
Just to emphasize the point, *lossless* means no data is lost upon
decompression (not a single bit). In terms of quality, *there is no
better compression than lossless*. By definition, FLAC is a lossless
codec (encode-decode algorithm). The FLAC "quality" parameter is a
misnomer.
--
ezkcdude
S
Ali-M Wrote:
> So a higher compression ratio isn't neccesarily equal to a better rip
> quality? I'm currently using the "-8" setting.
Higher compression ratio only means a smaller file. The higher
compression takes a little longer on the compression end, and uses a
little more CPU power. The dif
So a higher compression ratio isn't neccesarily equal to a better rip
quality? I'm currently using the "-8" setting.
--
Ali-M
Ali-M's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5844
View this thread: http://f
"optimal" is a bit subjective - (optimal for speed / size / quality ?)
In terms of tutorials, there is a good one on setting up EAC to rip to
FLAC 'in the wiki' (http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.cgi?EACInstall).
--
Siduhe
--
If you're talking about FLAC, there's really no way to screw it up. It
will always be lossless, no matter what "quality" you choose.
--
ezkcdude
SB3->Derek Shek TDA1543/CS8412 NOS DAC->MIT Terminator 2
interconnects->Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)->Parasound
Halo A23 125W/ch amp
blah509 Wrote:
> It wasn't as if the Cyrus couldn't stand its ground, it was that the
> Cyrus (at least to my ears) was more tame (read soft). The sound of
> the Naim came across as being alot more musical. There was definately
> more bass from the Cyrus.
> g
Cool let us know how you did. You
Yes, this has been discussed all the way to planet Aurealious. However,
there are numerous compression setups around the net. My question is:
Which setup is the most optimal to use when aiming on superior rip
quality?? Links to tutorials are VERY welcomed. Thanks in advance!
--
Ali-M
--
It wasn't as if the Cyrus couldn't stand its ground, it was that the
Cyrus (at least to my ears) was more tame (read soft). The sound of
the Naim came across as being alot more musical. There was definately
more bass from the Cyrus.
g
--
blah509
--
Just got my Lite 60 DAC from Hong Kong ( GR-Research ), $480US including
shipping to the UK, not bad in my book, never having used a DAC before (
apart from the obvious ) I thought the difference would be minimal at
best ( to non_dac_aware_ears ! ), but !, I am very impressed indeed,
pretty it ain
41 matches
Mail list logo
