Ripped / Imported My Entire CD Collection... Almost...

MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum

Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Quality of MP3 audio

Because MP3 is a lossy format, it is able to provide a number of different options for its "bit rate"—that is, the number of bits of encoded data that are used to represent each second of audio. Typically rates chosen are between 128 and 320 kilobit per second. By contrast, uncompressed audio as stored on a compact disc has a bit rate of 1411.2 kbit/s (16 bits/sample × 44100 samples/second × 2 channels).

MP3 files encoded with a lower bit rate will generally play back at a lower quality. With too low a bit rate, "compression artifacts" (i.e., sounds that were not present in the original recording) may appear in the reproduction. A good demonstration of compression artifacts is provided by the sound of applause: it is hard to compress because of its randomness and sharp attacks, therefore the failings of the encoder are more obvious, and are audible as ringing or pre-echo.

As well as the bit rate of the encoded file, the quality of MP3 files depend on the quality of the encoder and the difficulty of the signal being encoded. For average signals with good encoders, many listeners accept the MP3 bit rate of 128 kbit/s and the CD sampling rate of 44.1khz as near enough to compact disc quality for them, providing a compression ratio of approximately 11:1. MP3s properly compressed at this ratio can achieve sound quality superior to that of FM radio and cassette tape, primarily due to the limited bandwidth, SNR, and other limitations of these analog media. However, listening tests show that with a bit of practice many listeners can reliably distinguish 128 kbit/s MP3s from CD originals; in many cases reaching the point where they consider the MP3 audio to be of unacceptably low quality. Yet other listeners, and the same listeners in other environments (such as in a noisy moving vehicle or at a party) will consider the quality acceptable. Obviously, imperfections in an MP3 encode will be much less apparent on low-end computer speakers than on a good stereo system connected to a computer or -- especially -- using high-quality headphones.
 
Last edited:
I'd recommend buying a NAS device (Network Attached Storage), which are readily available in 300 and 400 GB versions, for $300-400 (on sale, or with rebate). They plug directly into your network router, and can be accessed by ANY computer on the network.

Alternatively, even the price of Terabyte Servers are plummeting (Infrant, Buffalo Tech) and can be set up in a redundant RAID configuration for automatic file backup.

PC-based streaming audio *IS* the future of high-end audio... even Stereophile is finally jumping on the bandwagon <g>...
http://www.stereophile.com/images/newsletter/306Bstph.html
 
given that I'm paranoid about backing up, I've bought 2 LaCie bigger disks, 1 TB of storage apiece. It takes a long time to rip, and I don't want my invested time to go pushing up daisies any time soon. (no pun intended). I did endless tests on mp3 ripping, and 43 years old ears cannot distinguish between 256 k mp3 and raw, original material, as it also gets demonstrated in the research at http://www.geocities.com/altbinariessoundsmusicclassical/mp3test.html

They had some special guys on test there: a blind man, a sound engineer from Deutsches Grammophon and some more peculiar ears judging. Do yourself a favor, and get help from friends into a blind test. As much as we might dislike, mp3 has a human background - it's not jpeg for sound. It closely follows (and exploits) our deficiencies in order to reduce the overwhelming sound info to the relevant part. We better stop playing sound surgeons and start enjoying the music, regardless of prejudice.
 
sleepysurf said:
I'd recommend buying a NAS device (Network Attached Storage), which are readily available in 300 and 400 GB versions, for $300-400 (on sale, or with rebate). They plug directly into your network router, and can be accessed by ANY computer on the network.

That's my solution. I use a Linksys NSLU2 with external USB drives that I purchased on sale at various times. It's standalone and roughly the size of a modem (remember those?). There is a large hobbiest market that has hacked the unit too and you can have it run Linux and act like a web server, etc. on top of serving data. Roughly $89 plus your USB drives. Best Buy used to carry this, but I can't seem to find it on their site at the moment.

http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Sate...819312&pagename=Linksys/Common/VisitorWrapper
 
Lots for me to concider here...

sleepysurf said:
Yes, FLAC (and other LOSSLESS) formats will take up more hard disc space, but the $$/GB of hard drives is falling precipitously. With ~30-50% file compression that you get with FLAC (vs. native WAV), you can probably store 900-1000 CD's on a 400 GB hard drive. FLAC is open-source, compatible with PC's and there's also Mac compatible software for FLAC, but most in the Mac camp are using iTunes with AAC (or better yet, ALAC).

For those interested in using a Slimdevices Squeezebox to stream FLAC, ALAC, AAC, MP3, and other music files (non DRM) to your audio rig, check out this starting point... http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.cgi?BeginnersGuide
sleepysurf,

I was concidering putting back all of my CD's, as they are stacked all around my CD rack, but now I'm concidering purchasing a 100 to 200 gig external hard drive and re-ripping / importing all of my CD's again using FLAC or ALAC (I can't deside which is better)... :eek:
You say Slimdevices Squeesebox is best for FLAC or ALAC streaming? Is that what you are using?


lugano,

I will keep the MP3's on my hard drive... who knows I may brake down and purchase an iPod someday soon. :p
 
I'm in agreement with lugano,I'm no genius but before I ripped my collection to my escient music server I listened to one of my favorite albumsat bit rates of 160,192,and 320 mp3 format.I decided to rip my entire collection at 192.I really couldn't tell a difference between any of them.I've got about 13,000 songs taking up 100 gb of space with another 200 gb of space left.I really enjoy the ability to just pull up anything i want at the touch of a button.The only cd's I ever pop in the system are my 5.1 surround sacd's.
 
Last edited:
Robin said:
sleepysurf,

You say Slimdevices Squeesebox is best for FLAC or ALAC streaming? Is that what you are using?
The most cost-effective music server solution (at least for now) is to combine an external hard-drive (or NAS) with a Slimdevices Squeezebox (or alternatively a Roku Soundbridge or Apple Airport Express). The Squeezebox requires running their "Slimserver" software *somewhere* on your network. It natively streams FLAC files, or alternatively interfaces with iTunes to play back AAC or ALAC formats. Both the Squeezebox and Roku devices have high-res fluorescent displays and remote controls, which the Airport Express lacks.

You can also "batch" convert FLAC or ALAC files to MP3 or AAC files for use on iPods or other portable devices. The key is to initially rip them to a lossless format for archival purposes, using either Exact Audio Copy, dBPowerAmp, or iTunes (for ALAC). I could rant on all night about the nuances of ripping, etc, but just Google the topic for tons of good links. It's a time-consuming process, but well worth the effort. I'll also spare you my raving about Internet Radio and Pandora; saving that for another day.
biggrin.gif
 
Thanks Sleepysurf! Never thought about the Airport Express.. Already use iTunes as my laptop's music player so I'll pick one up tomorrow. Seems to be the most cost effective way to do things right now. Also have an external 300GB Maxtor drive.

Still would prefer an Escient or Olive system but Airport Express with iTunes/AirTunes definetly would work for me right now.

Would you recommend using the Toslink or stereo cable? I guess Toslink would be the way to go as I beleive that my a/v reciever can decode. I have a mix of AAC, MP3 and Apple losless depending on the source.
 
I do have an Airport Express (I use it to extend the airport range outside in the garden for the Powerbook) and I could stream music from the G4 PowerMac through it, but it requires keeping the Mac on, going upstairs to change the music or skip and does not solve the iPod problem. I definitely maintain my wish of an iPod dock with digital out.

Anyway, those interested in the airport express solution might find the following cable useful: http://www.monstercable.com/productPage.asp?pin=2809
 
Last edited:
sleepysurf said:
I don't use the Airport Express, but Stereophile has recently reviewed it favorably, and offers some tips for optimal fidelity...
http://www.stereophile.com/accessoryreviews/505apple/index.html

Thanks again.. just got the Airport Express setup a few minutes ago. Took all of 5 minutes from plug in to playing via iTunes.
I'll check out the Sterophile link right now.
Took the day off to kill some of last year's vacation.. got the place to myself, Logan's cranked.. What else is there to do on a rainy Fiday in Toronto..
 
My wife and I ripped our 1200 CDs to a hard disk using WM10 lossless with error correction set to on. This took several months of part time tedeium.EAC offers another route to do this wtih FLAC but both will work just fine. Lossless is just that an critical for serious listening. One can compress form these files for MP3 players if you want.

Our collection takes about 250 gigs space. I used Hitachi 500 gig drives. We have this backed up 4 times in different rooms in the house (external hard dives are now cheap and the CD collection is not) and one off site location.

I use a Lynx One for output. The sound is very very good since any jitter has been removed by the error correction riping process and the Lynx does not.

I put my audio computer on our wireless network and use our laptop to remotely (remote desk top) run our audio computer. This way we can easily look and sort our collection to decide what we want to hear from our living room couch.

The audio computer, preamp, and amp are in a near by closet. The wires go udner the floor to our speakers.

Joel
 
lossless

I also second the recommendations to rip to some lossless format.
I personally ripped my entire 1300 disc collection to .WAV's. Yes, original, uncompressed 16/44 .WAV's :eek:

I figured there are way too many variations of compressed, lossless, or whatever formats, and that *anything* out there will support 16/44 .Wav.

Plus I can always generate an MP3 or whatever from those .Wav's. And since I know I'd be using MP3's for the iPod or other portable devices, I simultaneously generated high quality (~280) VBR MP3's.

Therefore my collection is typically 1.3x the size of the CD’s. Which means tons of storage. Roughly 1.6 Terabytes for the whole enchilada.

But not to worry, as others have mentioned, HD space is now cheap (it wasn’t quite so good when I started ripping).
I currently host the collection on a RAID5 array (full redundancy) of 6 400GB WD400YR RE2 drives hanging off an LSI RAID controller.

For playback, there are two modes:

Background music in other rooms in the house I use Audiotrons, but a Squeezbox is what I’d get if purchasing today.

Critical listening in the Theater. For this I use the HTPC and through FooBar2000, I *upsample* to 16/88.2 to feed my Meridian 568 processor. This resolves the last bit of detail in the recordings.

For those that say a compressed format is indistinguishable from a .WAV, I have to say there must be an issue elsewhere in their systems, as in my rig, it’s a clear and noticeable progression in quality through MP3, 16/44 wav and 16/88 wav.

Bottom line, rip to a lossless format, then go from there to meet the needs of your devices.
In a few years we will all be wondering what the fuss was about compressed formats as we tote around our Terabyte iPods :cool:
 
JonFo,
Great solution--I of course am counting on lossless wma being around forever-with the thought that I can convert to FLAC or something else if required (or just not update the audio computer).

Are you backing up your raid elsewhere as well?

I have had a catostrophic failure of a raid system at work. Thus the choice of lossless rather than raid and then muiltiple back ups.

Joel
 
jmschnur said:
JonFo,

I have had a catostrophic failure of a raid system at work. Thus the choice of lossless rather than raid and then muiltiple back ups.

Joel

Hi,
If you choose the proper RAID type, you have built in fault tolerance. RAID 1 is a simple mirror, 2 disks having the same data, but you only get 1/2 the total capacity of the disks for data storage.

RAID 5 is more advanced, using both data and checksums, and these are distributed amongst a minimum of 3 disks. You can have any 1 of the disks go bad, replace it, and rebuild the RAID array from the data on the remaining disks, without losing data in the process. With a RAID 5 array, you get N-1 capacity, i.e. with a 3 disk array, you get 2/3 of the total capacity for storage, with a 4 disk array, you get 3/4, etc.

The choice of lossy vs lossless compression is a totally seperate issue, and has nothing to do with the storage method used (i.e. using RAID or not).

HTH,
Peter
 
Peter,

Thanks for the input. At work we had a remote RAid box go bad via the power supply and in so doing corruprd all 4 disks. But that has only happend once. I just got paranois after that with my own collection.

Choosing wma lossless over wav was the size factor based upon my own personal angst requiring the need for multple back ups and the cost for several terrabytes of drives.


Going to lossy from lossless is indeed a seperate issue and not something I would do for a main home listening application. Portable player or car applications is what those lossy techniques excel in.

Joel

Joel
 
jmschnur said:
Peter,

Thanks for the input. At work we had a remote RAid box go bad via the power supply and in so doing corruprd all 4 disks. But that has only happend once. I just got paranois after that with my own collection.
...
Joel

Yeah, that would make me paranoid as well :)

However, I do have a spare spindle of he same vintage on a shelf to ensure a compatible spare.

I also rip to a directory that when it reaches 4GB, I back up to DVD. So i also have a huge stack of DVD's with the rips to recover from.

Got to have the right process... ;)
 
lugano said:
What we audiophile iPoders need, and need *now*, is a cable which allows to bypass the ipod's built-in dac and route the digital stream directly into our dac of choice. And, please, in 3 flavours: coax, toslink and XLR :)

Yes, and need NOW as you say.

I've ripped my entire CD collection on to my iPod using a mixture of Apple Lossless and 320K AAC. It is great for the car, train, holidays, and to tell the truth, through my 'logans, but it could be so much better through my 'logans if I could use my DAC instead of that crappy little headphone jack. I listen to the CDs and SACDs through on my reference system for the most part - only using the iPod when friends are over, etc.
 
jmschnur said:
JonFo,
Great solution--I of course am counting on lossless wma being around forever-with the thought that I can convert to FLAC or something else if required (or just not update the audio computer).

Are you backing up your raid elsewhere as well?

I have had a catostrophic failure of a raid system at work. Thus the choice of lossless rather than raid and then muiltiple back ups.

Joel

Yes, I had a catastrophic failure of a RAID system too - one disk in the set failed [somehow] making the entire RAID set unusable!
 
Back
Top