Lossless music: formats, software, players: info needed please

[Pedrito]

I really can't stand MP3s anymore, so I'm looking to convert my library into some lossless format: FLAC, WMA, ATRAC, I'm largely ignorant and don't want to do the job now and maybe have to do it again because I've chosen the wrong format. Is there someone who can help me fill the gaps with any information about what and how to do it?

Thanks

L.

[CountDeMoney]

Want lossless format?  Try *.vinyl.

[Monoriu]

I have done the exact same thing.  First off you can't convert mp3 to lossless.  You need to get new replacement lossless files.  Secondly, do you use itunes?  I do, and itunes doesn't accept FLAC or APE.  For itunes, applelossless and wave files are ok.  As far as quality goes, I can't tell the difference.

There are a couple of ways to do it.  Simplest way is to copy the files from a CD to itunes, but of course CDs cost money.  Forget buying files from itunes, those are all 256k mp3s.  The other way is to download.  The problems with downloading are that (1) the files are often in the wrong formats, e.g. FLAC or APE, so you need a way to convert them.  (2), often all the music files on a CD are lumped into a single FLAC or APE file.  So you may want to have a way to separate the songs, otherwise you'll have to listen to the CD from start to finish.  I use Audacity.  If a computer idiot like me can use it, everybody can.

[Pedrito]

Want lossless format?  Try *.vinyl.

This is the other road I'm taking. At risk of seeming a hipster, my letter to Santa contains a request for a turntable.

L.

[Monoriu]

I refuse to have anything to do with vinyl for financial reasons. 

[mongers]

I really can't stand MP3s anymore, so I'm looking to convert my library into some lossless format: FLAC, WMA, ATRAC, I'm largely ignorant and don't want to do the job now and maybe have to do it again because I've chosen the wrong format. Is there someone who can help me fill the gaps with any information about what and how to do it?

Thanks

L.

I'm in the process of converting my CDs into lossless format, 400 albums down and a lot more to go, though I had 200-300 in flac lossless format already.

Rather than rely on one piece of software, I'm ripping the cds on my old laptop using  'Exact Audio Copy' ripper also know as Eac' for short.

The resulting wavs are then compressed into lossless flacs using a little program called 'Flac Frontend' quality set at 6. In the same process for each cd, I'm compressing them using the 'RazorLame' programme thats a nice front end for Lame (using 3.98r version) and I've set the quality at V0 variable bitrate(VBR), which gives nice quality MP3 that are as good as 320kps(CBR), but are averaging 25-30% smaller than that. Another way of looking at that is the mp3s end up around a 5th-6th the size of the raw wav files.

I then tagged them up using a 'Mp3tag V2.49b', then I backup the flacs and mp3 to a large external drive, probably going to need another bigger one or look into a nice little file server.

[Monoriu]

Personally, I use itunes because it is easy to use as a library.  For actual player for the stereo system, I use JRiver.  I think there is a one month free trial period, then there is a one-off US$50 fee.  I have compared itunes and JRiver, and I think the latter is slightly better in terms of sound quality. 

It is just me, but I try to do as few file conversions as possible.  This is a hot topic in the audiophile community, and like everything audiophile related, there is no conclusion.  But intuitively, I think the theory that there maybe loss in audio quality if there are too many file conversions makes some sense. 

I don't care about file size.  I mean, this is an age where I can get a 6T external HDD for US$250.  Whether it is a 50M wav file or a 10M 320 mp3 file doesn't bother me. 

[The Minsky Moment]

I go from CD to FLAC.  Traditionally using EAC like mongers.
From FLAC you can transpose to any lossy format pretty easily and it will be just like if it were direct to that format.  That is the advantage of coding to lossless.

[viper37]

Player wise, this software will work perfectly now that Winamp is dead:
http://www.aimp.ru/

[Gups]

Anyone tried lossless streaming yet (e.g Tidal?)

[mongers]

Anyone tried lossless streaming yet (e.g Tidal?)

Nope, primarily as I'm not keen on an always on internet connection and prefer a sneakernet or explicit mp3/music players that I can load flacs/mp3 for specific events/travel. 

Though I really should sort out some low power media server/network devices for the house, any suggestions?

[DontSayBanana]

*sigh* See it's time for my semi-annual smackdown of lossless fucktardism.

First off, if you rip lossless from CD, you deserve everything you get.  CDs are sampled at 128kbps, which is actually a fairly low bitrate.  Most CD players use proprietary oversampling algorithms to fill in likely missing frequencies (so the difference in what you're hearing is literally completely generated by the CD player).  Vinyl is far more accurate than a CD... but only for the first 5 plays or so.  Every time you touch needle to vinyl, no matter how sharp the needle is, you're grinding away some of that recording.

On top of that, your hearing sucks more than you think it does.  The average human adult can only hear 20Hz to 20KHz, and that's without significant hearing damage (say, from the ludicrous number of times I've attended concerts sans earplugs).  Kids can hear up to 24KHz, but the range tends to drop during puberty.  Those "missing frequencies" that make a 320kbps a "lossy" file format?  They're only audible to dogs.  If someone says they can hear the difference between a 320 and lossless, they're lying or dealing with the occasional auditory illusion.  No exceptions- do a blind listening test, and they'll fail 90% of the time (luck does net a few people wins through guessing).

[DontSayBanana]

For what it's worth, my current job has clued me in to who's been keeping the myth running, and why (money): mostly, Monster Audio.

Monster used to do demos where they would "demonstrate" RF interference from non-Monster outlet strips; they'd wave a wand that would spike a needle (not in any discernible units, BTW) and make the "detector" go crazy beeping.  Turned out they'd put an RFID into their demo units so when the "detector" went over it, it would disable it.  Other surge protectors, not having the chip, would get The Beep.  Yes, they really went to retailers and pulled fraudulent sales tactics like that.

Long story short, the myth of "lossless" audio is kept alive by a handful of "premium" audio equipment manufacturers that want customers to feel justified in blowing exorbitant amounts of money for crap they could have gotten from the Home Depot for pennies.  Mostly Denon and Monster.

[viper37]

First off, if you rip lossless from CD, you deserve everything you get.  CDs are sampled at 128kbps, which is actually a fairly low bitrate.  Most CD players use proprietary oversampling algorithms to fill in likely missing frequencies (so the difference in what you're hearing is literally completely generated by the CD player). 

back in the early days of CD, there were often 3 letters on the back of the CD, AAD, ADD or DDD, wich, IIRC, meant that it was recorded in analog/digital, resampled in a/d and played digitally.  I don't see this anymore, but does it have any meaning on the quality of the CD?

[Monoriu]

I agree that the difference between lossless and 320 isn't very pronounced.  But still, I prefer lossless, just to make sure that the audio quality is not unncessarily compromised.  It doesn't cost me much anyway.  Either I already have the CD, or I just download the lossless instead of the MP3 version.  In an age where HDD storage space costs so little, there is no reason to choose 320 over lossless anyway.  HDD space is the only reason I can think of why I should pick 320 over lossless.