audio

I want to archive my CD collection by putting everything on a hard drive at
the best possible quality. Does this have any hardware requirements either
in the recorder or soundcard areas? Is there a recognised 'best format' to
use? And is there any truth in the argument that quality does deteriorate
when transferring from one format to another i.e. CD to xyz, then xyz to
MP3?
K

Ken wrote:
> I want to archive my CD collection by putting everything on a hard
drive at
> the best possible quality. Does this have any hardware requirements
either
> in the recorder or soundcard areas? Is there a recognised 'best
format' to


I use EAC 0.99 prebeta 4 and encode to FLAC format which offers very
good quality at the expense of file size, say 330MB per ripped CD.

http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/en/inde...rces/download/
http://www.rarewares.org/dancer/danc...f=lame-current (Lame
compiled for Win32)



> use? And is there any truth in the argument that quality does
deteriorate
> when transferring from one format to another i.e. CD to xyz, then xyz to
> MP3?


Generational loss does happen with lossy codecs. IOW FLAC to 128kbps MP3
format is of better quality than 320kbps MP3 to 128kbps MP3. OGG to 128
128kbps MP3 would be about the same as the last example.

MP3, VBR or OGG are good choices where compromises must be made. FLAC is
better for archival purposes.

"Ken" <1n32b@optus.net.au> wrote in message
news:ejfQ7OEzIHA.4808@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>I want to archive my CD collection by putting everything on a hard drive at
>the best possible quality. Does this have any hardware requirements either
>in the recorder or soundcard areas? Is there a recognised 'best format' to
>use? And is there any truth in the argument that quality does deteriorate
>when transferring from one format to another i.e. CD to xyz, then xyz to
>MP3?
>

If you want to preserve the sound quality of the original CD then a .WAV
file sampled at 44.1 Khz using 16 bit resolution is the only way to go.
This records the CD data in the same format as is on the CD. Using one of
the many codecs that are available to compress the data into a smaller space
(e.g. you mentioned MP3) also looses some of the data on the way. Thus when
you uncompress the data, the result is not the same data that you
compressed. This is because the compression is what is known as lossy.
Many compromises are made and some codecs are often acceptable for most
purposes. There are compression algorithms that are not lossy (for example
compressing all the .WAV files into a ZIPped folder), but the nature of the
data that forms a sound .WAV file invariably means that the degree of
compression achieved rarely makes it worth the effort.

M.I.5¾ wrote:
> "Ken" <1n32b@optus.net.au> wrote in message
> news:ejfQ7OEzIHA.4808@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> I want to archive my CD collection by putting everything on a hard drive
>> at
>> the best possible quality. Does this have any hardware requirements
>> either
>> in the recorder or soundcard areas? Is there a recognised 'best format'
>> to
>> use? And is there any truth in the argument that quality does
>> deteriorate
>> when transferring from one format to another i.e. CD to xyz, then xyz to
>> MP3?
>>
>
> If you want to preserve the sound quality of the original CD then a .WAV
> file sampled at 44.1 Khz using 16 bit resolution is the only way to go.
> This records the CD data in the same format as is on the CD. Using one of
> the many codecs that are available to compress the data into a smaller
> space
> (e.g. you mentioned MP3) also looses some of the data on the way. Thus
> when
> you uncompress the data, the result is not the same data that you
> compressed. This is because the compression is what is known as lossy.
> Many compromises are made and some codecs are often acceptable for most
> purposes. There are compression algorithms that are not lossy (for
> example
> compressing all the .WAV files into a ZIPped folder), but the nature of
> the
> data that forms a sound .WAV file invariably means that the degree of
> compression achieved rarely makes it worth the effort.

But if he is willing to suffer a slight reduction in quality, he can sure
gain a tremendous savings in disk space. For example, I think a 128 kbps,
Joint Stereo, mp3 file is pretty good, and is roughly 1/10 the size of the
corresponding WAV file.

Hi - and thanks for some very useful advice. HD space is not an issue. The
goal is to have a digital copy on my PC as close to the original quality of
the CD as possible so that, should the CD be damaged at some point, I can
burn another with no loss of sound quality.

The other question related to using my new iPod. Unless there's a better
format I'm going to make MP3 copies of some of my music for use on the iPod
but would never be thinking of making CDs of MP3 copies. The question was
put because I'd read somewhere that it's best to go straight from CD to MP3
because there is a quality degradation if , e.g. you go from CD to format A,
format A to format B and then format B to MP3. (I don't pretend to
understand why anyone should do that but it was discussed in a book I read
on iTunes, iPods or whatever.

BTW I take it that MP3 is the best format for iPods? Again storage space
isn't an issue - it's a Classic with 80GBs - and I know that there are
obvious limitations in listening to music on a iPod. I'm certainly not
intending loading it up with every piece of music I've got but I just feel
that I might as well try and get the best sound out of it as I can.

I had a look at EAC 0.99 prebeta 4 and the idea of encoding to FLAC format
and need to look into it more closely. But I'm a newbie to audio and that
program seems to pre-suppose a degree of technical know how I don't have. I
have Nero and Roxio. Would they be adequate for making WAV copies?

Regards,

Ken

Ken wrote:
> Hi - and thanks for some very useful advice. HD space is not an issue.
> The
> goal is to have a digital copy on my PC as close to the original quality
> of
> the CD as possible so that, should the CD be damaged at some point, I can
> burn another with no loss of sound quality.

Just do keep in mind how huge those files will be. As a rule of thumb,
it's in the order of 44,100 samples/sec X 16 bits per sample X 2 for
stereo = 1,411,200 bits per sec. (OR: 1,411,200 / 8 = 176,400
bytes/sec). So for a minute, multiply by 60, to get: 10,584,000 bytes
per min, or 10 MB a minute!! One hour is 600 MB, or 0.6 GB!!

> The other question related to using my new iPod. Unless there's a better
> format I'm going to make MP3 copies of some of my music for use on the
> iPod
> but would never be thinking of making CDs of MP3 copies. The question was
> put because I'd read somewhere that it's best to go straight from CD to
> MP3
> because there is a quality degradation if , e.g. you go from CD to format
> A,
> format A to format B and then format B to MP3. (I don't pretend to
> understand why anyone should do that but it was discussed in a book I read
> on iTunes, iPods or whatever.

Every time you make a conversion there is a slight (but often minimal) loss.
Generally speaking, it's often pretty small, and is often pretty hard to
hear. But compress it enough times and you will. :-)

> BTW I take it that MP3 is the best format for iPods? Again storage space
> isn't an issue - it's a Classic with 80GBs - and I know that there are
> obvious limitations in listening to music on a iPod. I'm certainly not
> intending loading it up with every piece of music I've got but I just feel
> that I might as well try and get the best sound out of it as I can.
>
> I had a look at EAC 0.99 prebeta 4 and the idea of encoding to FLAC format
> and need to look into it more closely.

FLAC is lossless, and (consequentally) can't compress music very much, so
you don't really gain much in terms of file size reduction (as contrasted to
mp3s, for example). I'd say, skip it.

OR go to mp3's, where you can choose the compression level in the software.
Note: The 128 kbps, Joint Stereo (or Stereo) mode is the most common mode
used for mp3's, where you gain a 10:1 or better filesize reduction (as
compared to the WAV format). You might want to read up on some of this,
either in the Nero or Roxio help files, and/or at the Wiki site, for
example.

> But I'm a newbie to audio and that
> program seems to pre-suppose a degree of technical know how I don't have.
> I
> have Nero and Roxio. Would they be adequate for making WAV copies?

They should be. And check out their help files, too.

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:O1cKPoPzIHA.5716@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Ken wrote:
>> Hi - and thanks for some very useful advice. HD space is not an issue.
>> The
>> goal is to have a digital copy on my PC as close to the original quality
>> of
>> the CD as possible so that, should the CD be damaged at some point, I can
>> burn another with no loss of sound quality.
>
> Just do keep in mind how huge those files will be. As a rule of thumb,
> it's in the order of 44,100 samples/sec X 16 bits per sample X 2 for
> stereo = 1,411,200 bits per sec. (OR: 1,411,200 / 8 = 176,400
> bytes/sec). So for a minute, multiply by 60, to get: 10,584,000
> bytes per min, or 10 MB a minute!! One hour is 600 MB, or 0.6 GB!!
>

Something wrong with your theory somewhere. A 650 MB CD holds 74 minutes of
audio data, and that includes an overhead for error correction. That means
that one hour of data occupies 527 MB. Take out the error correction and
and the PCM data is down to 465 MB. Since a .WAV file is in the same format
as a CD, the data occupies the same space: that is one hour occupies 527 MB.

I'm not disputing your arithmetic, but it doesn't match reality.

M.I.5¾ wrote:
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:O1cKPoPzIHA.5716@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Ken wrote:
>>> Hi - and thanks for some very useful advice. HD space is not an issue.
>>> The goal is to have a digital copy on my PC as close to the original
>>> quality of
>>> the CD as possible so that, should the CD be damaged at some point, I
>>> can
>>> burn another with no loss of sound quality.
>>
>> Just do keep in mind how huge those files will be. As a rule of thumb,
>> it's in the order of 44,100 samples/sec X 16 bits per sample X 2 for
>> stereo = 1,411,200 bits per sec. (OR: 1,411,200 / 8 = 176,400
>> bytes/sec). So for a minute, multiply by 60, to get: 10,584,000
>> bytes per min, or 10 MB a minute!! One hour is 600 MB, or 0.6 GB!!
>>
>
> Something wrong with your theory somewhere. A 650 MB CD holds 74 minutes
> of
> audio data, and that includes an overhead for error correction.
> That means that one hour of data occupies 527 MB. Take out the error
> correction and and the PCM data is down to 465 MB.

Is the overhead for error correction that large? (62 MB)

> Since a .WAV file is in the same format
> as a CD, the data occupies the same space: that is one hour occupies 527
> MB.
>
> I'm not disputing your arithmetic, but it doesn't match reality.

I don't know why there is that apparent discrepancy. Maybe you do.
Maybe in the assumption of a (standard) 8 bits per byte being used above?

>>. A 650 MB CD holds 74 minutes

Does it really?

JohnO wrote:
>>> . A 650 MB CD holds 74 minutes
>
> Does it really?

Is that the fallacy? I'm still trying to figure out what is errant in
what I wrote out. The math seemed right to me (for computing the size of a
wav file). :-) But clearly something was off.