8 Questions: Settings, Servers, Workflow?

[digicidal]

I never used dBPowerAmp but does it have the same driver/reading options that EAC has? And does it check the copies, if presents, on AccurateRip database?

Yes. The first time you use it, it will have you rip some known CD's to determine the ripping players' sample offset for calculations. Subsequent to that calibration, it will check AccurateRip for everything. It will also automatically tag everything including artwork and apply DSP if desired - although it has a batch converter that's much better for that kind of thing.

Brilliant! I'll give dbPoweramp a go. RE: "Good disk" I mean maybe it's a lower quality version. Some say "not for sale" LOL. So I will find out with dbPoweramp I assume.

The copies that are marked "Not For Sale"/"Not for Resale" or have a hole punched in the booklet or a slit sawed into the side of the jewel case - they are all promotional copies from the label to radio stations and retailers. I worked at Tower Records (30 years ago) and I have a few hundred of those. It's very rare for them to be anything other than the "gold pressing" that was sold retail. They're just intentionally damaged or marked in some way to prevent stores from directly profiting off them or padding inventories - since the label has already written them off as marketing expenses.

Used record stores will be full of these as well - it was a decent way to offset the horrible wages working in retail record stores... or it was before the Internet killed almost all of them off. In some ways I miss getting taken out to dinner by the label reps and being handed boxes of demos in hopes of a big order. On the other hand, I can't believe I ever worked so hard for so little money... even as a shift manager I think I cleared less than $150/week. Selling those promos basically kept me from being homeless.

 

[amirm]

I never used dBPowerAmp but does it have the same driver/reading options that EAC has? And does it check the copies, if presents, on AccurateRip database?

It has tons of options and yes, it compares against a database of other rips. Indeed I thought dbPoweramp replaced EAC for many people. It for example lets you update and fix metadata including images for each rip.

 

[BillG]

5. Is is bad practice to listen to files that are on a remote server? Should I expect any bottle-necking with 1GBs network?

Nope! I do it approximately 50% of the time for my own listening.

The devices in my home typically connect to our WiFi LAN at speeds of anywhere from 260 Mbps to 800 Mbps, and I've never experienced a bottleneck. For example: One evening as a stress test I had seven *.flac streams going, all being served from a single i7 computer to Android mobiles, a television, and two Chromecast, each averaging 600 Kbps (~4.2 Mbps total) with nary a problem. I'd have loved to have attempted to saturate the network, but I'm going to have to invite a few dozen people with their devices over before that'll happen. Being an introvert as I am, my own neural network would be saturated well before I got even a dozen of them connected to our LAN...

P. S. If your concern is electrical interference when accessing digital audio over a network, please don't worry about it. Any competently designed, off the shelf networking equipment already has filtering built-in. Those so called "audiophile grade" routers and switches are unnecessary and a waste of money.

 

[digicidal]

It has tons of options and yes, it compares against a database of other rips. Indeed I thought dbPoweramp replaced EAC for many people. It for example lets you update and fix metadata including images for each rip.

Me too. I guess it really comes down to free vs commercial though for most of the reasons I like it. There's a bit more polish on dBPoweramp and tons of features, codecs, DSP options, etc. Their upgrade pricing is more than fair IMO as well so I've stuck with them for the past 10 versions.

I'd have loved to have attempted to saturate the network, but I'm going to have to invite a few dozen people with their devices over before that'll happen. Being an introvert as I am, my own neural network would be saturated well before I got even a dozen of them connected to our LAN...

Just thinking about that would likely make me hide in a closet - especially if they were relatives rather than friends.
When you think about how little an audio stream takes in comparison to an HD video stream... which has no problems over a good connection - audio should never be an issue... the random access latencies of the drives in the server will likely come into play long before the bandwidth of the network will unless everyone is listening to the same song.

 

[Hipper]

The Computer Audiophile is probably the best site to answer many of your questions.

1. I'm sure someone has worked it out. There is software that can turn off unnecessary processes but I'm not sure how good it is or whether it's suitable for general purpose PCs.

2. I use EAC and DBpoweramp - I have both as occasionally one won't rip but the other does.

I use JRiver for library management and playback.

3. Key is how you intend to manage your library.

It's important to consider your library filing system before you rip as this is when you add metadata. The metadata you add must work for you. For instance 'Joni Mitchell' will be filed under 'J' so I use 'Mitchell, Joni'. Classical music is a bit more complicated - composer, conductor...… I use separate libraries for classical and popular music. I use WAV files as I'm not concerned about lots of metadata and album covers. Others use other lossless files in order to add more metadata.

Workflow is therefore:

+ rip and add metadata. The software will find the data so all you need to do is adapt it to your needs. The software will also compare the quality of the rip with rips by others online.
+ add file to your storage drive using your chosen filing methods.
+ add file to back up drive.

I did all this using one CD at a time and added everything manually to JRiver.

4. JRiver will tell you if the playback is bit perfect and can also tell you the sample rate 44.1 etc..

5. I don't think so. I use an HDD on my dedicated audio PC with an SSD for the operating systems. Many use a NAS (Network Attached Storage) device.

On cabling the advice seems to be to keep USB cables as short as possible. I don't know about ethernet cables.

7. My DAC also has many filters. The only way is for you to try them. The differences in my case are minimal.

8. I found the HD650 more bassy then my current HD800 but I much prefer the latter. It's not loud in your face bass but just right on most recordings to my ears.

You can always use tone controls/EQ to alter things to your pleasure. JRiver has such facilities. Recordings are of inconsistent quality anyway so even if you get it right for some music, you'll want to adjust for others.

 

[Vovgan]

2. What is your recommended software to use in to archive CDs? (I have 26TB or free space so file size is no concern)

Before you invest your time in ripping CD’s and filling these Tb’s of storage, I suggest you rip just a few and compare how they sound to Amazon HD. For me Amazon in HD quality sounded better than my ripped CD’s in 90+% cases.

 

[zermak]

Before you invest your time in ripping CD’s and filling these Tb’s of storage, I suggest you rip just a few and compare how they sound to Amazon HD. For me Amazon in HD quality sounded better than my ripped CD’s in 90+% cases.

Maybe you cant ABX them but for sure lossless rips should sound better.

For my on the go player I use a lossy ogg vorbis compression (Q6) and it is enough for my needs. I mean the enviroment noise while walking even with IEMs is massive and you can't to any critical listening but enjoy the music for itself.

 

[BillG]

The Computer Audiophile is probably the best site to answer many of your questions.

Only if they can wade through all of the misinformation that's posted there.

With the number of information technology, computer science, and audio professionals here, we've got this covered, and very well...

 

[ahofer]

Maybe you cant ABX them but for sure lossless rips should sound better.

Why? Isn’t Amazon HD at least redbook-quality?

 

[zermak]

Why? Isn’t Amazon HD at least redbook-quality?

I don't know because I don't use it and I am not interested in the service but if it uses lossless then your sounded better it's a placebo effect or some remastered or different version of the same song.

 

[ahofer]

I’m confused. My prior expectation is that, absent some bottleneck in streaming/playing, they would sound the same, if they are both redbook or higher resolution.

 

[zermak]

@ahofer
Sorry, I was answering you thinking it was you who stated that Amazon HD sounds better than the ripped CDs but it was actually @Vovgan who said it.

About your question. Yes, if the source is good enough and the playback chain is transparent it will sound as intended.

 

[Vovgan]

@ahofer
Sorry, I was answering you thinking it was you who stated that Amazon HD sounds better than the ripped CDs but it was actually @Vovgan who said it.

1. Amazon HD is lossless. They estimate that a 3,5 min song in HD uses up to 51 megabytes and in Ultra HD 24/192 up to 153 megabytes. Saw this on their FAQ, they also mention there that it’s lossless:
https://www.amazon.com/b?ie=UTF8&node=14070322011
2. I also thought that they should sound the same but Amazon HD sounds better than my rips of the same song from the same album. First I was shocked to discover that myself and then tested on my wife and she preferred Amazon HD every time for 3-4 songs that I tested without knowing whether I streamed it from Amazon or played a CD rip.

So I suggest everyone should give Amazon HD a try. Either Amazon did some magic or (which I think is more likely) something was lost during my ripping process through iTunes into AIFFs. Either way for myself I see no need to bother with buying / ripping CD’s ever again, for which I’m super grateful to Amazon. And besides some of my favorite albums / songs are there in ultra HD.

 

[digicidal]

So I suggest everyone should give Amazon HD a try. Either Amazon did some magic or (which I think is more likely) something was lost during my ripping process through iTunes into AIFFs. Either way for myself I see no need to bother with buying / ripping CD’s ever again, for which I’m super grateful to Amazon. And besides some of my favorite albums / songs are there in ultra HD.

Did you throw one of your rips and one of the downloads into foobar ABX to see if it was a real preference? There are a vast number of possibilities which could explain the difference. It's possible that itunes did some kind to loudness/EQ to the original rips... seems to me there was some option for that back in the day. I re-ripped everything I'd done in iTunes many years ago... I don't remember why but I also had a problem with them.

The other, more beneficial possibility is that Amazon found better masters or at least preserved all of the original dynamic range rather than the possibly more compressed version from which your original CD was made. The last and least likely is that something is coloring the sound of one or the other more... which contributes to a difference which would most likely tilt toward what you knew should be the better sounding (Amazon HD/UHD).

Without taking your knowledge of which is playing out of the equation, it's difficult to speculate on the others. Even if you're just streaming... maybe have your wife play a few selections to you (while you're blindfolded) and note down which you like for several tracks. Not as good as the foobar option (totally blinded and instant switching) but better than just playing what you know is a higher resolution track and comparing it to your memory of the previous one.

 

[JEntwistle]

1. Amazon HD is lossless. They estimate that a 3,5 min song in HD uses up to 51 megabytes and in Ultra HD 24/192 up to 153 megabytes. Saw this on their FAQ, they also mention there that it’s lossless:
https://www.amazon.com/b?ie=UTF8&node=14070322011
2. I also thought that they should sound the same but Amazon HD sounds better than my rips of the same song from the same album. First I was shocked to discover that myself and then tested on my wife and she preferred Amazon HD every time for 3-4 songs that I tested without knowing whether I streamed it from Amazon or played a CD rip.

So I suggest everyone should give Amazon HD a try. Either Amazon did some magic or (which I think is more likely) something was lost during my ripping process through iTunes into AIFFs. Either way for myself I see no need to bother with buying / ripping CD’s ever again, for which I’m super grateful to Amazon. And besides some of my favorite albums / songs are there in ultra HD.

I just subscribed to Amazon HD (already had their music unlimited for family members), and I can confirm #1. They use their own nomenclature, and they have three levels of quality:

SD: Lossy (I think this is the format they were delivering previously)
HD: Redbook CD lossless; 44.1 kHz
Ultra HD: Hi Res. They say max 192 kHz sample rate, but most of what I have seen is 24/96

They give you this little table for specific tracks showing the quality available and being played:

FWIW, I am really happy with the service - the quality, selection, and price. I have BluOS in my integrated amp, which has this built in (as well as Tidal for MQA). My other use case is on the desktop. I do not stream using iOS or Android.

I also use and recommend dbPoweramp. The integration of the AccurateRip feature, where they compare your file against a database of others to verify it is bit perfect, is worth it.

 

[Vovgan]

I am really happy with the service - the quality, selection, and price. I have BluOS in my integrated amp, which has this built in (as well as Tidal for MQA).

Did you have a chance to compare the sound of Amazon HD to Tidal’s MQA?

 

[JEntwistle]

Did you have a chance to compare the sound of Amazon HD to Tidal’s MQA?

I don’t have Tidal - sorry that was not clear - so I can’t comment on MQA coming from Tidal. I do own one CD in MQA that is also available in 24/96 on Amazon Unlimited. I think they may be different masterings, which confuses things. And I also cannot easily do a/b testing without a several second gap. Listening on my integrated amp with BluOS, with the MQA streaming over WiFi from my PC and the Amazon streaming direct to the BluOS module, I have a hard time hearing a difference.

I have also tried comparing the Amazon 24/96 to a 24/96 downloaded from ProAudioMasters on my desktop DAC using headphones. Cannot tell the difference.

i’m not sure I would pick one over the other based on sound quality. The amazon service is a better fit for me for other reasons. And subjectively, I like the idea of native Hi Res instead of MQA processing. But I can’t prove one is better or worse.

If the question is whether moving from Tidal MQA to Amazon Ultra HD results in lower quality, I would say no.

Note that Amazon HD has more device limitations than Tidal at the moment. On the other hand, Amazon lets you download a certain number of songs to local drive, which is nice. But you have to use their player for those.

and one other thing I just thought of - Amazon will mix HD (redbook) and Ultra HD (Hi Res) tracks on an “album”. So an album they list as Ultra HD may have some tracks that are only HD. It is weird, but I guess their rights work that way. So it’s possible their catalog is more limited at the moment, too.