And the best way to store music now is as a data file (wave, aiff, etc.) on a RAID or hard drive with backup. Its alot cheaper than expensive CD-Rs too. (just make sure your captureing at 44.1khz)
I agreed about storage!
I think that playback is still better on CD player, but maybe I am wrong, it depends of whole PC set up.
I think that playback is still better on CD player, but maybe I am wrong, it depends of whole PC set up.
totally depends on the DAC and output amp of your sound card/external audio I/O. These days the external I/Os are a better value than buying a CD player, and they seperate the DAC from the drive, sorta.
cbdb said:
Or put them back as FLAC files on a data CD ………………
Disadvantage is, you can only play them back from a PC. A regular CD player cannot play them.
At this moment I am setting up a music centre around an Asus Eee PC 901 that feeds an E-MU Tracker USB dac. Sound is really good and IMO better than many CD players of comparable price and even higher.
Note that HD’s always fail, usually after 5 – 10 years of service. A good CD-R lasts much longer.
Pjotr said:
A bit OT:
I use my diy media server extensively and find it pretty competitive with my homebrew shigaclone. I use flac for all of my music media and have 3 drives in the system. (No raid)
True, so i say back it up and put it on a shelf, it costs about a 10 cents a CD, and in 5 years the price of hard drive space to store a CD will be what, .5 cents a piece?
> Note that HD’s always fail, usually after 5 – 10 years of service.
That's why we have RAID...
That's why we have RAID...
cbdb said:
That is what I am doing. But after so many years the amount is so large it will not fit comfortable in the room anymore. That is why I set up a music centre, the disks can be safely stored elsewhere.
ideal player exits?
PC still very noisy environment, more than CD player, and source of jitter. Perhaps an ideal player would be a reduced computer, like MP3 player, playing .WAV file and including S/PDIF output.
Is this ideal player exits ?
Eric
zoranaudio said:
PC still very noisy environment, more than CD player, and source of jitter. Perhaps an ideal player would be a reduced computer, like MP3 player, playing .WAV file and including S/PDIF output.
Is this ideal player exits ?
Eric
The E-MU has its own lo jitter x-tal clocks and his own PSU. If the data arrives at it bit-perfect what does it matter?
My guess (hope) for the future would be HQ wireless DACs connected to any number of HiFi's and video displays. These would be run by a whole house server network using powerful PC's with solid state RAM drives in a Raid array.
You could not image a noisier environment than PC: switching power supply, multiple crystal oscillator, multiple high speed processor, hard drive with multi-plate hight speed rotation, awful case with high vibrations level....
How could it be a low source of jitter ???????
Eric
Hi Eric,
As long as it process your data it doesn’t matter except for audible noise (fans etc.). And it does process your data as intended, otherwise the thing wouldn’t run at all anyway. Or do you believe I typed something else you are reading now?
What matters is jitter at the conversion clock of de actual DA-converter chip. There you can have a point, PSU noise can influence this for on board PCI audio cards. But with a good semi pro card it is dealt with. Some good reading about it is already posted elsewhere on this board: http://imageevent.com/cics/v03theartofbuildingcomputertrnsp (can’t find the thread back at the moment).
As long as it process your data it doesn’t matter except for audible noise (fans etc.). And it does process your data as intended, otherwise the thing wouldn’t run at all anyway. Or do you believe I typed something else you are reading now?
What matters is jitter at the conversion clock of de actual DA-converter chip. There you can have a point, PSU noise can influence this for on board PCI audio cards. But with a good semi pro card it is dealt with. Some good reading about it is already posted elsewhere on this board: http://imageevent.com/cics/v03theartofbuildingcomputertrnsp (can’t find the thread back at the moment).
Can someone explain this to me?
Here is a test I had tried: I ripped a couple of songs from some of my better recorded music cd's to a program called CDEX, all tracks were ripped to .wav file 16-bit/44.1khz. I wanted to see if there was a difference in sound quality using 2 seperate methods. Using my SB Audigy program and using the Creative audio converter, I decided to convert 3 different songs from 3 seperate cds. Tracks #1,3,&5 were converted,using the set destination format tab, to wave 16 bits per sample and the samplerate @ 44,100hz. Tracks 2,4,&6 were converted with the same technic except the BPS was increased to 24 and the samplerate to 96,000hz. After burn was finished I then compared the tracks and noticed that the 24-bit/96khz tracks(2,4,&6) sounded better.
P.S. The blank disc I used for the test was Verbatim cd-r multi-use/music-data!
Thanks
Here is a test I had tried: I ripped a couple of songs from some of my better recorded music cd's to a program called CDEX, all tracks were ripped to .wav file 16-bit/44.1khz. I wanted to see if there was a difference in sound quality using 2 seperate methods. Using my SB Audigy program and using the Creative audio converter, I decided to convert 3 different songs from 3 seperate cds. Tracks #1,3,&5 were converted,using the set destination format tab, to wave 16 bits per sample and the samplerate @ 44,100hz. Tracks 2,4,&6 were converted with the same technic except the BPS was increased to 24 and the samplerate to 96,000hz. After burn was finished I then compared the tracks and noticed that the 24-bit/96khz tracks(2,4,&6) sounded better.
P.S. The blank disc I used for the test was Verbatim cd-r multi-use/music-data!
Thanks
- Status
- Not open for further replies.