[unclesomebody]

If so, do yourself a favour and buy a new soundcard. The x-fi xtreme series is blowing my mind. I didn't think a PC soundcard could sound so full. I've got a pretty decent hifi set up (pre amp, power amp, quality speakers, probably £1500 worth) but for the last few years my PC has been my main listening post. Previously I had various hi end CD/MD players (Arcam £700 cd player, NAD, etc). I came to hate mp3's though because they do sound so flat and shitty through my stereo. It easily highlights the deficiencies.  Anyway, with my new PC I orderend an x-fi xtreme music. It is amazing to say the very least least. They've just had a model revision so now the same card (technologically) is the xtreme gamer. Have a look on ebuyer . This is a massively worthwhile upgrade. I promise you won't regret it.

It's worth bearing in mind that any system is only as good as it's weakest component. Don't rape your hifi, buy an x-fi. But don't buy one cheaper than the xtreme gamer because they are significantly poorer spec.

[GCW]

For portable things I use MP3- in the car, Portable MP3 etc.  Background noise means the inadequacies of MP3 don't annoy me.

At home, I use my Hi-Fi.  Like you I used to be an audiophile, but I haven't updated for a while.  Cyrus 3i Amp into bi-amped Cyrus powers.  Arcam Alpha 9 CD spinner, Ruark Scimitas on decent (old) 100kg Target stands.  Quality interconnects.
I still think vinyl remains the pinnacle of audio quality.

Thanks for the recommendation though 

[rc]

A good solution to music-from-PC is to optically connect to your amp. Obviously this is no help if you're missing either an optical-out on your PC or an optical-in on your amp [note to self for next upgrade]. But for those suitably endowed it leaves the DA conversion to the amp - horses for courses and all that.

[GCW]

A good solution to music-from-PC is to optically connect to your amp. Obviously this is no help if you're missing either an optical-out on your PC or an optical-in on your amp [note to self for next upgrade]. But for those suitably endowed it leaves the DA conversion to the amp - horses for courses and all that.

True.  However, the PC storage methods (MP3, MP4, WMA, WAV etc etc etc) are the weak point in the system.  You can hear the loss of certain frequencies, or even bands.  Even using Optical you won't correct this, so you may as well use a 3.5 headphone plug into 2 phonos!

I'm not getting started on the whole digital optical vs digital coax debate.  I prefer the latter.

[Bubba]

Surely if you use a lossless codec then this isn't an issue?

[GCW]

You are correct Bubba.  But how many people do?  And are they truly "lossless" compared to AAA recording?

[Bubba]

I use .flac wherever i can - supposedly it's been proven to be lossless but i've not investigated it to any particular depth, it's good enough for my old ears

[Ena]

Sorting out my mini-studio I recently fitted an Emu 0404, not sure if this has the same DAC as the new creative card you like, but it does sound tremendous. Not good for games though. Sounds like the new creative jobs are using some aural enhancement routines for games, this may well over-shine music though, like the over use of any audio processors. Can you turn it off? Speaking of which, the best named bit of studio kit is still the Aphex Aural Exciter with optical big bottom. It's that sort of technology which sparkles up your mp3s in the creative card. Good if carefully used.

[GCW]

I'm always suspicious Bubba.  You've got a full quality file, then "compress" it and make it smaller.  But it's exactly the same.
So, why not make the original like this?
I can't believe there is no loss at all using compression/ encoding.
For me the quality scale goes:  Reel to Reel->Vinyl->DAT->CD->MD->AC->MP3, based on filtering etc etc.
Just 'cos you can't officially hear a frequency doesn't mean you don't miss it when it's cut.

[unclesomebody]

GCW: How can you be "suspicious". It's mathematically provable that lossless really does mean lossless. That is why it is called lossless infact. I would use some SCIENCE before saying things like that.

I suppose you also believe that if you zip a word file and then unzip it you have two different files? No.

If I can be so brave as to try and explain this as simply as possible. Imagine a string of numbers like this;

00110011001100110011... It is always two 0's followed by two 1's. This can be compressed to 0101010101... etc. The decoder would then issue a command that says whenever there is a 0 put another 0 after it, and if there is a 1 put another 1 after it. Now, you have eradicated 50% of the 0's and 1's by doing this. If you have a LOT of them, then the original file size > the new file size plus the decoding instructions. you have a lossless process and a smaller file size.

That's SCIENCE. 

PS. your quality scale is amusing, but not accurate.

[GCW]

Fair enough, but are you telloing me that all frequencies are included in the files and there is no filtering?  No cut out of frequencies below 20Hz or above 20kHz?  If so, I take it all back.

What's wrong with the scale?  It's based on the above premise of filtering and cut-out.

Edit:  I think my other point was: why bother making a file type, then needing to use something else to compress it.  Why not just design it better to start with?

[GCW]

00110011001100110011... It is always two 0's followed by two 1's. This can be compressed to 0101010101... etc.

Since this is 0011 repeated, it can be compressed to xxxxxx where x represents 0011.  Your compression method of 010101 seems rather antiquated 

[unclesomebody]

Fair enough, but are you telloing me that all frequencies are included in the files and there is no filtering?  No cut out of frequencies below 20Hz or above 20kHz?  If so, I take it all back.

What's wrong with the scale?  It's based on the above premise of filtering and cut-out.

Edit:  I think my other point was: why bother making a file type, then needing to use something else to compress it.  Why not just design it better to start with?

I am telling you that LOSSLESS file compression does not lose any data, therefore by definition it can't lose any frequencies. Frequency is not something extra to those 1's and 0's. It's all there, as data. So, take it all back.

I concur totally that your "codec" is far better than mine though, I just used the simplest example I could think of.

I also don't know why you would use type of compression when there is a better method. I would guess it's something to do with decoding it, and how widespread the use of the decoding algorithm is. For example, of all the people you know, how many have flac decoders installed? Give them a cd and it will definitely work, but give them flac and it might not. I would guess that is why some are used over others, but like I say, I don't actually know.

[GCW]

The source file is the main issue here.  If you rip a LOSSLESS file from a CD you are running at CD quality ie 44.1kHz and 16bit.  And the CD frequency response is 20Hz to 20kHz.  By definition, any file taken from CD will have these limitations also.  According to the Nyquist Theorem, in order to achieve lossless sampling, the sample rate must be at least twice as high as the highest recorded frequency. Thus, an audio signal with a bandwidth of 20 kHz would require a sampling rate of at least 40,000 samples/second.
DAT samples at 48kHZ, infinite bitrate, no frequency range limitations.
Vinyl samples at infinite Hz and infinite bitrate with no frequency limits.  Hence my order of quality before.

So, unless you can take the original, unadulterated studio recording and put it into lossless .wav or whatever, you are losing quality.

So, I ain't taking it back yet.  Whether all this is of importance I am still suspicious.   

[Bubba]

Well the lossless file will only be as good as it's source, but anyway if a music file is lossless, your original point doesn't stand.

However, the PC storage methods (MP3, MP4, WMA, WAV etc etc etc) are the weak point in the system.  You can hear the loss of certain frequencies, or even bands.  Even using Optical you won't correct this, so you may as well use a 3.5 headphone plug into 2 phonos!

For the record, .flac does sound noticably better than most .mp3.

[Paul B]

what bearing does all this have for listening to files back via mp3 players/car mp3 players? is it supported? (excuse the ignorance)

[Bubba]

Some "mp3 players" will support lossless codecs (iRiver springs to mind). It can be done on an iPod but i don't think it's very easy to do yet.

Next time i buy one it will be a feature very near the top of my "must have" list because converting .flacs to .mp3s that will play on my iPod is a pain in the arse.

But then, i guess if you're listening in the car, then with all the extra background noise involved, does it really matter anyway? 320 bitrate MP3s sound ok.

[Serpico]

DAT samples at 48kHZ, infinite bitrate, no frequency range limitations.
Vinyl samples at infinite Hz and infinite bitrate with no frequency limits.  Hence my order of quality before.

DAT sampling rates are switch-able, so could just as easily be 36k or 44k1. Even with 48k it's still limited to 24kHz top end. And the bit rate certainly isn't infinite.
Vinyl doesn't sample at all. It's quality is limited by depth of groove and speed, which are both inadequate compared to CD. Truth is that people prefer vinyl because of the compensatory RIAA eq which gives it a warmer low mid sound. If you prefer the sound of vinyl, which part of the vinyl do you prefer: inner or outer? After all the peripheral speed is faster

[GCW]

Bubba:  If the music file is lossless, truly lossless, and nowt but lossless, then OK- PC tunes can sound as good as top end hi-fi 
Serpico:  The point of vinyl is that is analogua and represents real-time sound.  As you say yourslef, it doesn't sample.  It recreates everything.  Why on earth wouold you switch DAT sampling lower even though you can.  Theoretical bitatre should be infinite, hardware dependent.

Most of my stuff in on CD.  All my stuff is also ripped to Mp3.  If I listen to a CD and vinyl of the same album, my liver definitely vibrates more with the vinyl at the same amplitude.  SCience for you Unc 

At the end of the day, without a dedicated listening room with correct proofing it doesn't really matter.

Bubbs:  how does .flac compare to .wav?

[Ena]

Well this is fun.

Good articles on the background to digital recording here http://www.soundonsound.com/search?url=%2Fsearch&Keyword=%22All+about+digital%22&Words=All&Section=8&Subject=13&Summary=Yes

Uncle - I'm sure your new card sounds great. Mine does! I do know a bit about digital recording, but know sod all about 'record players'. I use mp3 at 192 and they sound fine to me! I also use multitrack high quality wavs and yes there is a difference but it's not an issue. Enjoy your listening people!

[Bubba]

Bubba:  If the music file is lossless, truly lossless, and nowt but lossless, then OK- PC tunes can sound as good as top end hi-fi 

Yeah, assuming that all the associated hardware is as high quality, i don't see why not. Is there a high-end CD player that will read formats like .flac?

Bubbs:  how does .flac compare to .wav?

uncompressed .wav is also lossless so they should be the same. However the massive file sizes are not nice. There is also now an uncompressed .wma but i've never seen it. Flac seems to be the most common lossless format on the download sites.

[GCW]

I suspect I'm clinging to the old days.  I like the warrm sounnds    I'm very cynical about all this.  Typical Gill Bates.  Bring something out that ain't all it could be.  Then bring out a patch/ SP/ mod to update it.  Why not do it right straight away?

Enjoy your listening people!

I guess this is the most important thing.

I've noticed with MP3 at 192, even 320, that there is an appreciable quality loss.  Like I said ages ago, I use this format for all my PC tunes/ car/ MP3 portable where quality isn't an issue.  I'll wait for decent hi-end seperates HD storage, with lossless files.  At home, I can't see the advantage of digitalised music, except for things like compilations..  I like having a CD/LP case to look at.  God, I sound old.

Bubba:  Thanks for correcting my fumbled italics too!!

Edit:

Is there a high-end CD player that will read formats like .flac?

Not to my knowledge.

[ouch]

does anybody know of a tool that can convert flac files to mp3?
 

[Jim]

people, when your converting to mp3's always use the lame codec.
This will give you a variable bitrate and the best possible sound from compressed music.
I use this method:

http://www.chrismyden.com/bestmp3guide.php

[unclesomebody]

Jim, I think the point of this thread is more about how to avoid mp3! But you are right, use lame and learn what all the commands are for it too!

After much thinking today, some reading of books, and a discussion with a friend of mine (who got his degree in Sonic something or other), I have definitive conclusions (kind of).

Firstly, as suspected, Vinyl is most definitely not the best source of music. Most of the things you say about Vinyl are correct, but the fundamental thing is that Vinyl is not a perfect media. In fact, it is far from it. Vinyl can't be made to very very high standards and so isn't at the top of the food chain. Plus, vinly and record players don't have any sort of error correction algorithms to fix the pops/bangs etc so they are all there too.  If you can think of meta-vinyl and then a meta-record player then in theory (and only there) would you have the perfect sound. This is the realm of imagination though, in reality vinyl is not a good medium for music. In a studio things are recorded onto hard drives. ie. they are digitised immediately. The sampling rate can potentially be anything, but let's say it's 96khz. The best way to listen to the music you have is from this source file, which will be some digital file (in any number of formats), through an excellent stereo system. However, taking this source file and putting it to cd will require the loss of some information, because you are going from a 96khz sampling rate so a 44.1khz sampling rate. In doing so (by the Nyquist Theorem) you are reducing the frequencies that can be contained from 48khz to 22.05khz. The human ear can only really hear up to 22khz, and that's if you are you and/or have very good hearing. But that isn't the only limiting factor. What frequencies can speakers reproduce? Well, taking a VERY expensive set of B&W 800D's will give you a frequency response of 32Hz - 28kHz. This is higher than a cd can offer and so these wonderful speakers would benefit from a better source than CD's. A good set of speakers (circa £800-1000) will probably produce something like 44Hz - 22kHz, just within what a cd can offer. So, anything you lost by going from the studio copy to the cd will not be audible via even an expensive audio system. Going from this CD copy to flac (for example) will not lose ANY quality or cause any frequencies to be lost either. It will be identical in sound. Using a lossy codec will obviously cause deterioration in quality.

Personally, I rip everything in flac. I try to download everything in flac (very difficult), and if I can't I make do with mp3. My speakers have a frequency response of 36Hz - 20kHz so unfortunately I'm rather limited in what I can hear. 

I hope that makes sense. The conclusion? You tell me.