rlnt500

The first thing you need to do is stop using your computer immediately. Using another computer, go to the web site distrowatch.com. Scroll down and on the right side of the screen you will get to a list going from 1 to 100. Pick 53 - Parted Magic. Once in parted magic click on download mirrors. You need to download this: pmagic_2012_3_24.iso (md5sum: f1a89bf9dfc395ceb4661184cec9cea9). Its an ISO file so when its done downloading you need to burn it to a CD. Now, boot your system from that CD; you may have to go into your bios and allow your pc to boot from your cd/dvd drive. Parted Magic is a small linux distro that runs just from ram. This will allow you use your computer without touching your hard drives. If you have no other choice and you must use your own PC, still download and try to save the file to a USB stick if you have one or try to save the file in a place where you are pretty sure that there are no music files. Now you need to look for your missing files. Look for the file manager; its probably on the desktop. If not, look through the menu's. Using it is very similiar to windows explorer. Go through all of your drives and partitions and try to find your missing music. Doing it this way allows you access your drives without Windows getting in the way and, possibly, writing over some of your music. Try this first. If you still can't find anything, there are other things you may have to do. Post back with an update.

Miska, Thanks for the info. I understand exactly what you are talking about now. I want to go listen to some. Can you tell me which ones you like the best?

Well here we are again. I was kind of disappointed this morning when I found out that I was wrong. In all honesty, I really thought I was correct about the info in my post yesterday. To find out where I went wrong, I read the article on the NAD amp. The funny thing is; not only was I right, but that article backs me up. Let me see if I can't simplify it a little more since there is some confusion. Here's a quote from my post from yesterday. "With the newer designs, its just a matter of location as to where things are handled and/or some of the newer processing techniques that are used. What ever the design, at some point the audio signal has to be converted to analog, amplified in the analog domain and sent to the speaker. Thats just how it is; there's no other way to do it." Lets start with the DA converter. Its usually in the CD player or an outboard processor. It dosen't really matter where you put from a functional standpoint, it just has to be somewhere. With the NAD amp mentioned in the article, its inside the amp. What kind of amp is the NAD? Its a class D switching amp. (That's not my opinion, they actually tell you that if you read it.) What's the benefit of doing it this way? Its done to eliminate the need for an analog preamp. So now instead of tapping off the analog input to get the signal to turn the transistors on and off, the amp gets the signal from the DA converter instead. Doing it this way, of course, allows for a digital volume control. Merging the DA converter with the amps switching control module allows you to do one very important thing. That is to convert the digital data stream to analog so that the analog power transistors inside the class D amp can amplify the signal it sends to the binding posts. Now, if you understand that what is running through your speaker cables is, in fact, an analog signal that has been amplified, you can only explain it 1 of 2 ways. The first way is the process I just went through. The second way is the Power Fairy takes care of that for you. (Its kind of like the Tooth Fairy only for audiophiles.) That's it. What I said yesterday is 100% correct. Firedog, you are probably going to want to agrue this further so lets just deal with that right now. Here is the quote that you pulled out of the article and put in your post. "To reiterate the contrast with the M2, PCM data are converted by DSP into the pulse-width modulation signal that drives the output transistors. That’s it. There are no analog gain stages between the PCM data and your loudspeakers. The signal stays in the digital domain until the switching output stage, which, by its nature, acts as a digital-to-analog converter in concert with the output filter. The volume is adjusted in DSP." Now, this is your statement in reference to the above quote. "So yes, it is true digital. Your idea that "at some point the audio signal has to be converted to analog, amplified in the analog domain and sent to the speaker" is a both incorrect and a gross oversimplification." You are directly stating that I am wrong about the digital signal being converted to analog before it is sent to the speaker. If you now look in your quote that you used to back your argument up; read it through until you get to the word "until" in the first quote. That sets it up for this "digital to analog converter". Something tells me that the signal is not digital from that point on (the output stage on - if you read it) we are dealing with an analog signal. As it must be if you are going to amplify it and send it to the speakers. Something tells me that you are confusing the digital volume control and not using traditional line stage components as a way to never have to convert the signal to analog. Until they start installing s/pdif connections on the back of our heads, like I said yesterday, there is just no way around it.

Miska, I completely understand what you are saying about aluminum tweeters. I agree; If you don't get them just right (which is not easy), they can be problem. That said, I was hoping you could answer a question for me. When you say ribbons are your favorite type of driver for high frequencies, I'm a little suprised. I had a pair of Magnepan 1.7's that I played around with for about a year and found that I didn't like them for the same reasons I have issues with traditional metal tweeters. The tweeter in the Magnepan is a big long strip of aluminum; and thats what it sounds like to me. I don't see how you can like a ribbon tweeter and not like an aluminum one. So my question is: Are there other types of ribbon speakers that don't use aluminum for the high frequencies? If yes, can you tell me who makes them so I can check them out? It never occured to me that there were other kinds of ribbons. Tpoole638, I see from the above posts that you will be occupied for some time going through all the different suggestions. If none of those work out for you, just post and I will show you how to fix your problem.

Audiodoctor, When you say different flavors of Open Office, I take it you mean the difference between Open Office and Libre Office. I believe they are 2 seperate projects. I haven't used OO in a while (at least 5 years). I never did care for it and used MS Office. I'm sure OO is much better today; but I just don't know. I like Libre Office much better that MS Office. Unless there was a feature I had to have, I would'nt buy it. I know both OO and LO are fully compatible; if I have to email someone a document, I just save it as .doc and no one can tell that I didn't use Word.

James, If you're not a good potential Linux canditate, I don't know who is. If you are not that familiar with it, you will be amazed at what you can get for free (Its all legal, you don't have to pay for anything. Ever.). If you read my above post, it shows you how to try it without messing anything up on your current PC. Also, even if you are using a Mac, there is so much opensource software out there for free, you really don't ever have to buy software unless you need something very specific that there is no substitute for. Here are a couple of examples. For an office suite download Libre Office. You can get it for both Mac & PC. I have Win 7 installed on one of my partitations. I don't even bother to install a brand new, store bought copy of MS Office 2010 that sits on my shelf. For a good music player try: Clementine, Amarok, Songbird, Audacious and Banshee. There are more, but those are my favorites. Video players: VLC, SM Player, KM player. There is plenty more out there, the above I listed are just a few examples.

Caleb, I hate to ruin your good mood but you are right about digital amps. There really is no such thing. When people talk about digital amps, there is digital technology being used, but as far as the analog signal that gets amplified and sent to the speaker goes, it is and must always be left in the analog domain. I'm pretty sure someone explained it above but I'll go through it again just to clarify. All this came about because transistors are not the best, or most efficent way to amplify an audio signal. You've probably noticed that vaccuum tube amps are also referred to as valve amps. Tubes are valves; as a result, they work like a valve. They can be completely on or completely off, as well as anywhere in between (1/4, 1/2, 3/4 on ect.) Thansistors are switches. They work best either on or off. They are not valves. Anything between on or off and they start to generate a lot of heat. Thats why traditional solid state amps are big, heavy; they need to disappate all that heat. They are using transistors in a way that they were never intended to be used. What a class D or digital amp does is tap off the analog signal that comes into it from the preamp and converts the signal to digital. The most important thing to remember here, is that you never hear the signal that is converted to digital. You hear the analog signal that is sent from the preamp; just amplified. The the digital signal is used to turn the output transistors on and off very fast. This way, you are not using them as valves, but as switches, like they were origionally ment to be used. Thats why they are small, lightweight and very powerful. You don't have to take my word for this. If you call a high end company like Audio Reaearch or Jeff Rowland and tell them you have some questions about their digital amps, they will start to yell at you something like: "Dammit, they're not digital. Don't you jackasses know anything about audio equipment. It CAN'T be digital." Personally, I find their attitude a little offensive. The jackasss part they have right, but I like to think that I know at least a little something about audio equipment. One last thing is I need to mention is that one of the other posters made a comment seperating "traditional class d amps" with the newer "true or full digital amps". (I apologize if I don't remember the exact wording.) With the newer designs, its just a matter of location as to where things are handled and/or some of the newer processing techniques that are used. What ever the design, at some point the audio signal has to be converted to analog, amplified in the analog domain and sent to the speaker. Thats just how it is; there's no other way to do it. As far as to what way is the best, the only thing I can say is that a good designer can probably make good sounding equipment however they go about it.

Chris, Sorry if I wasn't clear. I did set the system up when I got home and got the exact same results. I've been using Vandersteen for years and their very detailed and a good speaker to evaluate components. With the Arcam, thats why I bought the silver cable to begin with. I don't usually like to buy expensive cables; I find it much better to match you components properly and just use cables to transfer signal and not as tone controls. But the silver with the Arcam, though, makes a very big difference and I felt worth the price. That leaves the Naim. I'm not saying its a bad sounding unit, it just didn't have the resolving power that some other equipment does. Also, take into account that it is their entry level piece and may not represent the product line as a whole. Actually, I just remembered that I have listend to some of Naim's higher end equipment with my 2 pairs of Audioquest cables and the better equipment brought out the differences between the 2 very easily. The whole point of that story, though, was not to do a cable test. I used it to show that there may be other reasons that explain why some people claim to not hear differences between cables and some other types of audio equipment. My argument was, even though on paper, my system in CO looks like a good solid entry level high end audio system, it came up short in an area I would never have expected. So now, when I read comments that I would usually disagree with, I try to look a little deeper at some of the circumstances surrounding the comment and not be so fast to "attack". My experiance with the Naim system suggests that there may be no fault at all with the other person's ears or judgement. Their system may, in fact, not have the kind of resolution needed to hear some of the differences others can easily hear; and they are being completely genuine with their comments.

No wonder so many recordings sound as bad as they do.

Toslink is one of thoes things that should have never happened. The only reason that it was invented is that not every company had the license to use the standard 75 ohm coax digital out on CD players. SP/DIF (Sony Philips Digital Interface). Toshiba Optical Link (TOSLINK) has always been inferior and was never sucessful in any meaningfull way; until recently. It was almost completely gone as a connection, but because of the rising popularity of multi channel/home theater, a lot of equipment mfgr's. are using it as a digital connection. I don't know every last detail, but if theres anything I missed, I'm sure that some other people will post anything I may have left out.

I see that several people mentioned Linux. I've been using it myself and can confirm its an excellent way to go; and for everything, not just music. Also, you can choose a journaling file system (ext 3 or ext 4). It checks data on its way in to the file system and compares it to the origional. Errors are greatly reduced. If you want to try Linux to see if you are going to like it or not, you can do so from a live CD or DVD. Going that route dosen't install anything on your hard drive. The OS is run from the CD and or RAM. If you don't like it, just reboot your computer and you'll be back in Windows. Keep in mind, though, it won't be as fast or have as many features availiable as you do with a full install. There are many different versions of Linux. My current favorite is called Mint KDE. Heres how you can get it to try. First go to this web site: distrowatch.com. Once the web page loads, scroll down and on the right hand side of the screen you will see a list of the top 100 distros. Click on the one that says Mint (It should be the first or second choice). You will then see links to download. Mint makes several different versions; the one you need is the latest stable version of Mint KDE 12, 32bit version. You can get the 64bit version if you have a 64 bit processor but I find the 32bit to be a bit more compatible and reliable. After the iso file fully downloads, burn it to a CD or DVD and then reboot the system with the disc in the drive (You may have to set your bios to boot from cd or usb). As the OS boots, it may ask a question or two, but that it, you should go right into the system. Also, if it asks if you want to use something like non free or unsupported software, pick yes.

EAC is an excellent program, but it has so many features and variables its almost impossible for a new user to set it up for best reaults. You will definately want to look at this: http://blowfish.be/eac/Setup/setup1.html. It's a complete walkthrough on how to set the program up for audiophile use. Its an absolute must have for EAC. Also, if you don't already have it, download a program called Medieval Cue Splitter. It is extremely useful program and its free.

Sorry I didn't post back sooner as I've been busy lately. I asked about the OS just to make sure you were'nt running Windows. There is something you need to know about FLAC. It is lossless compression but the file sizes will vary. There should be a level associated with a FLAC file; from 1-8. that is the level of compression used. FLAC Level 1 will be the largest file size and Level 8, the smallest. I've never heard any sound quality differences. I think that higher levels, Like 8, will work your CPU harder to decode so if you have an old machine a lower level might be best. As far as converting files and missing info and other problems, now you know what its like to use Windows (Except Windows does that with everything). I can show you how to fix your covers very easily. Download either Clementine or Amarok, both are music players with a lot of features that itunes dosen't have. I prefer Clementine but either will work. Go into the prefrences and set your library up just like you would for itunes or any other player. Just to note, you won't mess anything up by doing so. You can have more than 1 media player linked to your music files. The only thing I recommend is to not have any auto updating for your library. I do that manualy every so often. Once set up, go into Tools and select Cover Manager. Once in, just have it find any missing Covers and you will take care of it all at once. Also, I recommend you play around with it for a while. You'll find it has all kinds of nice features that itunes dosen't have. Another audio player I also use is Quod Libet. It's also a nice player, but I just use it for tagging. Its the best one I've used for that; if you just use it for tagging, you don't have to set your library up. I hope this info helps you out.

This in comment to the above listening test in Juds post. I find it to be a very interresting test but I can think of a few things that may throw the results off. First, the test, from what I can see, is intended to produce some very specific results that can then be used to evaluate how transparent your equipment is using the given results. When I use the word transparent, I am refering to how much of the system you are listening to as opposed to the recording. More transparent, more recording, less transparent, more system. It makes sense, at first glance, but I feel that there will be significant changes between recordings made by the same artist and same recording engineer. Lets say you make 3 different recordings at 3 seperate times by the same artist, engineer and in the same studio. Also, it would be reasonable to assume a certain amount of time between the recording sessions. Most artists seem to release and album every 2-3 years or so. Using the above example as what would be fixed info, I will now list a few things that I feel you can't control. Because of this, it will have to make the results of the initial test less valid. -The artist ages between recording sessions and so does their voice. -Equipment in recording studios gets changed and updated all the time. -Musicians are usually under contract to use certain brands of instruments. Brands and models change all the time. -Associated musicians may change -Different mastering technique and/or person -Music style can change -Time of day the recording is made can effect the quality of AC -Errors during mass manufacturing I can list many more examples, but from what I can see, there is so little control over so many different variables, I don't see how you can sort all that out and be left with any usuable results to base the initial experiment on. Please understand that I don't mean to offend anyone; I'm just giving an honest answer to the question.

I normaly don't get involved in these types of discussions because they usually end up making everyone angry and seldom go anywhere. I have something to add from an experiance that I had that may help people with wide difference of opinions, kind of understand the opposing view. Not a lot, buy maybe just a little. For me, at least, it was a genuine suprise. I set up a system in a house I rented in CO so I could go skiing. I was going to be there for a while so I wanted something decent to listen to. I have a pair of Vandersteen 1's that I wasn't using, as well as an Arcam 33 CD player. I didn't want to bring anything big and expensive, so I bought a Naim Nait 5i integrated. I never had anything from Naim so I was looking forward to using it. I threw some cables & other stuff I thought I may need, and that was my system. When setting up a system, I usually use Audioquest cables; they go with just about anything. Also, with new equipment, I try both silver and coper interconnects and pick the best sounding of the two. Here's the interresting part, at least for me. I couldn't tell the difference between the silver and the copper cables. I can always tell a difference and its usually a big one. I know for a fact that I can here the difference with the Arcam and the Vandersteen, so the only conclusion that I can come up with is that the Naim just didn't have the resolution to bring out the differences in the 2 cables. (Just to note, I am very picky about judging things good or bad, so when I got home, I tested each piece individually in my main system and was able to confirm that it was the Naim and none of the other equipment was defective. Here's where I'm going with all this. Lets say that this system wasn't mine but someone elses, and they are in a forum like this saying that there's no difference between silver and copper cables. Likely someone like me will get into an argument (sorry, debate) about how thats not true and we'll be going back and forth. Am I right? Yes. Are they right? Yes. But not for the reason I thought. I would assume something like: just reading and not testing, just wont admit the difference, don't have the listening skills ect. Looking at the system listed, I would have never thought that they were not at fault and the system was. Its not like its a bunch of cheap, mass market products. Arcam, Naim, Vandersteen, and Audioquest are all very well respected names and had I not heard it for myself, I would have never considered otherwise. The only other remark I want to make is about this post and others like it. When ever I read a comment, I now look at the system just as much as the comment. The one, clear trend I see, regarding cable discussion, is that the people that hear differences in cables tend to have much more resolving systems than people who don't. I don't mean this in a mean way like "my stuff is better than yours", but I am much more careful about "attacking" people because they may be making honest statements based on real experiance. Personally, I can't fault anyone for that. And in defense of the other side of the argument, you guys need to come up with some better answers than psyco acoustics, advertising, price and specs.