Jump to content

Sik_Lescinovid

  • Posts

    237
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    country-ZZ

Retained

  • Member Title
    Sophomore Member
  1. I'm not aware of any commercial software but when I do want to check (which is rarely) I do it with a Python script in the interpreter. If you like I could write a quick Python script which you could use. Python comes preinstalled on OS X so anyone on a Mac is ready to use it. I should also add that AFAIK there's no way to be absolutely sure. It's theoretically possible (though highly unlikely) that a true 24-bit recording looks like a padded 16-bit one.
  2. I'm not Stedes, but here's a gif comparing "Give Life Back To Music" from the CD and the high-res Qobuz, as well as spectrograms for each one. The rest of the tracks compare similarly, i.e. the high-res Qobuz is true high-res and the mastering is exactly the same as that of the CD. Whether you hear a difference or not will solely depend on whether your system displays differences with different resolutions.
  3. I'm currently rocking the 24/88.2 Qobuz on my server. The album sounds fantastic, and is no more compressed than Steely Dan's "Two Against Nature". Also, the vinyl very much seems to be the same master as the CD and Qobuz. I don't have a high-end vinyl ripping setup, but I've ripped it just out of curiosity and did some measurements: the DR value and MasVis plots of the vinyl seem better than the digital versions, but it turns out they're just being messed with because of the low-end rumbling and cracks/pops. Applying ReplayGain and looking closely at the waveforms there's nothing more dynamic about the vinyl than the digital versions. Considering the type of music and production on the album I very much prefer the pristine digital version to the vinyl. BTW, the Qobuz and HDTracks high-res releases are both exactly the same.
  4. Same as above. The quality of the stream is pretty good though: it's AAC at an average bitrate of 280kbps, that's pretty hard to distinguish from lossless. Great album btw.
  5. The mastering of the two CDs need not be different, the SHM might simply be louder (and clipped of course).
  6. Yep, but only portable equipment, as storage is scarce in that case and the environment isn't nearly optimal enough for me to able to tell the difference (which I only actually manage on certain specific recordings). However I often also use V0 MP3 (VBR) as it saves on space and basically delivers the same sound (or better in some special cases).
  7. Actually the CPU power can't have much to do with this since a small ALIX board running a measly 500MHz Geode CPU can easily handle on the fly decompression. If anything it might be the hard drive as you say, though even then I'm on the skeptical side of the camp. Regardless, it makes sense to do what sone did: find what works best for yourself.
  8. Wow, this is really disappointing. Luckily a friend bought me a copy of the SHM-SACD which sounds truly great. I did also rip and measure it and indeed it turns out to be very dynamic and actually has some high frequency content. Definitely better than that compressed CD pressing I had...
  9. How exactly can I compile this on OS X? I have GCC installed but quite limited experience when it comes to building C binaries, in particular the part about creating the necessary links.
  10. Oh boy, there's a lot of nice stuff to be had here. Let me first start out by saying that anything from Porcupine Tree with Gavin Harrison is a must. I believe Gavin Harrison has been a part of them since "In Absentia", so that's where you can start. Having said that, King Crimson have equally creative drumming on most of their records, and there's some good sounding masters out now. Now onto more concrete suggestions:
  11. For those who want to do this elegantly on a Mac, here's how: I'll assume that you have a music folder within which all the FLAC files are you'd like to check. I don't assume that there's only FLAC files in there nor that they are all at the root of the folder, so this procedure even works if you want to check ALL FLAC files present on your computer! 1. Install the "FLAC tools for OS X" from FLAC - download 2. In the terminal (yes, chill out) type cd followed by a space, and then from the Finder drag your music folder into Terminal window. Your terminal should then look somewhat like this: cd /directory/of/music/folder Type Enter. You have now changed your current directory in the Terminal to the music folder (cd=change directory). The goal is now to find all FLAC files somewhere within the music folder, to check them using the FLAC library you downloaded and to save all errors to a .txt file on your desktop. This can all be done using the following single command in the Terminal: find . -type f -name '*.flac' -exec flac -t {} \; 2>&1 | grep 'ERROR while decoding data' >> /Users/$USER/Desktop/integritycheck.txt Make sure you type it exactly as it's here (you can just copy-paste it into the Terminal), including the spaces. When done typing hit enter and get yourself a coffee, this might take a while.
  12. To maybe further add details to wgscotts answer: basically all ripping software that isn't broken is capable of ripping bit perfect files from a CD, provided the right settings. What differs though is the amount of statistical checks the software goes through to heuristically guarantee a bit perfect rip. You see, there's technically no way to be absolutely sure that files you copied off of a CD are the same as the ones (that are supposed to be) present on the CD, unless you have the original files (which defeats the purpose of ripping a CD in the first place). Now every ripping software does a minimum amount of statistical checks, but what sets XLD apart is that it is currently probably the one with the most comprehensive set of checks. So in short, if you rip a CD with XLD and it reports no errors, you have statistically more significant evidence that the rip is indeed bit perfect than if you had used iTunes without errors. This whole checking however comes at a price: speed. So depending on your OCD and amount of free time, you will have to decide for yourself whether you want to use iTunes or XLD. Both are capable of making bit perfect copies, one is more promising. I hope this helps!
  13. I basically agree with Paul. Whether you really want to try that many different formats depends on how critical the size obstruction is and how much time you're willing to spend. I originally thought to suggest converting to 320 kbps MP3 and to be done with it. I have no WMA files at hand, but I'm pretty sure the size wouldn't increase much (if at all) and the quality is almost by definition the closest you'll come to the original WMA. In short, of all the lossy formats 320 kbps MP3 has the best quality. If however the size doesn't suit you, try going lower in terms of bit rate. All the way down to about 128 kbps LAME MP3 encoding is considered to be superior to all other lossy encoders. Though from this point on it is prudent to consider other formats like AAC or Ogg Vorbis. IIRC however AAC was superior than Ogg Vorbis at 64 kbps. There's also variable bit rate MP3 which is worth a consideration, so called V0 MP3 (highest quality variable bit rate) is possibly indistinguishable from 320 kbps MP3 but has a usually smaller file size. In short, try in the following order (stopping as soon as you're happy): 320 kbps MP3, V0 MP3, 256 kbps MP3, V2 MP3, 128 kbps MP3, compare 64 kbps MP3 and 64 kbps AAC. The reason I suggest trying constant bit rate MP3 before variable bit rate is that you talked about the transcoded files being the new masters. In case you ever need to edit the files in some way, constant bit rate files will lead to less artifacts. But the advantage of variable bit rate files is that they usually sound as good as bigger constant bit rate files!
  14. Donald Fagen - Sunken Condos Amazing and incredibly smooth sound and production complemented by fantastic tunes. Very musical and funky. Standouts for me are "Memorabilia", "Miss Marlene" and "Good Stuff". The official 24bit/88.2kHz download is pure bliss. I have to emphasize how smooth the sound on this one is. Whereas Kamakiriad and Morph The Cat have a very crisp and thus somewhat tiring sound, Sunken Condos sounds as if it was recorded in the 70s with the clarity and details of modern day equipment. It's the most natural sound I've heard from Fagen.
  15. I'm a big HD 650 fan, your post now makes we want to go out and finally buy the DF!
×
×
  • Create New...