Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Clarifying questions on Lossless Archiving (Read 5581 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Clarifying questions on Lossless Archiving

Hi All - Appreciate your time reading this post.

I have a large library of 800 CDs that I'm looking to both safely archive and be able to listen to easily off of my network at home. A couple of years ago I ripped my collection to very-high bitrate MP3s using EAC and LAME - individual tracks sorted into a directory structure.

The audio quality was ok, but I've never really been happy with it. Now that there appears to be a nice selection of lossless audio choices, I'm looking to rerip the collection.

As I've been researching this project and reading these forums I've gotten some great information... and some questions, which follow:

**Single File vs. Many**

There seems to be some disagreement on whether it's better to rip a CD to one file w/cue file embedded, or to multiple tracks within a directory. From my perspective, I like the idea of having one (or maybe two - audio/cue) in a directory - nice and clean.

My concern is that I don't really understand how flexible this single file is from a listening perspective. I'd be looking to browse/listen to tracks from the albums, create playlists, and eventually move tracks to media players (albeit after converting them). I also plan to have devices like an audiotron and Windows Media Center edition PC in the house that would consume this music - how does the single file index/play from these sorts of hardware devices?

A secondary question on this topic is how realistic the individual files would be from an archiving perspective if I ever wanted to recreate a CD of the album again. (I do understand that the single file/cue file works just fine.)

**Format**

Considering the MCE and the fact that I'm in a mostly windows household, I'm leaning toward Windows Lossess. What I'm trying to understand is twofold:

1. Is there any advantage to FLAC in this windows-household scenario, other than the standard "anything but microsoft" aversion? It appears that windows media files can be converted by a tool I haven't used (called Foobar?) to any other format I might wish - and as such, I'm future-proofed. Am I misreading this?

2. Is it possible to encode to windows media lossless using EAC? End result I'm looking for is either a single file/cue or multiple files/cue in directories (depending on feedback I get on my first question above). With 800 CDs, I'm basically looking for as streamlined a process as possible.


Finally, other than the above, do any other comments/gotchas jump out at you that I should consider?

Thank you *very* much for your help. As I said, I've dug around the forums a bunch, but may have missed topics of interest - if it's easier to point me to those, just fire me a thread!

AV

Clarifying questions on Lossless Archiving

Reply #1 –
A quick search of the forums will reveal many similiar threads. In fact I had started one of my own a few months ago before going down the lossless path.

For ease of use I would definitely recommend ripping to individual songs, as would most people here (per poll results). It much harder, IMHO, to work with a large image/cue sheet, there are not as many programs ect.

As far as codec, Im honestly not terribly familiar with the WMA lossless. I choose flac, which can be easily streamed, gets good compression and amazing decompression (in terms of CPU). I dont know if the windows media center plays flacs, I would assume that it would be easy enough to add the FLAC codec. Also, I dont know if EAC can write WMA files, but it does very well with FLAC.

Also, I would be sure to use AccurateRip enabled EAC (and be sure to submit the results from your 800 discs to help the database) as it will set the proper offsets for reading your disc and also compare the results with the now rather large database to see if your rip was accurate.

Clarifying questions on Lossless Archiving

Reply #2 –
Thanks for your comments... I did do some more searching, and found a thread with a great website that really digs into ripping WMA lossless: http://www.virroaudio.net - highly recommended, if anyone is reading this thread.

Thanks again!

Clarifying questions on Lossless Archiving

Reply #3 –
Yes, I would also advise going to individual tracks - avoids complexity; and you can treat directories almost as if they were single files - e.g. right click on directory and play with WMP or foobar.
With EAC you can go directly to wma lossless now, I think, without any complex setting up.
Very easy to convert between lossless formats.

Clarifying questions on Lossless Archiving

Reply #4 –
Quote
There seems to be some disagreement on whether it's better to rip a CD to one file w/cue file embedded, or to multiple tracks within a directory. From my perspective, I like the idea of having one (or maybe two - audio/cue) in a directory - nice and clean.

Only in the sense that there is some disagreement about whether chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla, or whether your socks should go in the top drawer on the right, or the top drawer on the left.

One of the really cool things about using a lossless archiver like flac is that it really doesn't matter what you do today.  If you change your mind tomorrow, you can simply re-do it without any loss of fidelity.

So set it up the way it seems best to you.  If you want one file per CD, plus a cue sheet, do it that way.  If, after a few months you decide you want one file per track, there are plenty of tools to get there.

Personally, I suggest simplicity in the beginning.  When simplicity begins to fail, consider something more complex.
------- Rick -------
--------------------

Clarifying questions on Lossless Archiving

Reply #5 –
Quote
I suggest simplicity in the beginning. When simplicity begins to fail, consider something more complex


I just have to appreciate the philosophical brilliance in this quote. It's signature worthy...

FWIW, I prefer the vanilla flavored, several files method. To me it's simpler than learning cue sheets and dealing with them.

Clarifying questions on Lossless Archiving

Reply #6 –
OK -

I've gotten EAC mostly set up to do lossless WMA encoding.

My current problem is that I'm getting a directory full of WAVs - and not getting them converted. I've tried two different cscript variable feeds, but no luck.

Any ideas? I've read that you don't need to feed EAC variables anymore - it understands if you've set WMA lossless. Am I missing something?

Clarifying questions on Lossless Archiving

Reply #7 –
Hello Ozymandias.

When choosing a lossless codec there are three major things you should consider.

1 Compatibility with whatever application you intend. If you don't have this points two and three are non issues. If you are going to be decoding your lossless files with a Windows Media Center edition PC your choices are pretty much wide open (this statement is made with the assumption that WMC used direct show to decode audio). When it comes to the Audiotron it gets foggier. Reading about it briefly it seems to only support MP3, WMA & WAV. Decoding most lossless audio takes a lot more CPU power than lossy or WAV so unless it supports WMA lossless in hardware I don't think it could handle it.

2 Compression ratio. This could be somewhat of a non issue depending on how much storage you have. WMA 9 lossless is average when it comes to compression ratio.

3 Decoding speed. This is what I feel you're really losing out on when it comes to WMA 9 lossless. Take a look at this lossless codec comparison by SpeeK. Notice that WMA decodes much slower than some codecs that have superior compression ratios. The most notable of these is Monkey's Audio at normal or high settings. SpeeK's testing shows that MA Normal decodes about 50% faster than WMA. That means less heat, less power consumption, and less wasted CPU cycles that could be used for folding@home or SETI  Yes the difference might not be immediately noticeable, but if you are decoding this library for 5 years its worth considering. Especially because I see no disadvantages to using APE over WMA.

Using Monkey's Audio (APE) at either normal or high is by far the best compromise between compression ratio and decoding speed. You may want to do a little research on what the Audiotron & WMC supports and how before you start ripping though of course

Clarifying questions on Lossless Archiving

Reply #8 –
Quote
OK -

I've gotten EAC mostly set up to do lossless WMA encoding.

My current problem is that I'm getting a directory full of WAVs - and not getting them converted. I've tried two different cscript variable feeds, but no luck.

Any ideas? I've read that you don't need to feed EAC variables anymore - it understands if you've set WMA lossless. Am I missing something?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=226664"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No need to mess around with scripts. Try downloading the latest version of EAC - perhaps if someone could post the location of an installer for the current version that would help. Just select wma lossless and you're done.

Clarifying questions on Lossless Archiving

Reply #9 –
Quote
Using Monkey's Audio (APE) at either normal or high is by far the best compromise between compression ratio and decoding speed.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=226669"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

MA is seems to be an excellent algorithm, but there have been known to be problems - some people on their forum were having problems with some versions of the encoder.
Decoding speed is pretty irrelevant unless you're going to use the codec with a portable device. My over-three-year-old computer takes under 5% CPU usage for wma lossless.

Clarifying questions on Lossless Archiving

Reply #10 –
Quote
Decoding speed is pretty irrelevant unless you're going to use the codec with a portable device. My over-three-year-old computer takes under 5% CPU usage for wma lossless.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=226718"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Unless, also, you intend to use your lossless backups as source for on-the-fly encodings to the several portables and audio players you have. In this case, you'll have to wait longer for a slow-decoding format.

And even if this does not affect you, decoding speed is not totally irrelevant when you consider some formats and settings that can reach 20% of CPU usage, even on pretty modern computers.

Clarifying questions on Lossless Archiving

Reply #11 –
OK - at this point I'm seriously stumped. Suspect I'm missing something incredibly obvious, but haven't been able to figure it out. Short form of the problem is that on two different computers, when I configure EAC to rip to WMA Lossless I end up with a directory full of WAVs - I never see Windows Media player pop up as a compressor, nor do I see in task manager any activity. The tracks simply rip, the status window says track compressed, and moves on.

As suggested earlier in the thread, I verified I have the latest EAC - .95 Prebeta 5, from March of this year.

In EAC->Compression Options->External Compression I have the following settings:

Use External Program
Using WMA9 Encoder
(The program/path is greyed out - so I can't enter anything)

Additional command line options is blank, and I've selected Bitrate to be Lossless. Only other selected option is to delete WAV after compression.

Obviously, since I'm left with a directory of WAVs, the compression is never taking place.

Am I missing something obvious? Should I be copying a DLL to the EAC directory, or anything? I'm lead to believe on this thread that I don't need to pass any command line options, but I'm stumped.

Appreciate your thoughts!

Clarifying questions on Lossless Archiving

Reply #12 –
Could it be that you have Make all compression tasks sleep activated in the Compression Queue Control Center under the Tools menu? If so, untick it, and sit back while your WAVs are converted to WMA lossless.

Putting compression tasks in the queue this way is very convenient, BTW. If e.g. you rip a couple of tens of albums during the day, and then want EAC and (in your case) the WMA encoder to convert your albums overnight, while you're asleep.

Clarifying questions on Lossless Archiving

Reply #13 –
Quote
MA is seems to be an excellent algorithm, but there have been known to be problems - some people on their forum were having problems with some versions of the encoder.
Decoding speed is pretty irrelevant unless you're going to use the codec with a portable device. My over-three-year-old computer takes under 5% CPU usage for wma lossless.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=226718"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Can you back this up with facts?
All problems I've ever heard about APE were related to broken hardware or files, which were clearly not the codec's fault.
"To understand me, you'll have to swallow a world." Or maybe your words.

Clarifying questions on Lossless Archiving

Reply #14 –
Maybe had CSMR in mind the compatibility issues that appeared with MA 3.99 files and older decoders. I've already read this argument in a previous Flac/Monkey's comparison (backward compatiblity issues).

But this problem is not specific to Monkey's Audio. All audio/video, lossless/lossy formats have this problem: MPC, AAC, FLAC, Wavpack, OptimFrog, etc...
Wavpack Hybrid -c4hx6