Improving SQ of CD rips

[Lawrence001]

I've just been updating the software on my early Innuos Zen (which is based on Vortexbox/LMS) and it set the ripped music folder to a default of Artist-Album (single folder) rather than Artist/Album (2 folders, works better).


I found a guide to how to amend the ripper parameters to change the output folder structure, and while I was in there I spotted a load of other settings which I didn't know about. One of them was Flac compression level (I didn't know it could be changed) and another was volume normalisation.
Now it strikes me that both of these (almost certainly for the latter) could be detrimental to the SQ of my ripped files. I set compression level to 0 (default is 5 out of 9) and normalisation to "off". I'm sure my new ripped albums sound better than previous but I need to do some ripping of the same album with different settings to be sure. It's quite a pain to get into the OS to change them so it won't be soon, but will report back.


I'm now wondering how many if us are ripping our CD collections in the default settings of our software without realising we're locking in a lower SQ into all our files. I'm even tempted to start my ripping all over again, that's probably a thousand albums to redo before I carry on with the rest. Hmm I'll have to think about that one...

 

[Cable Monkey]

1. I am not certain about this but volume normalisation does not affect the rip. It simply tells compliant playback software what normalisation to apply and you should also be able to instruct your software to ignore normalisation.

2. Lossless means just that. So adjusting file compression just means playback is harder or easier relative to smaller or larger file sizes. In the days of prodigiously powerful hardware and cheap and massive storage compared to when this was conceived I am pretty sure you are unlikely to hear a difference although you may see that difference in performance plots. 
 

In short you may be getting too concerned about the minutia. 

 

[rdale]

1. I am not certain about this but volume normalisation does not affect the rip. It simply tells compliant playback software what normalisation to apply and you should also be able to instruct your software to ignore normalisation.

2. Lossless means just that. So adjusting file compression just means playback is harder or easier relative to smaller or larger file sizes. In the days of prodigiously powerful hardware and cheap and massive storage compared to when this was conceived I am pretty sure you are unlikely to hear a difference although you may see that difference in performance plots. 
 

In short you may be getting too concerned about the minutia. 

If the volume normalization is done by adding a replay gain tag to the metadata of the music file it is fine, but if it changes the actual PCM data it should be avoided like the plague.

I rip to AIFF which is uncompressed and use that in my main system. But I convert the AIFF tracks to Apple Lossless and use those everywhere else as it means I can fit more lossless music onto an SD card with portable devices. I looked up the FLAC compression levels and the difference between 0 and 8 is only about 10%, and I personally would just stick with the default value of 5. If you can easily convert some FLAC files to AIFF then you could try listening to them and see if the computer doing the replay uses any less CPU.

 

[Lawrence001]

There were two sections of code, one was the volume tag and another was normalising the file itself I think. I'll take s screenshot of the code next time I'm in to see what others think.

I did leave the former on, although it mentioned within album tagging as well as whole album. I'm not sure I'd want an andante from a symphony normalised relative to the rest of the piece even just as a tag as I don't know if LMS ignores the tags. I think it was just designed for MP3 players originally.

 

[Lawrence001]

Now it might lead to another contentious debate but I found this article about compression.

https://www.hificritic.com/uploads/2/8/8/0/28808909/2016_07_05__final_unabridged_article_part_2_sound_quality_differences_between_wav_and_flac_formats.pdf

 

[rdale]

Now it might lead to another contentious debate but I found this article about compression.

https://www.hificritic.com/uploads/..._differences_between_wav_and_flac_formats.pdf

If their version of FLAC wasn’t lossless, it means it was buggy in some way.

 

[Paul55]

FLAC compression level affects how hard the encoder works to reduce the file size, so this is just a matter of time, if you have a modern CPU then this impact will be much reduced. In any case it's just a matter of ripping taking a bit longer. In all cases the data you get back after decoding is exactly that which entered the encoder.

The possibly relevant aspects are file size, smaller files take less effort and time to transfer from disc or over a network. The encoder level makes very little difference to how hard the decoder has to work. '5' is commonly used since it represents a sweet spot in compression win against time.

FLAC works a bit like this. Imagine you had a plot of the audio waveform and a box full of bits of curves. You compress by finding bits of curves from your box that more or less fit the waveform, and sending the sequence of curves plus the error between what that produces and the original wave. More compression means looking harder in your box for the pre-existing bits that best fit, reducing the size of the error at the cost of looking harder. In any case the decoder is assembling curves and adding back the error to reproduce the original. (This is purely analogy...)

So, unless you're short of disc space, I'd leave the FLAC compression set to 5.

Volume normalisation seems a minefield. Do you look at peak levels? Average? A measure of subjective loudness? Almost always wrong, I'd guess. Off seems the appropriate setting. But as I think it's a sign to the player, having the tag in the file is harmless.

 

[Paul55]

Now it might lead to another contentious debate but I found this article about compression.

https://www.hificritic.com/uploads/..._differences_between_wav_and_flac_formats.pdf

I think this is tosh. Can someone read it in detail and see if they actually looked at the data, or is it all subjective impression of a reproduced instrument's position in the soundstage?

Hifi Critic once took seriously the idea that the drive that performed the rip had a sonic signature, despite the resulting files being bit identical. And that this signature survived emailing.

 

[rdale]

I think this is tosh. Can someone read it in detail and see if they actually looked at the data, or is it all subjective impression of a reproduced instrument's position in the soundstage?

Hifi Critic once took seriously the idea that the drive that performed the rip had a sonic signature, despite the resulting files being bit identical. And that this signature survived emailing.

They looked at the data to some extent. I don’t think they are IT people who know how to strip the metadata from the PCM data to see whether the PCM data was bit for bit identical after a copy. They discussed changes in the metadata affecting the sound, but I think the metadata is just at the front of the file, and you get an offset within the file to read the PCM data. So I can’t really see how changes in the size of the metadata would have any effect on reading the PCM data.

 

[Lawrence001]

Here are the two screen shots of the options in the config file. Looking again, the normalisation of the wav file (not tagging) appears to be switched off which is good, but there's still a risk in some rippers it might be switched on.

 

[Lawrence001]

Oh dear attach file didn't work and I can't use Tapatalk as I usually do as it's not supported any more, so I'll post back when I work out how to do it.

 

[tuga]

Here are the two screen shots of the options in the config file. Looking again, the normalisation of the wav file (not tagging) appears to be switched off which is good, but there's still a risk in some rippers it might be switched on.

If it's just a tag I would expect any decent player to allow the user to enable or disable normalisation.
I agree with @Cable Monkey that you are probably worrying about nothing.

 

[Lawrence001]

As I said before the one I'm worried about is not the tagging level, it's the routine that normalises the volume level in the actual data in the wav file.

 

[tuga]

As I said before the one I'm worried about is not the tagging level, it's the routine that normalises the volume level in the actual data in the wav file.

If the ripping software modifies the file then I agree that it is unfit for purpose.
Why it should do that I the first place when a tag suffices is absurd

 

[bencat]

Now it might lead to another contentious debate but I found this article about compression.

https://www.hificritic.com/uploads/..._differences_between_wav_and_flac_formats.pdf

Went and found the first half and have now read both . In my view the fault with this was that they are saying from the start that Flac copies do not sound as good as WAV files which frankly I can find no evidence of when I listen to music. One of the good things about buying a Qobuz download is that they do not limit you in how you download. So if you buy the HiRez file you can download all the versions , FLAC , WAV etc . If you then copy these to your HD you can put them up in your streamer and play them back to back etc . I have been sad enough and with time on my hand to do this . I used Richard Thompson's Album Rumour and Sigh as I know this album very well and it has some of my favourite Richard Thompson tracks on it . Comparing the standard CD level rip in FLAC and WAV showed no difference that I could hear and in both cases the sound quality was very good . Quick switch to the Qobuz HiRes download and this does does sound a little better than the CD version but honestly for me not that much and unless as with this one they have a cut price offer will stick with the CD quality versions. FLAC and WAV at HiRes levels ? Again on my system and with my ears I was not able to tell which was playing I even loaded both versions up as a play list and played it random so it switched between FLAC and WAV with out me knowing and when trying to guess which version was playing it was just that a guess and i got more wrong than right . In my view now FLAC files are a more than good enough copy of the original and there is no loss of sound quality . If like I do you use the Accurate RIP software each time you do rip a file your rip is compared to others of the same album and you are told if your rip is an accurate bit for bit match for those rips . Given this I think this is one are that should be left alone and just used .

 

[tuga]

Went and found the first half and have now read both . In my view the fault with this was that they are saying from the start that Flac copies do not sound as good as WAV files which frankly I can find no evidence of when I listen to music. One of the good things about buying a Qobuz download is that they do not limit you in how you download. So if you buy the HiRez file you can download all the versions , FLAC , WAV etc . If you then copy these to your HD you can put them up in your streamer and play them back to back etc . I have been sad enough and with time on my hand to do this . I used Richard Thompson's Album Rumour and Sigh as I know this album very well and it has some of my favourite Richard Thompson tracks on it . Comparing the standard CD level rip in FLAC and WAV showed no difference that I could hear and in both cases the sound quality was very good . Quick switch to the Qobuz HiRes download and this does does sound a little better than the CD version but honestly for me not that much and unless as with this one they have a cut price offer will stick with the CD quality versions. FLAC and WAV at HiRes levels ? Again on my system and with my ears I was not able to tell which was playing I even loaded both versions up as a play list and played it random so it switched between FLAC and WAV with out me knowing and when trying to guess which version was playing it was just that a guess and i got more wrong than right . In my view now FLAC files are a more than good enough copy of the original and there is no loss of sound quality . If like I do you use the Accurate RIP software each time you do rip a file your rip is compared to others of the same album and you are told if your rip is an accurate bit for bit match for those rips . Given this I think this is one are that should be left alone and just used .

Some people speculate that the decompression process may generate electrical noise which might end up having an audible impact on the D/A conversion.
iTunes does not take FLAC files and HQPlayer doesn't play ALAC files so I convert my downloads and rip my files to AIFF. I'd probably use FLAC if my computer was a Windows machine.

 

[bencat]

That's the thing just speculation a confirmed bit perfect file is just that a perfect bit perfect file .

 

[bigfool1956]

Whilst unpacking a FLAC file might produce processing noise, on the other hand the ethernet receiver can also do this, and you would get less noise from a FLAC because it's smaller. Some streamers have issues with hi-res FLACs at level 8, my Transporter would sometimes produce really weird results trying to play those which could be fixed by recompressing them at level 5. There's very little difference in file size between the two anyway.

In the streamers I've had, FLAC has been preferable (to me) more often than WAV. However I'm now using Roon and resampling everything to 24/192 and getting the best digital sound I've ever had, despite the comparatively huge amount of network traffic that produces.

P.S. I was using JRiver, but that has a fatal flaw in its leveling behaviour when using DLNA.

 

[tuga]

That's the thing just speculation a confirmed bit perfect file is just that a perfect but perfect file .

If only life were that simple...

 

[bencat]

It is . Just that others try to convince you that there is so much more out there to worry about . When the music sounds fine and you are just listening stop worrying and accept that what you have is very good and you do not need to look for problems that are not there .