it takes longer to check and correct than to type the tags myself. I don't allow any on-line population of the album or track titles. Happily, for me, this is something I enjoy doing, often using the procedure to research the music. I accept that ripping CDs does take time, especially if you want to standardise the tagging. albeit reduced our pension funds somewhat!
Asset upnp illustrate upgrade#
My hi-fi upgrade path (including transitioning to streaming from a NAS) has improved my music listening experience beyond my wildest dreams. I used to post comments about improved SQ but accept that not everyone is interested in, or is able to go this route, preferring to spend limited resources on acquiring new releases, et al. So, for me, ripping Lossless and converting to FLAC results in improved SQ compared to the original CD source. or, in my case, the CD play is not as good because the old CD transport has an inbuilt DAC which, whilst excellent, is not as good as the stand-alone DAC through which the NAS FLAC files are streamed.
If you play the CD on the computer, it will sound just as bad as the FLAC, if you play back the FLAC on the home stereo, it will sound just as good as the CD.Īgreed. (Say, if you have a CD that sometimes skips, but that can still be fully read, it could be converted to FLAC which then will not skip anymore.)īut of course, if you play back CDs on a good system (like a home stereo system) and FLACs on a poor system (like a typical PC speaker), yeah, the home stereo playback will sound way better, but that's because of the hardware, not an issue between CD and FLAC. Indeed, CDs are read sequentially and so there may be reading errors while playing one, whereas FLAC does not suffer from this issue, so if anything, at least theoretically FLAC could sound "better" than CD. (A FLAC file can also be of much higher quality than a CD, just depends on the data.) That is just a fact, it's not open to "opinion". A FLAC ripped correctly from a CD is 100% exactly the same data as is on the CD, so it is 100% the exact "quality". That's not a question of FLAC vs CDs though, but of the equipment you use to play back.
I've been burnt by iTunes in the past with its tendency to delete stuff from my hard drive without my permission. I use Neutron player on my smartphone to listen to music. Doesn't help me though as I only use iTunes to rip CDs to ALAC. Gapless is not supported when you burn a MP3 music disc.Īh, okay.
Gapless is supported if you burn a MP3 playlist as a CD music disc.
To my knowledge the MP3 format does not allow gapless playback, regardless of playback device / software, whereas AAC does support gapless playback.Īll my playlists are MP3's and there's no gaps (silence between tracks) when played in iTunes.
Asset upnp illustrate software#
so I can use the wonderful Roon software Wiki said FLAC has much detail as cd if choosen correctly, personally I think not.
Asset upnp illustrate full#
Personally i'm old-school I got nothing against FLAC but its not full audio-phile is it listening to music on computer no matter how good it is has tinny-depth, I know this set-up doesn't work on my hi-fi that tells me that cd has better sound quality. General Discussion: I am finally transferring my collection to FLAC. FSM Board: I am finally transferring my collection to FLAC.
0 kommentar(er)
