Loss of SQ with Restore via Time Machine?

[xtaljo]

I use ALAC files when I store my music in iTunes (converted from 16 and 24 bit FLAC files on an external HD). I also backup the iTunes library using a separate HD with Time Machine. My question is do I loose any sound quality (due to lossy compression?) if I ever have to restore my iTunes music library using Time Machine? If so is there a better way to externally store the Apple Library files?

 

My apologies if this has been covered before, I am a new member and still learning the ropes.

[Skeptic]

Backups should never be discarding data or applying lossy compression techniques.

There should be no problem using Time Machine.

 

I would suggest that the FLAC files are more important than ALAC since FLAC includes file integrity checks that ALAC lacks.

[Paul R]

I use ALAC files when I store my music in iTunes (converted from 16 and 24 bit FLAC files on an external HD). I also backup the iTunes library using a separate HD with Time Machine. My question is do I loose any sound quality (due to lossy compression?) if I ever have to restore my iTunes music library using Time Machine? If so is there a better way to externally store the Apple Library files?

 

My apologies if this has been covered before, I am a new member and still learning the ropes.

 

Time Machine does not use lossy compression, ever. So that would not be an issue in restoring your backups.

 

The noise about copies of digital files loosing quality is just noise, with zero proven basis in reality.

 

It is true that changing or restoring your entire computer might well have some effect on the sound. Impossible to predict if it would be an improvement or not though.

 

-Paul

[sandyk]

The noise about copies of digital files loosing quality is just noise, with zero proven basis in reality.

 

Especially if you are happy using a deaf standard Mac Mini and play your music with iTunes because all "bit perfect software players sound the same to you.

[elcorso]

Especially if you are happy using a deaf standard Mac Mini and play your music with iTunes because all "bit perfect software players sound the same to you.

 

A stupid answer for a NON APPLE, NON MAC MINI user.

 

Roch

[kumakuma]

A stupid answer for a NON APPLE, NON MAC MINI user.

 

Roch

 

Roch,

 

As I am sure you know by now, a lack of personal experience on a subject has never stopped many of the folks on this board from sharing their "knowledge" with us.

 

KK

[sandyk]

A stupid answer for a NON APPLE, NON MAC MINI user.

 

Roch

 

Roch

Given that the quote was from a post by Paul ,you of all people should have realised that my answer was directed to one person only. The same person who keeps finding excuses to snipe at me when their is no provocation.

Therefore, you should not have found it necessary to post such a reply ?

How many times do I need to state that a Mac Mini is simply not capable of doing everything I need from a PC, with additional PCI cards such as Audio and Video cards, and internal BluRay writers using additional PSU filtering etc. ?

A separate Video card greatly reduces the workload of the Processor, and can also markedly speed up video editing where filters are used to correct video deficiencies and change resolution and frame sizes.. A more expensive Mac would undoubtedly be suitable, but a Windows based PC which I can put together using my own additional components is far more affordable to me. It's NOT a hatred of a Mac OS.

It's for practical and economic reasons which seem to escape one eyed Mac fanbois like Kumakuma.

I can readily start off with a suitable MB and a case suitable for expansion, then slowly add additional components as needed at a later date. If you were on a pension, then perhaps you would better understand where I am coming from.

Alex

[kumakuma]

Roch

Given that the quote was from a post by Paul ,you of all people should have realised that my answer was directed to one person only. The same person who keeps finding excuses to snipe at me when their is no provocation.

Therefore, you should not have found it necessary to post such a reply ?

How many times do I need to state that a Mac Mini is simply not capable of doing everything I need from a PC, with additional PCI cards such as Audio and Video cards, and internal BluRay writers using additional PSU filtering etc. ?

A separate Video card greatly reduces the workload of the Processor, and can also markedly speed up video editing where filters are used to correct video deficiencies and change resolution and frame sizes.. A more expensive Mac would undoubtedly be suitable, but a Windows based PC which I can put together using my own additional components is far more affordable to me. It's NOT a hatred of a Mac OS.

It's for practical and economic reasons which seem to escape one eyed Mac fanbois like Kumakuma.

I can readily start off with a suitable MB and a case suitable for expansion, then slowly add additional components as needed at a later date. If you were on a pension, then perhaps you would better understand where I am coming from.

Alex

 

Alex,

 

Thanks for clarifying your position. I agree entirely with you. A Windows machine makes much better sense for you, in your position. BTW, I'm pretty sure you would have a hard time finding anyone who does serious video editing on a Mac Mini. The computer isn't designed to be used for this purpose so comparing it to the hardware you describe doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

KK (who has two eyes although both are tired from staring at a computer screen all day)

[jabbr]

How many times do I need to state that a Mac Mini is simply not capable of doing everything I need from a PC, with additional PCI cards such as Audio and Video cards, and internal BluRay writers using additional PSU filtering etc. ?

A separate Video card greatly reduces the workload of the Processor, and can also markedly speed up video editing where filters are used to correct video deficiencies and change resolution and frame sizes.. A more expensive Mac would undoubtedly be suitable, but a Windows based PC which I can put together using my own additional components is far more affordable to me. It's NOT a hatred of a Mac OS.

It's for practical and economic reasons which seem to escape one eyed Mac fanbois like Kumakuma.

I can readily start off with a suitable MB and a case suitable for expansion, then slowly add additional components as needed at a later date. If you were on a pension, then perhaps you would better understand where I am coming from.

Alex

 

FWIW, I use both Apple machines with Windows and custom built boxes on which I've loaded OS X (see http://wwww.insanelymac.com for details). Works really really well. I also have an Apple laptop and have several mini's laying around. The Apple hardware hits a sweet spot for many people, but these days OS X runs on a wide variety of hardware with a little elbow grease.

[elcorso]

Roch

Given that the quote was from a post by Paul ,you of all people should have realised that my answer was directed to one person only. The same person who keeps finding excuses to snipe at me when their is no provocation.

Therefore, you should not have found it necessary to post such a reply ?

How many times do I need to state that a Mac Mini is simply not capable of doing everything I need from a PC, with additional PCI cards such as Audio and Video cards, and internal BluRay writers using additional PSU filtering etc. ?

A separate Video card greatly reduces the workload of the Processor, and can also markedly speed up video editing where filters are used to correct video deficiencies and change resolution and frame sizes.. A more expensive Mac would undoubtedly be suitable, but a Windows based PC which I can put together using my own additional components is far more affordable to me. It's NOT a hatred of a Mac OS.

It's for practical and economic reasons which seem to escape one eyed Mac fanbois like Kumakuma.

I can readily start off with a suitable MB and a case suitable for expansion, then slowly add additional components as needed at a later date. If you were on a pension, then perhaps you would better understand where I am coming from.

Alex

 

Alex,

 

Let's forget about all this sh*t.

 

It's raining all day long (and night also) this side of the world, about two months now, then my temper is in very bad shape...!

 

Roch

[jabbr]

I use ALAC files when I store my music in iTunes (converted from 16 and 24 bit FLAC files on an external HD). I also backup the iTunes library using a separate HD with Time Machine. My question is do I loose any sound quality (due to lossy compression?) if I ever have to restore my iTunes music library using Time Machine? If so is there a better way to externally store the Apple Library files?

 

My apologies if this has been covered before, I am a new member and still learning the ropes.

 

Time Machine is really easy and doesn't involve lossy compression.

 

Over a long period of time the hard disc may degrade (bit rot) and you may end up restoring a defective copy. The ZFS file system protects against that and its ability to create very low overhead "snapshots" make a ZFS based NAS much like a better TimeMachine but without the fancy graphic interface.

 

Unless you really care about data fidelity TimeMachine is the easiest option for you.

[Paul R]

Especially if you are happy using a deaf standard Mac Mini and play your music with iTunes because all "bit perfect software players sound the same to you.

 

More noise, this time with the stupid hostility. Whether I use a standard Mac or not has nothing to do with the point you took exception to.

 

Which is that your claim of two identical files sounding different when played back on the same physical equipment is not only unproven, but pure unabashed nonsense.

 

People looking for good backup solutions for their valuable music collections should not be intimidated or in any way made nervous about backup solutions because of this fantasy, and that is true no matter how much you bluster or threaten or huff and puff.

 

There are millions of millions of billions of cases where data has been sucessfully backed up and restored. And when it is sitting on a disk, our music is nothing more or less than data. No black magic, no mysterious unknown to science factors in effect. Just plain everyday backup and retrieval. the data is identical, and does not change the sound.

 

And to go just a bit further, compressing and/or sending the data over the internet does not change the sound either, it is perfectly reasonable to use a service like TarSnap to backup and restore your music library.

 

Stop spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt in the minds of people. If your testing gives you different results - then your testing method is flawed. Period.

 

And for the OP- yes that means you can backup and restore your data safely with Time Machine and not worry about any sonic changes in your music files.

 

Paul

[Paul R]

Roch

Given that the quote was from a post by Paul ,you of all people should have realised that my answer was directed to one person only. The same person who keeps finding excuses to snipe at me when their is no provocation.

Therefore, you should not have found it necessary to post such a reply ?

How many times do I need to state that a Mac Mini is simply not capable of doing everything I need from a PC, with additional PCI cards such as Audio and Video cards, and internal BluRay writers using additional PSU filtering etc. ?

A separate Video card greatly reduces the workload of the Processor, and can also markedly speed up video editing where filters are used to correct video deficiencies and change resolution and frame sizes.. A more expensive Mac would undoubtedly be suitable, but a Windows based PC which I can put together using my own additional components is far more affordable to me. It's NOT a hatred of a Mac OS.

It's for practical and economic reasons which seem to escape one eyed Mac fanbois like Kumakuma.

I can readily start off with a suitable MB and a case suitable for expansion, then slowly add additional components as needed at a later date. If you were on a pension, then perhaps you would better understand where I am coming from.

Alex

 

Again, bull corn. While it is perfectly reasonable to prefer Windows over Macs (or vice versa) your financial analysis is probably flawed, and besides, we are talking anout Music servers here.

 

A $599 Mac Mini is hard to beat as a music server, and very hard to beat in terms of users being happy with it. And you can run Winders on the thing if you absolutely have to. (shrug)

 

For a photography image workstation, most pro photogs I know use a Macbook Pro or an iMac. Happily, and for less money than the ones using Winders PCs. They care far more about Photoshop though, than they do about anything else.

 

My friends in Video production still bemoan the demise of the Amiga.

[jabbr]

 

Stop spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt in the minds of people. If your testing gives you different results - then your testing method is flawed. Period.

 

And for the OP- yes that means you can backup and restore your data safely with Time Machine and not worry about any sonic changes in your music files.

 

Paul

 

+1

 

People are free (or at least should be able) to listen to whatever they want on whatever equipment the choose to acquire in the privacy of their own living rooms, but to the extent that anyone makes a public recommendation to *other people* they are subject to criticism of the logic in their arguments.

 

"bits are bits" may be used in one circumstance i.e. a file is entirely defined by the logical bits it contains. That is hardly the same as stating that modifications to hardware, or even use of special cables don't make a difference. And the fact that you are using COTS hardware has nothing to do with how a particular piece of software performs. iTunes is a particular piece of software written to a particular set of requirements as defined by Apple. No one is saying that improvements can't be made on iTunes (indeed software players have easily heard differences). That would be akin to stating that a DAC is defined by its chip.

[sandyk]

Stop spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt in the minds of people. If your testing gives you different results - then your testing method is flawed. Period.

 

It really is pointless discussing anything with a deaf Mac Mini fanboi, or for that matter any fanboi from either Apple or Windows camps..

I am wrong, Martin Colloms is wrong, Several Recording Engineers are wrong, a couple of qualified Sydney EEs are wrong, 2 Professors of Music on 2 different continents are wrong, the guys from jPlay are wrong, Peter St. was obviously wrong too, the author of the reports in TAS 220 and 221 is wrong.

Everybody except Paul Raulerson is wrong !

[kumakuma]

It really is pointless discussing anything with a deaf Mac Mini fanboi, or for that matter any fanboi from either Apple or Windows camps..

 

Is this kind of ad hominem attack really necessary?

[sandyk]

Is this kind of ad hominem attack really necessary?

 

So you would have ignored the 2 previous lengthy sarcastic attacks from Paul ( post 12 especially) if they were directed at you, and let the readers accept that everything he said was true, in the absence of a reply to the contrary ?

The tone of a reply from most members is set by the tone of the previous reply to them.

Note that I included fanbois from BOTH Apple and Windows camps.

[kumakuma]

So you would have ignored the 2 previous lengthy sarcastic attacks from Paul ( post 12 especially) if they were directed at you, and let the readers accept that everything he said was true, in the absence of a reply to the contrary ?

The tone of a reply from most members is set by the tone of the previous reply to them.

Note that I included fanbois from BOTH Apple and Windows camps.

 

Paul's messages were not a direct attack on you as a person. Yours was. There is a difference. I, for one, find the use of terms like "deaf" and "fanboi" both offensive and juvenile.

[sandyk]

Paul's messages were not a direct attack on you as a person. Yours was. There is a difference. I, for one, find the use of terms like "deaf" and "fanboi" both offensive and juvenile.

 

As an Australian, and using normal English spelling, I wouldn't normally use the word " fanboi". Guess where, and from whom I got that spelling ? If you believe that Paul's reply 12 wasn't a direct attack on me , then you probably also believe in " The Tooth Fairy" and Santa Claus. Or is it simply because you are a fellow Mac Mini fanboy ? .

 

Urban Dictionary: fanboy

 

P.S.

I have also had the word " deaf" used against me in a derogatory fashion on several occasions. Just because one has damaged hearing or is elderly, does not mean that given the right ancillary equipment and listening experience , that they are unable to hear differences between good and bad sound.

[kumakuma]

As an Australian, and using normal English spelling, I wouldn't normally use the word " fanboi". Guess where, and from whom I got that spelling ? If you believe that Paul's reply 12 wasn't a direct attack on me , then you probably also believe in " The Tooth Fairy" and Santa Claus. Or is it simply because you are a fellow Mac Mini fanboy ? .

 

Paul's post was as an attack on your ideas, not an attack on you. In my mind, there is a big difference between calling someone stupid and calling someone's idea/post/reply stupid. You obviously have a different opinion and see any attack on your beliefs as a personal attack.

 

BTW, I am not a Mac Mini fanboy. I have owned dozens of Apple computers over the last thirty years and the Mac Mini is a good computer but not one of the best I've owned. Like all computers (and people) it has it's flaws and it isn't for everyone.

[sandyk]

Paul's post was as an attack on your ideas, not an attack on you.

 

It wasn't an attach on my " ideas" . It was an attack on my confirmed findings by people far more qualified in the audio SQ area than I am, or he is. I don't doubt however that he is highly qualified in his own area of expertise.

Even TAS 220 and 221 came up with similar findings to mine, independently.

[kumakuma]

It wasn't an attach on my " ideas" . It was an attack on my confirmed findings by people far more qualified in the audio SQ area than I am, or he is. I don't doubt however that he is highly qualified in his own area of expertise.

Even TAS 220 and 221 came up with similar findings to mine, independently.

 

I still don't see how this justifies personal attacks on anyone.

[Paul R]

Deleted as troll food