Is There a Music Player Out There for a Wav Library?

[kumakuma]

I have some favorites that've been remastered a million times--Beatles, Stones, The Who, etc. I'll tag the different versions accordingly by title, which then show up in the Finder alphabetically, since that's how I access the files from the Desktop:

 

I do something similar. I add the source and resolution to the end of the Album tag:

 

Kind of Blue - HDTracks - 24/192

Kind of Blue (Mono Version) - HDTracks - 24/192

Kind of Blue - MFSL SACD DSF

Kind of Blue - 2007 Japan - SACD DSF

[kumakuma]

My point is really that people need to really consider tagging their music. Really. No need to go bonkers, just some basic tagging will go a long way.

 

I couldn't agree more.

[wwaldmanfan]

@esldude is wrong about that.

 

In the case of DAC direct to computer connections with most DACs, you may hear a difference because of lack of isolation, the extent of which is system-dependent.

 

Talking about this as if it's 'imaginary' shows a distinct lack of knowledge or hearing ability. Reports of this can be seen on CA from 2009 or so.

 

My DAC is only a couple of years old, and with Audirvana+ with a direct connection and a normal USB cable, the difference is large and immediately obvious, which is why for now, I rip and store all my files in AIFF to get it all tagged. Other files are stored as DSD. Very few of my former mp3, wma (when I was using Windows) remain.

 

This is true. I have seen reports by some CA members of others here who, reportedly, have a lack of knowledge, or poor hearing.

[miguelito]

As far as metadata tagging is concerned, though, I only employ the essentials. Album artist, album, artist, track number, title, and running time. I don't assign confusing and meaningless genres, likes, dislikes, loves, hates, plays, or any of that silliness.

I do the same when I rip. I often don't bother with much other than a proper album name, track names, and one thing I care about is to make "album artist" common within an album as I like to see full albums when I sort by that field. I also make sure to put some album art in, often from Amazon. This is useful when I use the files in my portable players.

 

When in Roon, a universe of wonderful metadata overrides all the tags I used, and that's fine because those tags were used to identify the albums/tracks in the first place.

 

 

Another amazing thing Roon does: If you like classical music, it will group works together, movements become subtracks of each work. You can play a work without playing the whole album or adding each movement to the play queue.

 

 

Really gals/guys: The slide rule is a thing of the past!

[YashN]

Rubbish. Utter rubbish.

I've seen you go through a few threads, at least 4, posting rubbish yourself.

 

I wouldn't be so proud to display such utter ignorance if I were you...

[YashN]

This is true. I have seen reports by some CA members of others here who, reportedly, have a lack of knowledge, or poor hearing.

Of course, that's not what I was talking about at all...

[esldude]

@esldude is wrong about that.

 

In the case of DAC direct to computer connections with most DACs, you may hear a difference because of lack of isolation, the extent of which is system-dependent.

 

Talking about this as if it's 'imaginary' shows a distinct lack of knowledge or hearing ability. Reports of this can be seen on CA from 2009 or so.

 

My DAC is only a couple of years old, and with Audirvana+ with a direct connection and a normal USB cable, the difference is large and immediately obvious, which is why for now, I rip and store all my files in AIFF to get it all tagged. Other files are stored as DSD. Very few of my former mp3, wma (when I was using Windows) remain.

 

Is it not true that Audirvana decodes both wav and FLAC files into the PCM stream it will use for playback by putting it in memory? For that matter they claim streaming files play back with the same quality as local files. Likely for the same reason, they get decoded into a PCM stream for playback ahead of time.

 

So given a bit identical stream in a PCM format that has no connections to whether the source is FLAC, wav, aiff or whatever, and that no realtime decompression of FLAC is happening during playback, to what would you attribute this phantom sound quality difference?

[esldude]

This is true. I have seen reports by some CA members of others here who, reportedly, have a lack of knowledge, or poor hearing.

 

Or poor imaginations.

[Ultrarunner]

If this is true, your system is broken.

 

I guess I could say the same about your system (or your ears). But I wouldn't normally post things like that. What system have you made the comparison on that's so much better than mine?

[Jandewitt]

All my music is ripped in WAV.

A good map structure and correct naming of your WAV's is vital because tagging is terrible for WAV. I stopped trying.

On the PC I use foobar. Foobar can be configured the way you want it.

It takes some time to learn the program though (check YouTube).

Mostly I use Sonos to navigate my music library (or the Oppo bdp103 app).

Place your cover-art picture in the right folder and name it 'folder' or 'cover'.

Most programs will recognize and display them.

[mansr]

I guess I could say the same about your system (or your ears). But I wouldn't normally post things like that. What system have you made the comparison on that's so much better than mine?

 

You must be confused. Since FLAC and WAV files demonstrably contain the same actual audio data, an ideal system must play them back identically. A system that somehow makes them sound different is thus something less than ideal. If the difference is obvious, the system is must be quite badly flawed.

[Jandewitt]

an ideal system must play them back identically.

There is no such thing as identical playback in this hobby ;-)

 

Technically WAV and FLAC contain the same audio data. That is correct.

FLAC needs extra processing though (encoding, decoding).

There could be a problem in the codec, the software or the hardware.

[mansr]

There is no such thing as identical playback in this hobby ;-)

 

Technically WAV and FLAC contain the same audio data. That is correct.

FLAC needs extra processing though (encoding, decoding).

There could be a problem in the codec, the software or the hardware.

 

It's easy to verify to that the same data is sent to the DAC. FLAC does need a decoding step, true. However, as the files are smaller, there are fewer disk reads involved, which should work in favour of FLAC. Moreover, the processing load of decoding FLAC is minute, so small that it is swamped by random moment to moment variations in load from all the background tasks always going on even in a stripped-down OS. To isolate the effect of FLAC vs WAV you'd need a computer running nothing whatsoever apart from the audio playback, not even an operating system. I could build such a thing, but I doubt it would convince anyone.

[CatManDo]

After that, let's discuss if FLAC files sound better with or without tags.

[Jandewitt]

To isolate the effect of FLAC vs WAV you'd need a computer running nothing whatsoever apart from the audio playback, not even an operating system. I could build such a thing, but I doubt it would convince anyone.

 

No need to build such a thing. Your post makes it clear.

There could be all sorts of stuff creating differences because nobody has a system like that.

And minute or not. The process is not the same for both files.

And if I have learned one thing in this beautiful hobby...all things CAN have an effect.

[Jandewitt]

After that, let's discuss if FLAC files sound better with or without tags.

 

;-)

[wwaldmanfan]

No need to build such a thing. Your post makes it clear.

There could be all sorts of stuff creating differences because nobody has a system like that.

And minute or not. The process is not the same for both files.

And if I have learned one thing in this beautiful hobby...all things CAN have an effect.

 

If true, the issue becomes how much do you CARE. For me, the mastering of a particular album is more important than the file format.

I got a catalog in the mail yesteday from Acoustic Sounds. My wife was looking at it, and asked me why anyone would spend $35,000 on a turntable, technology that was considered obsolete 30 years ago. I explained that this resurgence in vinyl is a cottage industry created by blowback from the Loudness Wars, a niche market for baby boomers with deep pockets. Just look at the new Stones album. You can argue if the music is worthwhile or not, but the mastering is pure garbage, unlistenable.

[dtb300]

.......... For me, the mastering of a particular album is more important than the file format.

Exactly +1

[Jandewitt]

If true, the issue becomes how much do you CARE.

 

Just look at the new Stones album. You can argue if the music is worthwhile or not, but the mastering is pure garbage, unlistenable.

 

The issue is, we care! That is the whole point of this site.

But we care about different things ;-)

 

mp3, spotify and YouTube raised a generation that is not aware of how music can sound on a good system.

Otherwise they would not accept an album like that.

 

Oh and, for me, a Stones album is never worthwhile :-) oops

[Jandewitt]

:-) for me the music is more important than the mastering.

 

I don't know if mastering is a good thing. Example.

 

I had the pleasure of hearing a high resolution copy of original Elvis studio-tapes.

Copied and demoed by Tim de Paravicini himself (EAR). On his own system by the way.

So no master, but a digital copy direct from the original studio tapes.

I can tell you, there is no mastered album available that really does justice to the incredible voice of Elvis.

One other listener that wandered into the demo (High End Munich), a big Elvis fan, had to ask if this was really Elvis.

He never heard Elvis this good.

 

So maybe we should stop mastering?

I don't know, but sometimes I wish they just made a copy from the original recording without all the BS producers and masters do to the recording. Because too often the motivation is profit driven, not quality.

[wwaldmanfan]

mp3, spotify and YouTube raised a generation that is not aware of how music can sound on a good system.

Otherwise they would not accept an album like that.

 

Oh and, for me, a Stones album is never worthwhile :-) oops

 

Your post raises some interesting questions for me. Who, exactly, is the target market for the new, much-anticipated Stones album? Is it kids who were not even born when the Stones were in there heyday, 40-50 years ago? Possibly, since the mastering is so atrocious, no one who has ever heard properly recorded music would want to listen to it. And, I don't say that as a snobbish "audiophile", but as a music lover who got a splitting headache from listening to it on my headphones last night, even though my amp was only turned up to "2".

 

Is it blues afficianados, fans of the orignal, even older artists, whom the Stones cover on this album? I hope not, because the performances do not capture any of that "mojo", and, in fact, do not even remind me of the old Brian Jones-era Stones albums, when you knew you were listening to white English guys imitating the real thing, but were still doing it pretty well.

 

I know this--the Stones were important to rock and roll. They introduced a lot of white American kids like me to the blues. I had never even heard Muddy Waters or Jimmy Reed when I bought 12x5 and Out Of Our Heads as a young teenager. When they started writing their own songs, they put out some great stuff. Unfortunately, their last good album was 40 years ago, and now they are a parody of themselves. Too old to rock and roll, too young to die, indeed.

 

Sorry for my rant. I've obviously gone way off topic here.

[Jandewitt]

Your post raises some interesting questions for me. Who, exactly, is the target market for the new, much-anticipated Stones album? Is it kids who were not even born when the Stones were in there heyday, 40-50 years ago? Possibly, since the mastering is so atrocious, no one who has ever heard properly recorded music would want to listen to it. And, I don't say that as a snobbish "audiophile", but as a music lover who got a splitting headache from listening to it on my headphones last night, even though my amp was only turned up to "2".

 

Is it blues afficianados, fans of the orignal, even older artists, whom the Stones cover on this album? I hope not, because the performances do not capture any of that "mojo", and, in fact, do not even remind me of the old Brian Jones-era Stones albums, when you knew you were listening to white English guys imitating the real thing, but were still doing it pretty well.

 

I know this--the Stones were important to rock and roll. They introduced a lot of white American kids like me to the blues. I had never even heard Muddy Waters or Jimmy Reed when I bought 12x5 and Out Of Our Heads as a young teenager. When they started writing their own songs, they put out some great stuff. Unfortunately, their last good album was 40 years ago, and now they are a parody of themselves. Too old to rock and roll, too young to die, indeed.

 

Sorry for my rant. I've obviously gone way off topic here.

My point was not about the Stones.

[wwaldmanfan]

My point was not about the Stones.

 

I know what your point was, but you did slam them, did you not? And, in a backhand way, I agreed with you, as least regarding their "recent" work.

[Jandewitt]

And, in a backhand way, I agreed with you, as least regarding their "recent" work.

 

Recent? You mean after 'Let it Bleed'?

 

Sorry, just kidding. I did buy 'some girls' in '78. Mostly for 'Miss you'.

 

But, to me, they just released the same album 15 times over.

Don't bother, it's just an opinion ;-)

[CatManDo]

So maybe we should stop mastering?

I don't know, but sometimes I wish they just made a copy from the original recording without all the BS producers and masters do to the recording. Because too often the motivation is profit driven, not quality.

 

I think you are putting to much into this word. There is no clear definition of the terms "mastering" and "remastering"

 

When an engineer takes the original tape, just plays it back and records the signal with an ADC for a digital release, without manipulating it in any way, he is also "remastering", compared to the previous releases. The credits usually say "(re)mastered by" and not "transfered by".

 

Because of the many controversial remasterings, some engineers now add some information like "flat transfer" or "no compression added", etc. That's what people mean by good mastering. They don't call it "unmastered".