Jump to content

MoeB

  • Posts

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    United States

Retained

  • Member Title
    Newbie
  1. ​Audio magazines like Stereo Review, High Fidelity, and Audio used to publish in-depth technical analyses of audio technology by the likes of Julian Hirsch and David Ranada. These magazines were almost as rigorous about technical correctness and accuracy as the Audio Engineering Society -- and, indeed, some of the writers often attended conferences of the AES. Times have changed. These days, magazines happily endorse any technology fad because they are desperate for topics to write about. It's hard to sell magazines if the pages are filled with articles that essentially say "this power amp sounds pretty much like every power amp" over and over. When a new fad comes along, today's magazines happily embrace it without any critical thought because then they have something to write about in issue after issue -- for over two years in the case of MQA. The current effort to decipher MQA reminds me of the heroic effort by David Ranada in the mid 80's to protect us from a system designed to prevent DAT recorders from making unauthorized copies of analog recordings. (See Footnote #1 for another example of Ranada’s fearless debunking.) I think the system was called "CopyCode". As I recall, all recordings were going to have a "watermark" -- a narrow band of high frequencies that had been removed by a notch filter. Unless the DAT recorder detected the watermark, it would refuse to record the music. Ranada investigated the system and disproved promoters’ claims that the effect of the notch filter was inaudible. The subsequent outcry against CopyCode assured its justified demise. These days, we are forced to rely on citizen volunteers to perform the critical research that assures we are not being led down the garden path. Professional writers no longer care about technical validity -- or even plausibility. They are content to regurgitate whatever manufacturers feed them and they exalt subjective evaluation. Meridian is cynically capitalizing on this dereliction. Without the heroic efforts of citizen volunteers, we consumers would be forced to accept the word of Meridian that MQA is beneficial and flawless. It may be, of course, but their secretive marketing and the deferential reporting by the press make it impossible for us to know. After all of you geniuses figure out the secrets of MQA, it would be great if someone would collect the findings scattered through many posts into one concise summary for the edification of the CA community. Your efforts on the objective side will complement the subjective evaluations performed by the audio press to provide a complete picture so that people can reach informed decisions about the merits of MQA. ___________ Footnote #1: Some readers may remember that Ranada also caused a stir in 1990 when he debunked the science behind the “green marker craze” (http://bit.ly/2kMQL6d). Practitioners of this fad (including Robert Harley, John Atkinson (http://bit.ly/2kDFEMj), and Jason Serinus (http://bit.ly/2kAbNGE)) claimed that the application of green ink (esp. AudioPrism’s CD Stoplight) to their CDs dramatically improved sound quality.
  2. Pazzoppe, A few questions. I’m not sure what you mean by “player”. Are you looking for software, hardware, or a combination of software and hardware? What music management software are you currently using? What OS do are you using? What is your budget for this “player”? You said you have looked at a dozen “players”, including MusicMatch Jukebox, Kodi, Lumin, and JRiver Media Center. What other “players” have you tried? And a couple of suggestions. Have you tried Alchemy Desktop software (http://bit.ly/2jwTnEP)? The folder structure and GUI might fit your requirements. TAS described Wax (http://bit.ly/2jxr4WD) as the "best software on the planet" in a recent issue, but it's available only as part of a complete system, which might be out of your budget.
  3. Brojito, Check out Chris Connaker's RMAF 2016 seminar [ for answers to your questions about Roon, Tidal, AirPlay, and Roon endpoints (esp. Sonore’s MicroRendu). Chris’ seminar is over an hour long but you can skip the first 23 min if you’re not interested in learning about JRiver Media Center’s software. I doubt Roon will improve your sound quality (SQ) but Signalyst’s HQPlayer software might. HQPlayer has a toolbox full of acoustic engineering tools that you can tweak for SQ effects: delta-sigma modulators for upsampling PCM to DSD, selectable algorithms for dithering and noise shaping, and convolution filters for equalization and room correction. Experimenting with HQPlayer’s tools might not fit your criteria for “hassle free”. A new DAC or speakers would most likely have a bigger impact on SQ than new software, but, obviously there are monetary tradeoffs to consider. Consult your wallet and your ears for more guidance. Good luck, -MoeB
  4. Here are a few of the comments [http://bit.ly/2hLjPZV] about Steve Silberman’s seminar at RMAF2015: “Computer audio demystified? This guy is creating myths. Get away while you still can. You won't learn anything.” “Wow - and i came here cause i wanted to learn a bit more about the current state of computer audio - not some total bullshit.” “This is a parody, right? Like, no one can possibly be taking any of this utter nonsense seriously, right? Please? Tell me no one could possibly be gullible enough to believe the words coming out of this man's mouth.” I’m surprised that AudioQuest did not ask RMAF to take down the 2015 YouTube video and that Silberman was invited back to give a seminar in 2016. Like you, I am new to computer audio. I found these resources extremely useful; you might too. Computer Audiophile FAQ: http://bit.ly/2hL7Qf7 Understanding Digital Music Systems: http://bit.ly/2hLfPsy AudioStream’s Computer 101: http://bit.ly/2hLdz4l Cheers, -MoeB
  5. semente, You did a lot of tedious manual editing to make iTunes work with your collection. If iTunes had subgenres you might have been able to store your collection in one library instead of nine. Roon offers genres and subgenres so I wonder how Roon would have handled your catalog and whether it would have met your needs. Did you try Roon with your catalog? iTunes doesn’t do everything I need but I think it is currently a better option for me than Roon. Apple’s recent announcement about de-emphasizing automation technologies (esp. AppleScript) is troubling but I’m not worried that Apple is planning to eliminate music management from iTunes’ long list of functions. Still, I like keeping tabs on iTunes alternatives. iTunes Offers More Control Over Metadata than Roon Audiophiles like being able to tweak everything in their audio chain, including the metadata. The Internet databases are filled with errors and inconsistencies. Fixing metadata problems satisfies my OCD and makes searching my catalog more efficient. iTunes lets me do a lot of fiddling with my metadata. iTunes doesn’t provide enough metadata but Roon provides too much metadata. Roon’s abundant metadata can be distracting and one can get lost exploring all the hyperlinks. How many times do I need to view the same artist biography in Roon, esp. if the artist is Mozart who’s been dead for two centuries? I’d like to be able to select and store only the metadata that are meaningful to me. iTunes allows me to save any metadata I fancy but it often forces me to shoehorn the metadata into a field where it doesn’t belong or dump it in iTunes’ “comments”. It’s unfortunate that iTunes does not support more of the ID3v2 tag library (e.g. these ID3v2 tags: conductor, band, musician credits, artist webpage URL, and lyricist) or allow users to create custom metadata fields. iTunes is Flawed but Extensible My ideal software package probably doesn’t exist. It has these characteristics: 1) The software is simple to use, even for non-techies. 2) It’s a complete suite for ripping, organizing, editing, and playing music. 3) The software gives you flexibility with the cataloging scheme and the metadata. 4) The software GUI is simple and uncluttered, and uniform across mobile and desktop platforms. I don’t want to cobble together software from different manufacturers. I don’t want to send files back and forth between software packages or between my tablet and my desktop system to edit metadata. I don’t want to spend my free time learning to code. iTunes has some of the characteristics of my dream software but it has many flaws. iTunes is bloated with features unrelated to music management and the user interface is cluttered and unintuitive. Apple doesn’t typically allow users to customize their software so it is refreshing that iTunes is somewhat extensible. It is easy to find AppleScripts to expand iTunes’ capabilities and to clean up some metadata problems (e.g. Doug Adams’ “Proper English Title Capitalization” AppleScript). I sometimes supplement iTunes’ metadata with information from the Internet using Doug Adams’ excellent AppleScripts: “Search Wikipedia” and “Google Lyric”. Cataloging classical music is tedious in iTunes. The new Work and Movement tags in iTunes are a step in the right direction but one needs to painstakingly edit individual tracks to achieve perfection: a header with work name and composer and Roman numerals preceding the track names (see http://bit.ly/2hqWRdh). If you have non-standard metadata that you want to store (e.g. soloist, conductor, orchestra, venue, sample rate, bit depth, etc.) you’re out of luck. You’ll have to use a clumsy workaround to store the information. Does the Perfect Software Package Exist? I like owning my music and my metadata and some of my collection is already stored in iTunes. I’m not sure I want to spend my time cramming the remainder of my eclectic collection (esp. the hard-to-catalog classical works) into iTunes. It is unfortunate that iTunes doesn’t offer users with large diverse libraries a few more options, e.g. custom genres and subgenres, support for more of the ID3v2 tag library, and the ability to create custom metadata fields. Is there software that I have missed (other than JRiver Media Center which I find to be too difficult to learn) that offers better control and customization than iTunes with more flexibility over metadata editing than Roon?
  6. I'm still learning about Roon and other music software. I'm hoping some of the Roon aficionados at CA can help with these four questions. Does Roon rely exclusively on Rovi for metadata or does Roon also check crowdsourced databases (MusicBrainz, FreeDB, and/or Discogs)? (dBpoweramp queries multiple databases for the best and most complete metadata.) What can I do if Roon has no metadata for a work in my library or if Roon’s metadata are incorrect or inferior to the metadata I curated for a work? Members at various fora often complain that Roon's metadata are incomplete or incorrect, esp. for classical music and for boxed CD sets. If I prefer my own metadata over Roon’s for a specific work can I revert back to my metadata for that work? How does Roon identify music in my library? I guess Roon must use acoustic fingerprinting. Is there anything else? Is there a way to restore my library to its original organization with its original metadata if Roon goes bankrupt or if I don’t like using Roon? Do users typically keep a copy of their original archive as a backup?
  7. Ralf11, You asked about advantages of Roon over iTunes. Here’s what I’ve gleaned from my recent research: 1) Roon software “automagically” organizes your digital music collection with “comprehensive genre information". 2) Roon supports audiophile formats: WAV, FLAC, and DSD. 3) Roon provides "rich metadata" for albums (ripped or streamed), including: a description of the album; artwork; artist biography; critical review of the album; artist discography; credits for performers, engineers, producers and other personnel; release date; recording format; sample rate; bit depth; lyrics; and links to alternate versions of the album. You also asked about lyrics, music discovery, and sorting. Roon's catalog of lyrics is spotty, but if Roon finds lyrics, it displays them. Roon is designed for cataloging music not discovering music. Because Roon doesn't have a feature analogous to iTunes' Genius, many Roon users purchase a Tidal subscription for music discovery. Roon's Focus feature allows you to focus on specific areas of your catalog: Albums, Tracks, Artists, Composers, and Works. You can use Focus to save a playlist, e.g. a collection of high res files or music from a genre or time period. Roon's software isn't perfect. Serious collectors will be disappointed by these deficiencies: 1) no support for ripping; 2) no support for custom metadata; and 3) library size restrictions. (Roon Essentials Hardware supports libraries up to 30,000 tracks. iTunes allows libraries to be infinite in size). Per Roon's license, the metadata that Roon serves up cannot be saved to a users' catalog and all of Roon's metadata disappear when you terminate your subscription. Finding the music you want to play can be cumbersome with Roon, particularly if you have multiple versions of a recording that are indistinguishable by their covers. (It is unfortunate that Roon does not support Boolean search.) This piece at RealHD-Audio (http://bit.ly/2gkLYbF) speaks to this selection problem while offering an interesting perspective about the value of "rich metadata” (called “High Resolution Metadata” in the piece).I hope this helps you with your quest for music cataloging software. If knowing more about the music in your library is valuable to you and you don't mind the software subscription model, Roon might be a good solution for you. Good luck! - MoeB
×
×
  • Create New...