6 ms·

I remember back in the day using https://xiph.org/paranoia/ https://xiph.org/paranoia/ for ripping. Tons of burned cds that eventually were tossed in favor of S

I remember back in the day using https://xiph.org/paranoia/ https://xiph.org/paranoia/ for ripping. Tons of burned cds that eventually were tossed in favor of Spotify.

IndySun 4y ago
This type of ripping, comparing to other rips (paranoia) for bit-for-bit error correction integrity is part of XLD for Mac et al. However, even as a full time audio person, I consider paranoia overkill, and in someways backwards - I want my rip to be my unique rip and not precisely anyone else's - though of course, it most likely is anyway. You do realise, assuming you ripped to a lossless audio format, your cd rips are 8-12x more accurate than anything streamed of Spotify?
- haunter 4y ago
  >bit-for-bit error correction integrity is part of XLD for Mac et al AccurateRip is a pretty important feature imo. Like at least I know someone else in the world made a rip which was exactly the same as mine regardless of the optical drive we used. Overkill? Maybe but there is some kind of "safeness" to it https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=AccurateRip https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=AccurateRip
- rokweom 4y ago
  >your cd rips are 8-12x more accurate than anything streamed of Spotify? How did you calculate a factor by which lossless is better than lossy?
  - IndySun 4y ago
    >your cd rips are 8-12x more accurate than anything streamed of Spotify?... >...How did you calculate a factor by which lossless is better than lossy? I specifically typed accurate, not better.
    - rokweom 4y ago
      >your cd rips are 8-12x more accurate than anything streamed of Spotify?... >...How did you calculate a factor by which lossless is better than lossy? >I specifically typed accurate, not better. Yeah OK, that's just wording. Which two factors did you specifically compare, that gave you the 8-12x figure?
      - IndySun 4y ago
        The 'two factors' are not two factors. Frequency range, bit depth, and whatever lossy algorithm is used, all play a role. A lossless rip matches the original audio as stored on the CD. A lossy rip will commonly 'lose' between 8-12x of that information. Lossy audio, like mp3 and m4a, 'throw away' information that is otherwise maintained in a lossless audio file. Hearing the difference is not being questioned, but the integrity.
        rokweom 4y ago
        Oh OK, so you're specifically talking about bitrate difference. I wouldn't agree that that 8x higher bitrate means the file is 8x more accurate, but I get your point now.
        IndySun 4y ago
        You continue to misrepresent my responses. Are you trolling? I did not say and was not 'specifically talking about bitrate difference'. Frequency range, bit depth, and whatever lossy algorithm is used, all play a role, is plain to see.
- flatiron 4y ago
  My audio now is usually played via AirPods. So any lossless rip is lost on me since it’s compressed anyway.
  - layer8 4y ago
    But you could avoid it being compressed twice, which can introduce additional artifacts.
- mckirk 4y ago
  > 8-12x more accurate than anything streamed of Spotify Maybe in theory. In practice, the difference will be very hard to hear (for most people, in most scenarios). Have you ever done an ABX test to determine whether you would be able to tell the difference between lossless and Spotify's quality?[1] I did, a while back, and while I was able to tell the difference somewhat reliably for music I knew well (and only for that kind of music), the effort and time I had to spend on finding the minute differences, even with high-end equipment, convinced me that for everyday listening, Spotify was completely fine for me. [1]: http://abx.digitalfeed.net/spotify-hq.html http://abx.digitalfeed.net/spotify-hq.html
  - IndySun 4y ago
    You make a valid point, except I really did mean to and did type 'accurate' and not sound quality. I do concur with your example of how they can sound the same compared with lossy.

I remember back in the day using https://xiph.org/paranoia/ https://xiph.org/paranoia/ for ripping. Tons of burned cds that eventually were tossed in favor of Spotify.

IndySun 4y ago

This type of ripping, comparing to other rips (paranoia) for bit-for-bit error correction integrity is part of XLD for Mac et al. However, even as a full time audio person, I consider paranoia overkill, and in someways backwards - I want my rip to be my unique rip and not precisely anyone else's - though of course, it most likely is anyway. You do realise, assuming you ripped to a lossless audio format, your cd rips are 8-12x more accurate than anything streamed of Spotify?

haunter 4y ago
>bit-for-bit error correction integrity is part of XLD for Mac et al AccurateRip is a pretty important feature imo. Like at least I know someone else in the world made a rip which was exactly the same as mine regardless of the optical drive we used. Overkill? Maybe but there is some kind of "safeness" to it https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=AccurateRip https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=AccurateRip
rokweom 4y ago
>your cd rips are 8-12x more accurate than anything streamed of Spotify? How did you calculate a factor by which lossless is better than lossy?
- IndySun 4y ago
  >your cd rips are 8-12x more accurate than anything streamed of Spotify?... >...How did you calculate a factor by which lossless is better than lossy? I specifically typed accurate, not better.
  - rokweom 4y ago
    >your cd rips are 8-12x more accurate than anything streamed of Spotify?... >...How did you calculate a factor by which lossless is better than lossy? >I specifically typed accurate, not better. Yeah OK, that's just wording. Which two factors did you specifically compare, that gave you the 8-12x figure?
    - IndySun 4y ago
      The 'two factors' are not two factors. Frequency range, bit depth, and whatever lossy algorithm is used, all play a role. A lossless rip matches the original audio as stored on the CD. A lossy rip will commonly 'lose' between 8-12x of that information. Lossy audio, like mp3 and m4a, 'throw away' information that is otherwise maintained in a lossless audio file. Hearing the difference is not being questioned, but the integrity.
      - rokweom 4y ago
        Oh OK, so you're specifically talking about bitrate difference. I wouldn't agree that that 8x higher bitrate means the file is 8x more accurate, but I get your point now.
        IndySun 4y ago
        You continue to misrepresent my responses. Are you trolling? I did not say and was not 'specifically talking about bitrate difference'. Frequency range, bit depth, and whatever lossy algorithm is used, all play a role, is plain to see.
flatiron 4y ago
My audio now is usually played via AirPods. So any lossless rip is lost on me since it’s compressed anyway.
- layer8 4y ago
  But you could avoid it being compressed twice, which can introduce additional artifacts.
mckirk 4y ago
> 8-12x more accurate than anything streamed of Spotify Maybe in theory. In practice, the difference will be very hard to hear (for most people, in most scenarios). Have you ever done an ABX test to determine whether you would be able to tell the difference between lossless and Spotify's quality?[1] I did, a while back, and while I was able to tell the difference somewhat reliably for music I knew well (and only for that kind of music), the effort and time I had to spend on finding the minute differences, even with high-end equipment, convinced me that for everyday listening, Spotify was completely fine for me. [1]: http://abx.digitalfeed.net/spotify-hq.html http://abx.digitalfeed.net/spotify-hq.html
- IndySun 4y ago
  You make a valid point, except I really did mean to and did type 'accurate' and not sound quality. I do concur with your example of how they can sound the same compared with lossy.