#279754 - 18/04/2006 13:06
Current *working* lossless options?
|
new poster
Registered: 18/04/2006
Posts: 26
|
I am curious, are there any working lossless options for the empeg? Is the newest version of the V3 alpha stable enough to run FLAC reliably?
Thanks
Hans
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#279755 - 18/04/2006 13:28
Re: Current *working* lossless options?
[Re: mbcouple]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
The v2 software tree can do .wav files, but it supposedly keeps the disk spun up nonstop.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#279756 - 18/04/2006 13:42
Re: Current *working* lossless options?
[Re: mbcouple]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31600
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
The V3 alpha is about as stable as you would expect alpha software to be. Also, it was built from an earlier branch of the code tree, so it contains some bugs that were fixed in V2 final.
FLAC also keeps the disk spun up a lot.
As neat as I think the concept of doing FLAC on the empeg is, I have to ask: Who needs lossless in their *car*? I could understand wanting high bitrate MP3s, but why lossless?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#279757 - 18/04/2006 14:01
Re: Current *working* lossless options?
[Re: tfabris]
|
addict
Registered: 02/08/2004
Posts: 434
Loc: Helsinki, Finland
|
Quote:
As neat as I think the concept of doing FLAC on the empeg is, I have to ask: Who needs lossless in their *car*? I could understand wanting high bitrate MP3s, but why lossless?
I'm guessing bragging rights..
The guy who installed my EMPEG at a local auto-stereo shop said that he'd never install a 'ipod', mp3 player, in his car, because he cares so much for audio quality. When I told him the EMPEG could playback lossless audio files, his jaw dropped! Now never mind the fact that I bet this guy couldn't "pass" a blind A/B audio test...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#279758 - 18/04/2006 14:03
Re: Current *working* lossless options?
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4180
Loc: Cambridge, England
|
Quote:
it was built from an earlier branch of the code tree, so it contains some bugs that were fixed in V2 final
Is that still true in alpha 11? Did the merge miss something?
Peter
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#279759 - 18/04/2006 14:28
Re: Current *working* lossless options?
[Re: petteri]
|
old hand
Registered: 07/01/2005
Posts: 893
Loc: Sector ZZ9pZa
|
Quote:
Quote:
As neat as I think the concept of doing FLAC on the empeg is, I have to ask: Who needs lossless in their *car*? I could understand wanting high bitrate MP3s, but why lossless?
I'm guessing bragging rights..
As someone who has roughly 50% of my music as FLAC at home, I really don't care to have it in my car. MP3s sound great in amongst the road noise of London traffic. I suppose if you had a really quiet car, like a Lexus LS, BMW 7, Jag XJ, or S-Class... with the double glazing option ticked too, it *might* swing it!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#279760 - 18/04/2006 15:28
Re: Current *working* lossless options?
[Re: sein]
|
addict
Registered: 02/08/2004
Posts: 434
Loc: Helsinki, Finland
|
Quote:
As someone who has roughly 50% of my music as FLAC at home, I really don't care to have it in my car. MP3s sound great in amongst the road noise of London traffic. I suppose if you had a really quiet car, like a Lexus LS, BMW 7, Jag XJ, or S-Class... with the double glazing option ticked too, it *might* swing it!
I'm in the same boat, I've got 99% of my music encoded as FLAC, for my main listening at home. The MP3s reside on another computer for transfer to the EMPEG and what ever flavor of portable MP3 player is in fasion at the house. I've tried out the FLAC stuff in the car (a very noisy Toyota Prius, except at a stop!  ) and its just not worth it in my case anyway.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#279761 - 18/04/2006 18:39
Re: Current *working* lossless options?
[Re: petteri]
|
new poster
Registered: 18/04/2006
Posts: 26
|
I will not be using the analog section of the empeg. I am installing the digital output card, and running i2s into a cusom processor i have modified. Sound quality is important in this installation. I have an iriver h120 modded and rockbox installed for FLAC payback over optical. I just want the much slicker interface of the empeg. Whereas you all are correct, with roadnoise it make litte difference FLAC vs LAME, but at a standstill when you are demoing your installation, that is when it matters. I am crazy. I spent over $2000 on servo controlled velodyne subwoofers, have LCY130 ribbons installed that play flat out to 60khz, and am using seas lotus midbass drivers and hybrid tube amps. I have even constructed my own cd transport for the car. I am simply trying to replace the iriver with the empeg.
Thanks
Hans
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#279762 - 18/04/2006 19:29
Re: Current *working* lossless options?
[Re: mbcouple]
|
old hand
Registered: 07/01/2005
Posts: 893
Loc: Sector ZZ9pZa
|
Dude, you definately justify FLAC for competitions and your setup - hope you get it working!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#279763 - 18/04/2006 19:52
Re: Current *working* lossless options?
[Re: mbcouple]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 17/01/2002
Posts: 3996
Loc: Manchester UK
|
Wow! You've got to post some pictures of that setup.
_________________________
Cheers,
Andy M
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#279764 - 18/04/2006 20:11
Re: Current *working* lossless options?
[Re: mbcouple]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2489
|
Don't mean to make the empeg sound bad but... its old old technology (relatively speaking). Given that its the weak point in the setup will it be capable of delivering what true audiophiles want?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#279765 - 18/04/2006 20:20
Re: Current *working* lossless options?
[Re: CrackersMcCheese]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 21/05/1999
Posts: 5335
Loc: Cambridge UK
|
Quote:
Don't mean to make the empeg sound bad but... its old old technology (relatively speaking). Given that its the weak point in the setup will it be capable of delivering what true audiophiles want?
I fail to see how an empeg playing FLAC via SPDIF can deliver anything other than perfect data..?
Even the analogue outputs are a hell of a lot cleaner than most head units, including some of the high end ones.
Finally, how many other head units out there have a 20 band fully parametric EQ?
Rob
Edited by rob (18/04/2006 20:21)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#279766 - 19/04/2006 01:45
Re: Current *working* lossless options?
[Re: rob]
|
member
Registered: 09/03/2003
Posts: 121
Loc: Iowa
|
Quote:
I fail to see how an empeg playing FLAC via SPDIF can deliver anything other than perfect data..?
Rob
Then you must have yours setup different than mine. Mine has SPDIF, V3Alpha11, extra memory using the stacked chips method and it glitches every few minutes when it goes to fill the buffer. It is perfect for those few minutes. Ogg and Mp3 glitch only once and a while but not everytime it fills the buffer like FLAC does.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#279767 - 19/04/2006 04:20
Re: Current *working* lossless options?
[Re: CrackersMcCheese]
|
old hand
Registered: 07/01/2005
Posts: 893
Loc: Sector ZZ9pZa
|
Quote:
Don't mean to make the empeg sound bad but... its old old technology (relatively speaking).
old != bad
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#279768 - 19/04/2006 07:29
Re: Current *working* lossless options?
[Re: Gleep]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 18/01/2000
Posts: 5683
Loc: London, UK
|
Quote:
extra memory ... it glitches
That's because the player glitches when filling that extra memory. I believe that there might be a workaround for this in a recent Hijack.
_________________________
-- roger
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#279769 - 19/04/2006 10:00
Re: Current *working* lossless options?
[Re: Roger]
|
member
Registered: 09/03/2003
Posts: 121
Loc: Iowa
|
Quote:
That's because the player glitches when filling that extra memory. I believe that there might be a workaround for this in a recent Hijack.
If you mean the ReserveCache setting, I've played with that setting alot, but so far, no joy : ( Do you know the Magic number to set it to? The only extra app I am running is Hijack.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#279770 - 19/04/2006 12:50
Re: Current *working* lossless options?
[Re: petteri]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 06/04/2005
Posts: 2026
Loc: Seattle transplant
|
For those who use FLAC- how can I translate it to mp3? I just got a bunch of FLAC for the first time and have no idea what to do with it...
Thanks!
_________________________
10101311 (20GB- backup empeg)
10101466 (2x60GB, Eutronix/GreenLights Blue) (Stolen!)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#279771 - 19/04/2006 13:07
Re: Current *working* lossless options?
[Re: Robotic]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
flac -d -c file.flac | lame - file.mp3
The | is a pipe character. Add any other LAME options you normally use for MP3 encoding.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#279772 - 19/04/2006 13:50
Re: Current *working* lossless options?
[Re: rob]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2489
|
More just a question of general interest as I genuinly didn't know the answer. It was never designed with the intention of digital soundcards being added, or playing FLAC. Was intererested to see how it stood up 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#279774 - 19/04/2006 18:36
Re: Current *working* lossless options?
[Re: Robotic]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 18/01/2000
Posts: 5683
Loc: London, UK
|
Quote:
I was hoping for a freebie windoze application recommendation. 
That'll work just fine on Windows as well. It, too, has pipes.
Or, it you prefer, you can download the simple command-line application that I wrote for converting music. It needs the LAME and FLAC binaries, but basically does the pipe for you, and also copies your tags across (well, the tags I use, anyway).
Or, probably even better for you, is to look at dBPowerAmp, which is reputedly very good at this kind of thing. I've never used it, however.
_________________________
-- roger
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#279775 - 19/04/2006 19:07
Re: Current *working* lossless options?
[Re: Roger]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I realize that it defeats the purpose of having installed that extra memory, but would a process that just malloc()ed all of that extra memory help in this situation?
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#279776 - 19/04/2006 21:50
Re: Current *working* lossless options?
[Re: Roger]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 06/04/2005
Posts: 2026
Loc: Seattle transplant
|
Thanks, Roger- I'll have to wait to play around with it, though. I'll be away from home for about three weeks on a business trip- to England, as it happens.  Anyone near Earby, Lancs is welcome to swing by and see my robots play with laser beams at our UK facility. Pints are my treat- in the evening, that is!
_________________________
10101311 (20GB- backup empeg)
10101466 (2x60GB, Eutronix/GreenLights Blue) (Stolen!)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#279777 - 22/04/2006 11:31
Re: Current *working* lossless options?
[Re: mbcouple]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 12/11/2001
Posts: 7738
Loc: Toronto, CANADA
|
You won't be able to tell the difference between a really well encoded MP3 and the same song as FLAC. Not on the equipment you list, unless it's doing something to alter/color one of the tests. It doesn't really matter if it's in a car, on a bus, on a plane or on a train. Or in a home or in a studio. With Dr. Seuss or with a moose. Unless you or the people you're demoing for have some super golden ear... And a large percentage of those claiming they do are either lying or delusional.
It might be easier for some people to do a straight lossless FLAC encode than to set options to get a nice MP3. But if your rip introduced the noise, it doesn't matter what you encode with anyway.
But anyone using tubes for amplification obviously doesn't care about reproducing the true sound of the recording.
Bruno
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#279778 - 22/04/2006 17:24
Re: Current *working* lossless options?
[Re: hybrid8]
|
new poster
Registered: 18/04/2006
Posts: 26
|
I agree and disagree. It is possible to do a good mp3. But a flac file will always be better. As to your comment on tubes, you may be correct, but they are only used as preamps on the units i have chosen. They are well implemented, and have over a 200v supply, not just being used as a noise filter. They do offer some coloration, but total thd is well below 1%. If a car is in motion, you will not be able to hear the difference, but in the correct setting, mp3 is decernable from flac. The setup i have is only limited to the recording, it is capable of prodcing beyond the spectrum of hearing in both directions, but you can detect upper and lower end roll-ffs. Early mp3 rolled off way to early to compress the files. When your ribbons dont start rolling off till 40k and have usable responce to 60k, you want the recording to hold up. Dont forget, the audio itself is only half the battle. We are all after some degree of bragging rights, or we wouldnt have adopted the empeg. BTW, with car audio, measured system response and accuracy is part of the judging, not just subjective listening tests.
Hans
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#279779 - 22/04/2006 18:39
Re: Current *working* lossless options?
[Re: mbcouple]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2489
|
Quote:
it is capable of prodcing beyond the spectrum of hearing in both directions
The local bats, dogs and dolphins will be impressed
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#279780 - 22/04/2006 18:49
Re: Current *working* lossless options?
[Re: mbcouple]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 11/06/2003
Posts: 384
|
Hans,
Interesting setup you've got. How do you do a double-blind test to remove the placebo effect when comparing flac vs. mp3? Do you guys do both perceptional tests as well as pure analytical comparisions?
Analytically, no question mp3 is going to be different from flac or the original source, and it's going to be a lot easier to quantify those differences. And since mp3 (and lossy compression in general) is about perception, it's going to fail pure analytical comparisions.
Almost everyone can't tell the difference between original souce and mp3's encoded by lame using the --preset standard settings. There =are= a few people who have repeatedly demonstrated the ability to distinguish lossy encoded files.
But all of those test setups have only been done via software on pcs, and not on very high-end equipment. And the few times I've been able to listen to music on crazy high-end gear, I do believe it makes a difference.
I wonder if reliable and repeatable ABX testing on very high end audio equipment would increase the numbers of people who distinguish compressed music from the original, or change the qualtity level that it can be distinguished at?
--Nathan
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#279781 - 22/04/2006 18:50
Re: Current *working* lossless options?
[Re: mbcouple]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31600
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
It is possible to do a good mp3. But a flac file will always be better.
But not SO MUCH better that it's worth the trouble, worth disk space, worth keeping the drive spun up all the time, worth dealing with the unstable alpha software, etc.
I figure, if I really want the highest quality output, I'll do 320kbps MP3s and be able to use all the current and well-proven tools without hassle.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#279782 - 22/04/2006 20:46
Re: Current *working* lossless options?
[Re: mbcouple]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
Quote:
We are all after some degree of bragging rights, or we wouldnt have adopted the empeg.
No. Bragging had nothing to do with it, either then, or now. I've made no attempt to make a fantastic sounding system -- I use a flat EQ, stock speakers, and a pair (my truck had a sub installed in it when I bought it) of way-less-than high end amps required because the empeg is my sole head unit.
I adopted the Empeg because, after a few months of research, I decided that it was (and still is) the best solution for not having to carry piles of CDs around in my truck.
Cheers,
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index