Your next computer: the quality of copied files

It's all about the equipment

Moderators: Mr Awesomer, JesseMiner, CafeSavoy

Locked
Message
Author
User avatar
Greg Avakian
Posts: 382
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 10:27 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Your next computer: the quality of copied files

#1 Post by Greg Avakian » Mon Feb 02, 2004 2:06 pm

Disclaimer: I'm a frickin' idiot computer-wise, so please forgive me for asking obvious questions.
That said, I think this is an interesting topic;

I've copied files from my old computer to my new computer and have been A-B listening to the files. Some were originally recorded as Wave files, some as MP3 Pro, some as VBR MP3s, some as 128BR MP3s.

The results? Except for the wave files, all the other formats had some tracks which sounded worse on the new computer (most sounded fine).

Also, I made some compilations where I just wanted one song off a CD that I didn't want to keep and now I've backed up the CD so that I still have the music in case it gets lost/stolen (I sold/gave away the originals). Guess what? Some of that music sounds like crap when I re-burn it onto a new CD -but not the stuff that was recorded originally as wave files.

So, what happens 3 -5 years from now when I have another 3,000 songs on my current computer and I want to buy another computer -am I going to re-record all those CDs that I've kept? Buy and re-record the ones I didn't keep? And what if I'm too lazy (I will be) ...when I copy my current files to the new computer, what are those copies going to sound like?

I just bought a 250gig hard drive ($159) and I'm thinking that as hard drives get even cheaper, it might be best to keep my collection as wave files so that I can transfer them to the next drive and the drive after that without too much loss to the quality...

Am I making sense?

I am also becoming wary of new file types since a new music manager or burning program may not read the specific format (like Atrac, MP3Pro, AAC, etc.)

Finally, is it true that if I keep my files in the Wave format that ripping and burning will be faster since the file doesn't have to change formats?

User avatar
CafeSavoy
Posts: 1138
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2002 6:25 pm
Location: Mobtown
Contact:

#2 Post by CafeSavoy » Mon Feb 02, 2004 2:40 pm

I think wave files are your safest option. you can store about 200 cds worth of songs on that 150gb drive.

julius
Posts: 818
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 11:30 am
Location: los angeles

Re: Your next computer: the quality of copied files

#3 Post by julius » Mon Feb 02, 2004 3:10 pm

Greg Avakian wrote: I've copied files from my old computer to my new computer and have been A-B listening to the files. Some were originally recorded as Wave files, some as MP3 Pro, some as VBR MP3s, some as 128BR MP3s.

The results? Except for the wave files, all the other formats had some tracks which sounded worse on the new computer (most sounded fine).
In theory a digital file does not vary no matter what format is used to store it. A digital tape, a digital hard drive, and a printed list of numbers on a sheet of paper are all equivalent digital representations of a file. So it's not likely that sound quality will be affected by playing back on a new computer. Most likely it is a hardware issue: different sound card or different speakers being the most likely suspects. Other possibilities are playback settings in your operating system.

The most important thing to know when burning music is whether the resulting file format is lossy or not. If you record to a .wav file, there will be no information loss. Depending on the mp3 quality you use, there will be information loss (you can create an mp3 that has no loss, technically). If you rip a CD track to mp3 then re-burn it onto a CD, the new CD will sound worse than the original. If you repeat this process several times, it will degrade the sound quality each time.

If you keep all your CDs on a hard drive, be sure to store them in a non-lossy file type.

I know a guy who stores his entire CD collection on a couple of terabytes of storage. It's moderately expensive, but it's also very convenient. Since hard drives are less than a dollar a gig now, take the number of CDs you own, and put a dollar sign in front. That's how much you need to buy in hard drives (within a factor of two) to store your music, without loss.

User avatar
Lawrence
Posts: 1213
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 2:08 pm
Location: Austin, Texas
Contact:

Re: Your next computer: the quality of copied files

#4 Post by Lawrence » Mon Feb 02, 2004 4:52 pm

Greg Avakian wrote:I've copied files from my old computer to my new computer and have been A-B listening to the files. Some were originally recorded as Wave files, some as MP3 Pro, some as VBR MP3s, some as 128BR MP3s.

The results? Except for the wave files, all the other formats had some tracks which sounded worse on the new computer (most sounded fine).
That has been my experience. Sometimes the new MP3 copy will have those digital "swirling echo" sounds: not on the source MP3, but only on the new copy.

Although digital copies are the same, I think the problem lies in the compression, not the copying. I know that .jpg files degrade every time you copy them or make alterations to them and save them. The compression algorhythm ends up compressing an image that has been compressed, already. Although the original jpg looks fine to the naked eye, the level of original information/detail gets smaller each time you recompress/resave it, resulting in a worse and worse image.

I suspect MP3s are the same thing: each time they are copied, they are extracted and then re-compressed, resulting in loss of information. With wav files, because there is no compression and no loss of information, there is no significant degradation between generations: its just copying the same 0s and 1s that are on the source.
So, what happens 3 -5 years from now when I have another 3,000 songs on my current computer and I want to buy another computer -am I going to re-record all those CDs that I've kept? Buy and re-record the ones I didn't keep? And what if I'm too lazy (I will be) ...when I copy my current files to the new computer, what are those copies going to sound like?
You can transfer the hard drive from computer to computer.

This thread presents yet another reason why I didn't join emusic and download MP3s, and why I still just buy CDs. Original CDs also last longer than CD-Rs, so getting a copy only means you have it for the next 5-10 years, not for 100 years like a manufactured CD.
Lawrence Page
Austin Lindy Hop
http://www.AustinLindy.com

User avatar
Lawrence
Posts: 1213
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 2:08 pm
Location: Austin, Texas
Contact:

Re: Your next computer: the quality of copied files

#5 Post by Lawrence » Mon Feb 02, 2004 4:55 pm

Greg Avakian wrote:The results? Except for the wave files, all the other formats had some tracks which sounded worse on the new computer (most sounded fine).
The fact that some sounded fine might also reflect the fact that your copy of the bad files was farther down the ancestral line (number of times it was "cloned") than the other files were that sounded fine.
Lawrence Page
Austin Lindy Hop
http://www.AustinLindy.com

julius
Posts: 818
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 11:30 am
Location: los angeles

#6 Post by julius » Mon Feb 02, 2004 5:30 pm

if you are simply copying an mp3 from one spot on your hard drive to another, or from one hard drive to another, there is no loss. the computer is copying a string of bits identically to another location on the hard drive.

your speculative BS is amazing, but wrong as far as this point goes. think about it. if mp3s degraded every time you copied them somewhere else, how would kazaa/morpheus/napster ever function?

Toon Town Dave
Posts: 661
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 2:52 pm
Location: Saskatoon, Canada

#7 Post by Toon Town Dave » Mon Feb 02, 2004 6:59 pm

To rephrase what Julius said (it's all good advice), simply copying or moving a file is not lossy. If you use software to compress a file or recompress a file using mp3, wma, ogg or similar compression schemes, you will lose some information (quality). Uncompressing and recompressing will also be lossy (mp3->CD->mp3).

That said, if you're new computer is a Windoze system, and you're playing back in Media Player then try something else like Winamp. It could be the MS codec screwing with mp3 playback. MS is more keen on pushing wma so it's advantageous to make mp3 sound worse.

Also, checking hardware etc could be a good thing too.

Lawrence, what is this "swirling echo" you're talking about? Simply copying and mp3 from one computer to another will not alter it (unless you're O/S is sabotaging your media collection).

jmatthew
Posts: 65
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 5:16 pm
Location: Corvallis, OR
Contact:

#8 Post by jmatthew » Tue Feb 03, 2004 5:03 am

I think what he meant was that every time you go from a wave to an MP3 you get loss.

So if you burn your CD to your hard driven, then make burn a CD, your 2nd CD sounds worse than your first. Then, if for some reason, you get rid of the file on your hard drive, and make an MP3 from the 2nd CD, which you then burn to a 3rd CD, your 3rd CD will sound worse than the 1st and 2nd...and on and on as you make "copies."

If you dont' want to devote tons of hard drive space to CDs, but you want decent MP3 back-ups, burn CDs as Data CDs and the songs as MP3 files. It's kind of a compromise position, and if your harddrive goes belly-up you aren't out all your back up MP3s.
I'm not an obsessive personality. I just happen to pick hobbies that seem to consume my life.

www.lindyguy.com

User avatar
Greg Avakian
Posts: 382
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 10:27 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

#9 Post by Greg Avakian » Tue Feb 03, 2004 8:10 am

Here's an interesting discovery. I've never bothered to include the information about bit rate as part of my music managing program's options for what is displayed. So I added that feild, sorted by bit rate and guess what? Despite the fact that I have NEVER ripped or burned music below the MP3 Pro speed (96KPS -they sound great with this format BTW), I have a bunch of files listed at 64KPS.

No use crying over spilt milk, but does anyone have any suggestions as to what I might have done to make this happen? I've used music match and Nero for ripping, but I don't know which are the nero files. I'm wondering if there's something funky about the mp3 pro fromat that would make it copy incorrectly? Or music match of course... Again, sorry if I'm asking a dumb question and thanks in advance.

User avatar
CafeSavoy
Posts: 1138
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2002 6:25 pm
Location: Mobtown
Contact:

#10 Post by CafeSavoy » Tue Feb 03, 2004 10:03 am

Greg Avakian wrote: I've used music match and Nero for ripping, but I don't know which are the nero files. I'm wondering if there's something funky about the mp3 pro fromat that would make it copy incorrectly? Or music match of course... Again, sorry if I'm asking a dumb question and thanks in advance.
The problem was using music match for ripping. Exact Audio Copy is the way to go.

User avatar
Greg Avakian
Posts: 382
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 10:27 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

#11 Post by Greg Avakian » Tue Feb 03, 2004 10:47 am

Yeah, Dapper Dan installed EAC on my laptop and I like it; I'm thinking that it's a good way to go (Thanks Dan!). Because now that I can manage files with itunes, I really don't need MM anymore. I really like the fact that you can search in itunes and that you can copy playlists to an Excel template for labels.

Is there a "best" burner to use with itunes ...any comments anybody?

Nate Dogg
Posts: 886
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2002 3:29 pm
Location: Austin, TX

#12 Post by Nate Dogg » Tue Feb 03, 2004 12:28 pm

This thread has got me thinking, right now I used CDeX for ripping.

For those who have used both Exact Audio Copy and CDeX, which one do you prefer and why?

CDeX
http://www.cdex.n3.net/

Exact Audio Copy
http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/

User avatar
CafeSavoy
Posts: 1138
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2002 6:25 pm
Location: Mobtown
Contact:

#13 Post by CafeSavoy » Wed Feb 04, 2004 1:27 am

Nate Dogg wrote:This thread has got me thinking, right now I used CDeX for ripping.

For those who have used both Exact Audio Copy and CDeX, which one do you prefer and why?

CDeX
http://www.cdex.n3.net/

Exact Audio Copy
http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/
i haven't used CDex but i did see this on the web:


http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php? ... =20&t=3164
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?showtopic=16554&

User avatar
dana
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2003 11:13 am
Location: Calgary AB

#14 Post by dana » Wed Feb 04, 2004 8:49 am

You know, I had a weird experience like this as well. I had a bunch of good mp3s that I burnt as audio and used for DJing. They were great. I burnt them as data to keep them as a backup, but now when I transfer them to my new computer from the data cds, they sound like they've been ripped at 62kbit - I can hear tons of bad-encoding artifacts.

No idea why.. somehow in the burn-as-data process, Nero made my mp3s sound bad. Hasn't done it since, but somehow did it for all those songs.

d.

Nate Dogg
Posts: 886
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2002 3:29 pm
Location: Austin, TX

#15 Post by Nate Dogg » Wed Feb 04, 2004 8:50 am

CafeSavoy wrote:
Nate Dogg wrote:This thread has got me thinking, right now I used CDeX for ripping.

For those who have used both Exact Audio Copy and CDeX, which one do you prefer and why?

CDeX
http://www.cdex.n3.net/

Exact Audio Copy
http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/
i haven't used CDex but i did see this on the web:


http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php? ... =20&t=3164
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?showtopic=16554&
That is a great forum. I need to spend some time checking out some of it's older threads.

Nathan

Locked