help please - spec'ing and building a HiFi WAV stereo music server
- Thread starter khushy
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 105
- Location
- Scarborough, UK
I personally use WAV as my lossless audio format of choice. I use a Xonar Essence STX as my soundcard, and that produces some truly amazing results with WAV (especially when using a decent set of Hi-Fi headphones - mine are Grado SR225i).
I use dBpoweramp for all my CD ripping, for the simple fact that it produces flawless results and warns of any errors in the rip. It also has the benefit of being able to tag WAV files directly (hardly any other rippers can tag WAV at present).
I play all my WAVs using J-River Media Center 16, which is a fantastic and fully customisable player. Think of it as a cross between Foobar2000's customisation options and iTunes' media management abilities. J-River also sports the added benefit of reading the WAV tags that dBpoweramp writes (again finding a player to read WAV tags is very hard).
Both dBpoweramp and J-River cost money to purchase (they do offer trials though so you can test before buying), but really do make living with WAV files a doddle.
I use dBpoweramp for all my CD ripping, for the simple fact that it produces flawless results and warns of any errors in the rip. It also has the benefit of being able to tag WAV files directly (hardly any other rippers can tag WAV at present).
I play all my WAVs using J-River Media Center 16, which is a fantastic and fully customisable player. Think of it as a cross between Foobar2000's customisation options and iTunes' media management abilities. J-River also sports the added benefit of reading the WAV tags that dBpoweramp writes (again finding a player to read WAV tags is very hard).
Both dBpoweramp and J-River cost money to purchase (they do offer trials though so you can test before buying), but really do make living with WAV files a doddle.
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 105
- Location
- Scarborough, UK
2 very good reasons in my opinion for choosing PC based audio servers. With a fairly decent soundcard they can be made to sound amazing. Couple that with the huge range of audio players and file formats, and I'd think just about everyone's tastes can be catered for.
Win 7 64bit
CM Cosmos
i7-930
6GB ram
Xonar Essence STX
64GB SSD for OS
4 x 1TB storage
Little Dot MK3 tube headphone amp also serving as pre amp
Adam A7 studio monitors
Various headphones
Not cheap but sounds fantastic and you really would need to spend some serious money to better it with a conventional system.
CM Cosmos
i7-930
6GB ram
Xonar Essence STX
64GB SSD for OS
4 x 1TB storage
Little Dot MK3 tube headphone amp also serving as pre amp
Adam A7 studio monitors
Various headphones
Not cheap but sounds fantastic and you really would need to spend some serious money to better it with a conventional system.
that's because most software makers and normal people have the common sense to realise it's absolutely ridiculous to maintain a WAV collection. for home listening, it serves no purpose at all.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
there is absolutely no need to use wav as the main codec for any music collection when flac does the same job, is smaller and is better supported.
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 105
- Location
- Scarborough, UK
My decision to use WAV comes down to a simple reason: I use a Macbook Pro when on the road. If you've tried using FLAC on the Mac then you'll no doubt realise the options aren't great. I also refuse to use the Apple Lossless or AIFF codecs, as Windows based PC's are my main systems.
I certainly don't use WAV because I think it beats FLAC for sound quality - or betters any other lossless codec for that matter.
For you it may be ridiculous perhaps, but not everyone has the same reasons for doing things as you. Oh and don't "normal people" (as you so nicely put it), have the freedom to choose what works best for their circumstances - surely that's just "common sense".
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
is ALAC playback a problem on windows based pcs then? i thought the likes of foobar support it fully? I must admit alac isnt something I've really studied but that's only though a lack of need for it
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 105
- Location
- Scarborough, UK
No, ALAC does work on many Windows audio players - Foobar2000 included. It even works on J-River Media Center 16, which is my audio player of choice.
My reasons against ALAC stem from it being a fully closed-source, proprietary codec. Basically, Apple has full control over it, and that isn't so appealing. If the Mac version of iTunes supported FLAC natively, without the various buggy plug-ins, I'd be using FLAC. Unfortuantely this won't change any time soon, thanks to Apple wanting to remain in tight control of every aspect of OS X.
In theory I could use FLAC on Windows, then convert to a more suitable Mac format like ALAC as needed, but maintaining multiple libraries of the same music is a chore, as is having to convert every time I want a change of albums on the Mac. My way I just drag the WAVs across as needed. Only problem is loosing a little extra HDD space on my main PC for storage of WAVs (about an extra 190GB vs FLAC, per 1000 of my CDs).
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
ALAC seems an obvious solution in your case, to me. It solves all but one of your issues and that one issue is only a moral dilemma. ALAC might be closed but it appears to be the most widely supported lossless codec across platforms and that would be good enough for me. Never mind it being closed source - i understand the want and preference for open source software but in this instance it seems you are losing perfect cross-platform support and gaining nothing with the additional expense of using roughly 40% more storage space. I know space is cheap and I've said that myself many times, but i wouldnt needless waste space just to say I'm supporting open source software.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 105
- Location
- Scarborough, UK
I can totally understand your point, but as the Macbook is only used on the road (and isn't my prefered platform), I'd rather not let it dictate my choice in audio codecs.
In all fairness I could use FLAC on the Mac if I abandoned iTunes. It's not like I'm interested in managing my library or anything on the Macbook, and only require a basic player. Might be worth looking into when I get a spare second, as FLAC was my codec of choice before using a Mac too.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
Yeah that's fair enough then, I'd probably make the same choice in that case if the mac wasn't regularly used
i must admit i'm slightly confused as to why you're against ALAC because it's closed source but use software like windows, OS X, dbpoweramp and so on.....
no matter what apple do with the format in the future it's not like existing software is suddenly going to stop playing your files.
and you know i'm right about the normal people jibe.... if i wasn't, more software would support what you're doing.
no matter what apple do with the format in the future it's not like existing software is suddenly going to stop playing your files.
and you know i'm right about the normal people jibe.... if i wasn't, more software would support what you're doing.
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 105
- Location
- Scarborough, UK
My reasons for not using ALAC are rather simple - I use my Macbook when I'm out on the road - and that's all.
Apple are constantly tweaking and playing around with iTunes, Quicktime and the ALAC/AAC encoders. I'd prefer to stick with the open source formats like FLAC (or WAV), as they have been around a while and are well documented/tested.
and you know i'm right about the normal people jibe.... if i wasn't, more software would support what you're doing.
In a way you are right, yes. Choosing WAV isn't always a good decision. Cetainly not if you think it's better sound quality wise than FLAC.
But I can't agree with software not supporting WAV. Almost anything can play WAV (most without tags, true).
dBpoweramp can add exactly the same tags to a WAV, as it can a FLAC - it 100% fully supports WAV tagging. This isn't obscure software either, it's one of the very best and biggest PC music ripping applications.
J-River Media Center displays and can also tag WAV files. One of the developers of this software is Matt Ashland, the guy who created the Monkey's Audio lossless codec.