[naamanf]

Quote:

 

 
I have to admit, their negativity has gotten to me in a hateful way where it makes one want to pull out an ugly stick and beat them every time they think it's okay to attack your happiness.

I'll be your huckleberry.
Psychoacoustics for the ignorant. Fail.

 

[beeman458]

I'll be your huckleberry.
Psychoacoustics for the ignorant. Fail.
 
What qualities to you possess to make the statement that you will be my huckleberry.  You do know that an ugly stick trumps all huckleberries?
 
???

 

[The Monkey]

How large should files be?  They're just a bunch of various Red Book standard CD's purchased used at a used CD store.




 




Where are you going with the questions?




 




???

When people post listening impressions, I like to know the details of what exactly they're listening to. Context helps.

Edit: what are some of the CD titles? If I (or someone else) also have the same title, I can let you know what I see as the file size.

 

[beeman458]

ccbass wrote:
 
I'm 99% sure you're not ripping in lossless.
 
You win.  I was doing Windows Media Audio.  Now I get to re-rip the whole library.  I just re-ripped the Cash album in WAV and now the files are 40.1mb for a 4:01 recording with a 1.41Mbps bit rate.
 

 

[beeman458]

The Monkey wrote:
 
Edit: what are some of the CD titles? If I (or someone else) also have the same title, I can let you know what I see as the file size.
 
Thanks for the effort but I found out that I wasn't ripping lossless but am now as the files are now in the twenty to forty MB range.  A 5:34 minute recording takes up 56.3MB.
 

 
Earlier you asked:
 
Do you hear a sonic difference between lossy and lossless files?
 
FWIW, barely but with effort, yes.

 

[naamanf]

Quote:

 
FWIW, barely but with effort, yes.

Oh the irony, this is what makes this entire thread pure win at being a fail.

 

[ccbass]

24/96 are even bigger.
 
A 4:30ish song is 95mb in FLAC.

 

[beeman458]

Ripping WAV, the files to me, are huge but the benefit, as an example, is better sound decay of strings.  Re-ripping the whole music library ain't gonna be fun but it's gonna be worth it.  Thank Heaven for really, really large HDD's.
 

 

[beeman458]

naamanf wrote:
 
Oh the irony,
 
The irony?  The irony is, despite your efforts, it keeps getting better.
 

 
It really is a shame that you can't hear what I'm hearing.  You're missing so much that you find need to harass others to make yourself feel good about yourself.  It's called jealousy.  I pity you.
 
The rule is, don't feed the trolls, so this will be my last response to you in this thread.
 
Wishing you well with your need to harass others.

 

[mypasswordis]

Hm, interesting findings there, beeman. I'm sure the new cable with the re-ripped wav files sounds the best, but could you try your old 192kbps files with the new cable and then the new wav files with the old cable, and let us know which you think sounds better?

 

[The Monkey]

Quote:

 
Thanks for the effort but I found out that I wasn't ripping lossless but am now as the files are now in the twenty to forty MB range.  A 5:34 minute recording takes up 56.3MB.
 

 
Earlier you asked:
 
Do you hear a sonic difference between lossy and lossless files?
 
FWIW, barely but with effort, yes.

 
When you were previously listening to your ripped files, did you notice that they sounded different from your CDs?

 

[ROBSCIX]

Quote:

Ripping WAV, the files to me, are huge but the benefit, as an example, is better sound decay of strings.  Re-ripping the whole music library ain't gonna be fun but it's gonna be worth it.  Thank Heaven for really, really large HDD's.
 

Just ignore the trolls...
I would just stick with FLAC over WAV but your system, your ears.  If you want a more analog type sound perhaps a new amplifier might help?

 

[beeman458]

mypasswordis wrote:
 
Hm, interesting findings there, beeman. I'm sure the new cable with the re-ripped wav files sounds the best, but could you try your old 192kbps files with the new cable and then the new wav files with the old cable, and let us know which you think sounds better?
 
With all due respect, thassss a lotta work.
 

 
FWIW, I have at least made comparison between old cables and new as well as new cables vs old compressed rips and uncompressed WAV rips.
 
Overall impression (Currently listening to Enya: "Orinoco Flow."), sound stage even wider and much more depth to the recording.  Much better (more pleasant) echo and sound decay.
 
I'm now in the process of reripping the whole library.  Fortunately, there are only about some twenty-five albums that I've ripped.

 
The Monkey wrote:
 
When you were previously listening to your ripped files, did you notice that they sounded different from your CDs?
 
I sure didn't.  And why?  I never listened to the CD's.  First, I ripped them into the computer and then listened to them.  So I didn't have a standard in which to compared ripped vs unripped to.
 
I make a very poor audiophile.
 

 
ROBSCIX wrote:
 
Just ignore the trolls...
 
Good idea.
 
I would just stick with FLAC over WAV but your system, your ears.
 
Okay, what's FLAC?  More to learn; will Google FLAC after work.  How's FLAC better than WAV?
 
If you want a more analog type sound perhaps a new amplifier might help?
 
My thesis was, no extra boxes on the computer table.  Yes, a limiter but I personally hate, don't want the clutter as the desk is small and space is a premium.  And yes, a tricked out WA2 in black (audiophile porn) is looking mighty good right now.
 

 

[Satellite_6]

I'm sure your cables made a huge difference when listening to 192 kbps losssy files. . . lol. Sorry but you don't seem very credible. *runs away*

 

[beeman458]

Satellite_6 wrote:
 
Sorry but you don't seem very credible. *runs away*
 
Neither do you as I'm not trying or looking to be credible but I do like the sound of your little feet.