Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

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



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?


> 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


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.


>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


My audio now is usually played via AirPods. So any lossless rip is lost on me since it’s compressed anyway.


But you could avoid it being compressed twice, which can introduce additional artifacts.


>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?


>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.


>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?


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.


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.


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.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: