# Best way to get Equal or Better than CD quality?



## Jetjones (Jan 29, 2012)

I am looking for a way to get away from using CD's and stepping into the 21st century by downloading all of my music to playback through my system. I want to make very clear, that I want the sound quality to be equall to CD quality, if not better. I have no idea where to start. I have two setups at the moment. I have a 7.1 system that is powered by a Denon AVR-3312 and a seperate 2 channel system that is powered by an Anthem AVM-20 with a Crown amp. I want to get music fed into both systems, and as I said, I don't know where to start, I just know that I want CD quality or better. I have shyed away from itunes and mp3's in general because I have always been told they are inferior to CD quality. 

What would you guys suggest?


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

MP3 is fine as long as its ripped at a high enough bitrate (above 256 or VBR). That said if your looking for equal to CD quality then go with one of the lossless formats like AAC, WAV, AIFF or FLAC just to name the most popular ones.


----------



## andy_c (Aug 8, 2006)

Jetjones said:


> I am looking for a way to get away from using CD's and stepping into the 21st century by downloading all of my music to playback through my system.


Since you're aiming for true CD quality, the issue of downloading is somewhat problematic at present. Not many online music vendors have true CD-quality downloads available, so choices are few. By "true CD quality", I'm referring not to subjective criteria, but to the objectively verifiable criterion that the music data in the extracted files be bit-for-bit identical to the data from the original CD from which it was sourced. This is sometimes known as "bit-perfect" extraction.

However, if you wish to obtain such files from your existing CDs (called "ripping"), there are multiple software solutions for that. The solution depends on the OS you're running on the computer used to extract the data.



Jetjones said:


> I want to make very clear, that I want the sound quality to be equall to CD quality, if not better. I have no idea where to start. I have two setups at the moment. I have a 7.1 system that is powered by a Denon AVR-3312 and a seperate 2 channel system that is powered by an Anthem AVM-20 with a Crown amp. I want to get music fed into both systems, and as I said, I don't know where to start, I just know that I want CD quality or better. I have shyed away from itunes and mp3's in general because I have always been told they are inferior to CD quality.
> 
> What would you guys suggest?


The entire subject is a large one. First lets talk about the general categories of files that are capable of the bit-perfect property.

Uncompressed files: These are files that contain the raw music data from the CD, along with some bookkeeping data that identifies sample rate, bit depth, number of channels and so on. A single CD, extracted to uncompressed files, might take up 600MB or so (same number of bytes as the CD itself).

Files using lossless compression: Think of these as files for music that are analogous to ZIP files for data. The compressed file is smaller than the raw file, but the underlying data can be recovered exactly. So you save space without losing data. Typically, music files using lossless compression take up about 60-65 percent of the disk space of their uncompressed counterparts.

Now let's talk about tagging. Tagging is the ability to place information inside the file (usually one file per song) regarding the artist, album name, song title, year recorded and so on. Your playback software also has some form of library management. You tell the software the location of your music library. It will then scan the library and look inside each file to get the tags, which then allows it to associate artist, album etc. with each song. Some file types do not support tagging. In such cases, the playback software attempts to get this information from the file names, which, as you might imagine, is very much a hit-or-miss proposition.

Let's talk about some specific kinds of files one can extract from a CD while retaining the bit-perfect property.

WAV files: These are uncompressed files, so they tend to be large. There is no industry-standard method of tagging for WAV, so this can cause problems with playback software as described above. WAV files are supported by almost all playback software on virtually all OSes. Compatible with iTunes playback software and Windows Media Player.

WMA lossless files: These are losslessly-compressed files. This is a Microsoft-proprietary format, though some vendors have reverse-engineered the format to allow playback, and in some instances, creation of the files themselves. Tagging is supported. Works with Windows Media Player and others. I'm not sure of the specific support in other players, as I don't use this format.

Apple lossless (ALAC files): These are also losslessly compressed. This is an Apple-proprietary format, but the situation regarding reverse engineering is similar to that of WMA lossless. Tagging is supported. Works well with iTunes playback software and others. I'm not sure of the specific support in other players, as I don't use this format.

FLAC files (Free Lossless Audio Codec): These are losslessly-compressed as well. This is an open-source format. Unfortunately, both Apple and Microsoft have dropped the ball on supporting playback of FLAC in their media players. Without special software codec add-ins, these won't play in either Windows Media Player or iTunes. However, any third-party playback software that's worth its salt does support FLAC. Tagging is supported. Works well with Foobar2000, WinAmp, Logitech Squeezebox, JRiver Media Center and many others, including a number of home theater receivers that support DLNA. This is the format I recommend.

Then there is the issue of playback hardware, but this post is already pretty long .


----------



## Jetjones (Jan 29, 2012)

Ok Andy_C, thanks for the detailed reply. It looks like WAV files are the best since they are not compressed at all and are truly lossless. The problem seems to be that WAV files are so large that it might not be practical due to limitations on hard drive space, correct? With that being said, would having a large, external hard drive dedicated solely for music storage, make this less problematic? I believe this is refered to as a NOS, correct?

Next question, if I do end up using mostly WAV files, what would be the best way to get them from my computer to my audio system? As I understand it, there are basically 2 ways of doing this, (correct me if I am wrong) one way would be to stream the music from my PC to my receiver/pre-amp, the other way would be to purchase a good sound card, and run a cable from the sound card, to my receiver/pre-amp.

What I would like to know, is which method would provide me with the best possible sound quality, computer--->sound card--->receiver (or) computer---|> streamer--->receiver/pre-amp? I want the best possible sound quality for my stereo playback. Any recommendations as to what would be the best methods and devises for me, would be greatly appreciated!!!


----------



## andy_c (Aug 8, 2006)

Jetjones said:


> Ok Andy_C, thanks for the detailed reply. It looks like WAV files are the best since they are not compressed at all and are truly lossless.


All the file types I listed are truly lossless. There's some debate in the audiophile world, with some claiming that lossless compression allegedly doesn't sound as good as uncompressed, but I don't find the arguments put forth in favor of uncompressed to have any credibility. YMMV.



Jetjones said:


> The problem seems to be that WAV files are so large that it might not be practical due to limitations on hard drive space, correct?


Yes, but that is not the only problem. As I mentioned earlier, the lack of standardized tagging support in WAV can cause problems in your playback/library management software identifying artist, album name and so on, unless you are extremely careful and consistent in naming your files. With tagging, file names don't matter because all the relevant information is contained inside the files themselves, in the tags.

That said, if you absolutely insist on uncompressed files, FLAC has an uncompressed mode, so by using uncompressed FLAC mode you'll still have a standard tagging system (which WAV does not support).

Another potential problem of uncompressed files is if you have to do wireless streaming over the network. With lossless compression, the compressed files are streamed, so the data rate over the network is slower than with uncompressed files. This is a good thing, as it reduces the chance of reaching the max data rate supported by the wireless network when streaming, say, high-res files. In this case the decompression is done by the device that receives the files, be it a general-purpose computer or a dedicated device like the SB Touch.



Jetjones said:


> With that being said, would having a large, external hard drive dedicated solely for music storage, make this less problematic? I believe this is refered to as a NOS, correct?


Yes, a NAS is often used in this role. It's basically a computer whose sole purpose in life is to act as file storage.

In my own setup, which has between 1500-1600 CDs in FLAC format, I added a 2TB internal file to the computer in my study (the one I'm typing this on). Then I bought a 2TB external USB drive to use as backup. Having a backup strategy and following it is extremely important.

I use ethernet over power line to stream the music from this computer to a Squeezebox Touch in my main system. The coaxial digital output of the Touch goes into one of the coax inputs of my Denon 3312 receiver.



Jetjones said:


> Next question, if I do end up using mostly WAV files, what would be the best way to get them from my computer to my audio system? As I understand it, there are basically 2 ways of doing this, (correct me if I am wrong) one way would be to stream the music from my PC to my receiver/pre-amp, the other way would be to purchase a good sound card, and run a cable from the sound card, to my receiver/pre-amp.


Yes, and yet another way is to put a turnkey type of playback device such as a Squeezebox in your system. You can use the DLNA feature of your Denon receiver to get streaming playback, but keep in mind that most DLNA systems don't support gapless playback. When listening to a live album for which consecutive songs are supposed to run together seamlessly, a device that doesn't support gapless will insert a rude silence of about 1 second between tracks. Some people don't mind this, but I find it unacceptable.

If you put a general-purpose computer in your audio system, great care needs to be taken to make sure it's a quiet computer. I had a weird experience with this once. I have a laptop that's normally almost silent, and I made it part of my audio system. I added an external E-MU USB sound card, and it used up so much CPU resources playing music that the laptop got very warm, then its fan would start roaring! If you use a general-purpose computer in this role, expect the unexpected . A general-purpose computer hooked up to the stereo tends to be more of a "computer geek" solution. If you like to mess around with computers, it's great, but for those not interested it could be annoying and frustrating.



Jetjones said:


> What I would like to know, is which method would provide me with the best possible sound quality, computer--->sound card--->receiver (or) computer---|> streamer--->receiver/pre-amp? I want the best possible sound quality for my stereo playback. Any recommendations as to what would be the best methods and devises for me, would be greatly appreciated!!!


This is the subject of huge debate among audiophiles, and I don't pretend to have a definitive answer. My own view is that one should not attempt the paradigm shift of the move to computer audio while at the same time being super-concerned about eking out the absolute best sound quality obtainable. An incremental approach is much less stressful. I'd recommend using a Squeezebox touch to start out with, which will allow you to get situated without spending the big bucks. Amazon has them for a good price.

I was an early Squeezebox adopter back in 2005 (Squeezebox 2), and gave up on it due to buggy software. Then I went to a general-purpose computer solution, using a quiet PC I built myself with fanless power supply and all that. It worked okay, but was a messy solution. Then I came back to Squeezebox and am very glad I did. They've gotten their act together on the software, and the Touch is an elegant piece of hardware compared to the old Squeezebox 2 I used to have.


----------



## elbradamontes (Jun 7, 2012)

I think a lot of people pass on this compressed audio is inferior line of thinking without being able to actually hear a difference. Eq, analog path, headroom, speaker placement, sound treatment if necessary are all going to have drastically noticeable effects on sound. AAC vs WAV vs CD? Eh. I have doubts. I know it's irritating to hear that but engineers and home recording folks debate this constantly. Eh, it makes little difference seems to be the conclusion. I am one of those home studio engineers sucked into that debate. 

In OSX you can create an aggregate output that utilizes say both the hdmi out and the optical out for a single source. If I'm not mistaken windows allows the same thing. You could run both systems direct from your computer if this is the case. Buy a soundcard with multiple hdmi outs or optical outs and you're in business. Of course you then have a cable routing issue. 

Will your 7.1 system allow for daisy chaining the two systems?


----------



## Jetjones (Jan 29, 2012)

Thanks again, Andy_C, for the great reply. Ok so my Denon avr-3312 supports streaming via DLNA? What exactly is DLNA? I am guessing that I would have to purchase some type of streaming hardware & software to get the music from my computer to stream to my receiver via DLNA, correct? Could you explain a little bit about the process?

I do have a couple of laptops and a desk top that I generally do not use, and, either would probably work just fine for using as a dedicated music center. If I go this rought, what sound card do you recommend for connecting to my Denon avr-3312? Also, what brand of NOS do you recommend I look into? And last, how do I make this/these computers quiet or quieter?

I will consider going the FLAC rought, but, I could probably be very meticulous in the way that I organize everything, so perhaps the downside of WAV tagging would not be a very big deal. I honestly do not see myself downloading/storing/ripping more than a couple of hundred CD's at most. 

Decisions, Decisions!


----------



## Jetjones (Jan 29, 2012)

elbradamontes said:


> I think a lot of people pass on this compressed audio is inferior line of thinking without being able to actually hear a difference. Eq, analog path, headroom, speaker placement, sound treatment if necessary are all going to have drastically noticeable effects on sound. AAC vs WAV vs CD? Eh. I have doubts. I know it's irritating to hear that but engineers and home recording folks debate this constantly. Eh, it makes little difference seems to be the conclusion. I am one of those home studio engineers sucked into that debate.
> 
> In OSX you can create an aggregate output that utilizes say both the hdmi out and the optical out for a single source. If I'm not mistaken windows allows the same thing. You could run both systems direct from your computer if this is the case. Buy a soundcard with multiple hdmi outs or optical outs and you're in business. Of course you then have a cable routing issue.
> 
> Will your 7.1 system allow for daisy chaining the two systems?



Of course I realize that alot of this is like splitting hairs, and perhaps in a proper double blind controled listening test, I might not be able to hear any differences at all. The problem isn't the actual differences in SQ, the problem is that I will always have that little voice in my head saying that what I am listening to is a notch down in SQ than the other option! That drives me crazy!


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Jetjones said:


> Of course I realize that alot of this is like splitting hairs, and perhaps in a proper double blind controled listening test, I might not be able to hear any differences at all. The problem isn't the actual differences in SQ, the problem is that I will always have that little voice in my head saying that what I am listening to is a notch down in SQ than the other option! That drives me crazy!


Then maybe a better option is to find a 400 disc cd player or some other sort of player? That way you simply just listen to the original disc. Some of these 400 disc players can be linked together so if you have more than 400 CDs your still good.


----------



## andy_c (Aug 8, 2006)

Jetjones said:


> Thanks again, Andy_C, for the great reply. Ok so my Denon avr-3312 supports streaming via DLNA? What exactly is DLNA? I am guessing that I would have to purchase some type of streaming hardware & software to get the music from my computer to stream to my receiver via DLNA, correct? Could you explain a little bit about the process?


You haven't mentioned which OS you're running on your computer(s). If it's Windows 7, and you have a network router with wireless support, you should not need any other hardware or software to stream music to the Denon 3312 with DLNA.

In your Denon manual, search for "DLNA". You should find a topic called "Operating a media controller to play music and still pictures". That will explain the basic idea and some details. There's also a useful Microsoft blog on the subject. There is even a decent DLNA writeup in Wikipedia too. There's so much information that it's too much for a forum post.



Jetjones said:


> I do have a couple of laptops and a desk top that I generally do not use, and, either would probably work just fine for using as a dedicated music center. If I go this rought, what sound card do you recommend for connecting to my Denon avr-3312? Also, what brand of NOS do you recommend I look into? And last, how do I make this/these computers quiet or quieter?


If you use the 3312 with DLNA (which requires wireless or wired networking), no sound card is needed. The DLNA server just streams the audio to the Denon over the network and the Denon does the rest. In the network scenario, the server can be in some other room from the Denon such that any noise it makes is not heard. That's the advantage of not having a computer hooked up to your stereo directly.

Low-noise computing is a can of worms because it requires a holistic approach. In building one's own computer from scratch (what I did), one starts with a CPU having the lowest possible power dissipation (so it radiates as little heat as possible). This minimizes the need for cooling with loud fans. Then find a monster heat sink for the CPU to again minimize or eliminate the need for a CPU fan. Look for a motherboard that has no fans on the support chips, as wall as a video card requiring no fan. Then find a fanless power supply. Look for reviews of quiet hard drives at places like silentpcreview. Choose a computer case that looks nice, has efficient air flow, and has rubber isolation mounts for the hard drives to eliminate vibration-induced noise. It's a pain!

An alternative is to look for a turnkey solution. You might check Vortexbox. I have always used a general-purpose computer for the server, not a NAS (network-attached server), so I don't have any advice for a NAS.



Jetjones said:


> I will consider going the FLAC rought, but, I could probably be very meticulous in the way that I organize everything, so perhaps the downside of WAV tagging would not be a very big deal. I honestly do not see myself downloading/storing/ripping more than a couple of hundred CD's at most.


When I first started out with computer audio in 2005, I initially rejected the idea of tags, although I did use FLAC. My logic was that I tend to be meticulous in the organization of my files, so that if the player simply had directory browsing capability, I was golden. But then, a funny thing happened. My ripping software was, unbeknownst to me, putting tags in my files. When I saw how much better my library management software worked, browsing by artist, album, searching for song or album titles and whatnot, I completely changed my view and became obsessed with getting the tags in order. The result was a greatly improved user experience. I know the whole "user experience" thing is very subjective, and even sounds corny, but you may not realize how important it can be until you experience the full extent of what is possible. To paraphrase a wise person, "I can't define a good user experience, but I know it when I experience it".


----------



## Jetjones (Jan 29, 2012)

Again, thanks for the reply, Andy_C! 

My operating system is Windows 7, and, yes, I do have a wireless router. I will try and look up the DLNA info in the manual. Do I not need sometype of player to output the music from my PC to my receiver via DLNA? Perhaps something like Foobar2000 or Windows Media Player? 

I guess it wouldnt hurt to try the DLNA wireless streaming option as I already have all of the necessary stuff to make it happen. I guess that if I don't like it, or , perhaps it doesn't sound good to me, then I can always buy a sound card later on down the line, and then try the wired options. 

Last question, what websites do you recommend for high quality music downloads? Do I need to use Windows Media Player? I understand that my receiver uses DLNA to stream, but, how do I get my laptop to output the music? 

Thank you so much, Andy_C! You have been a tremendous help!


----------



## andy_c (Aug 8, 2006)

Jetjones said:


> My operating system is Windows 7, and, yes, I do have a wireless router. I will try and look up the DLNA info in the manual. Do I not need sometype of player to output the music from my PC to my receiver via DLNA? Perhaps something like Foobar2000 or Windows Media Player?


The short answer is that you can use Windows Media Player as your DLNA server software on whichever machine is storing the music files you want to play. I believe the streaming works even if Windows Media Player is not currently running. See the instructions and especially the illustrations in that Microsoft blog I linked to in my earlier post for how to set this up.

The long answer is that DLNA in general consists of three components, each of which consists of both hardware and software. They are as follows:

DLNA Server: This is the machine that stores the files to be played. It must be running DLNA server software (built into Windows itself or Windows Media Player... not sure how MS implements this).

DLNA Renderer: This is the machine that plays the files. It must be running DLNA renderer software.

DLNA Controller: This is a machine that acts as a remote control. It can be a computer such as a laptop, a tablet or even a smart phone. This machine must be running DLNA controller software. You basically create playlists on this machine and "send" them to the renderer to be played.

In some implementations, two or even all three functions can be combined into one device, so one does not need three separate pieces of hardware for a working system.

You can also use Foobar2000 for these functions, but you'll need to download the foo_upnp plugin to make it work. In the case of the DLNA server, Foobar2000 must be running on the server for the server to be "seen" on the network. I've played around with DLNA in Foobar2000 a bit. I set up a DLNA server on my main machine with the 2TB hard drive. On my laptop, I also installed Foobar2000 and configured it as a DLNA controller. Finally, on my HTPC that was hooked up into my stereo, I installed Foobar2000 and configured it as a DLNA renderer. This allowed me to create playlists on the laptop in my listening position and play them on the HTPC some distance away. In this role, the laptop (controller) is coordinating activity between the server and the renderer. I gave up on DLNA when I realized that the implementation I used didn't support gapless playback.



Jetjones said:


> I guess it wouldnt hurt to try the DLNA wireless streaming option as I already have all of the necessary stuff to make it happen. I guess that if I don't like it, or , perhaps it doesn't sound good to me, then I can always buy a sound card later on down the line, and then try the wired options.


Be aware that DLNA is an old standard, and the way receivers implement the UI is pretty primitive to the best of my knowledge (I haven't tried it, only DLNA with Foobar2000 and three computers as I described previously). Solutions like the Squeezebox touch have a much more well-developed user interface. Take care not to judge computer audio by the primitive implementations found in things like Windows Media Player and HT receivers.



Jetjones said:


> Last question, what websites do you recommend for high quality music downloads?


I don't use any of them!  I just buy CDs and rip them. Being a jazz buff that's especially fond of '50s and '60s jazz, I can get most of my CDs for $10 typically. This is what the online sites charge for lossy MP3. Lossless files, if you can find them, usually cost more than CDs. This gives me a "backup of last resort" in the unlikely event that both my main machine and the backup were to fail at the same time.



Jetjones said:


> Do I need to use Windows Media Player? I understand that my receiver uses DLNA to stream, but, how do I get my laptop to output the music?


The software is as I explained above. Your receiver is a DLNA _renderer_ (playback device). So the music gets streamed from the server to the receiver and played back through whatever system the receiver is hooked into.

I think I made a mistake in an earlier post. The Denon must be hooked up to the network via a wired connection. It has no wireless adapter. Sorry for the confusion.

If you want to play the music on your laptop, I think you can do this with Windows Media Player, assuming the DLNA server software has been set up correctly on the server machine. I know it will work with Foobar2000 and foo_upnp, I just haven't tried it with Windows Media Player. In this case, the music would be streamed wirelessly from the server to the renderer.


----------



## hjones4841 (Jan 21, 2009)

HDtracks.com sells hi res, hi bit rate recordings via download. Selection is kinda limited, tho.


----------

