X-Fi CD Ripping / Converting?

[USMC2Hard4U]

I always used iTunes to Rip my CDs into AAC 320Kbps since it sounded pretty good... Now that I have an X-Fi, what should I use for optimal Sound quality and or compression? I want to take advantage of as many new features as I can.

 

[discochan]

The card is capable of ripping in 24bit. I tried it and its pretty awesome.

 

[USMC2Hard4U]

The card is capable of ripping in 24bit. I tried it and its pretty awesome.

.... yes... i know... i am asking how... did you not read my post?

 

[Xeero]

yes i would also like to know how @_@

also if you rip a song w/ 24bit, would you need to enable the crystalizer when listening to it?

 

[USMC2Hard4U]

yes i would also like to know how @_@

also if you rip a song w/ 24bit, would you need to enable the crystalizer when listening to it?

I noticed on all my other music. MP3's , WMAs etc sound much clearer with the Crystalizer on. I keep it at 75% since I really dont know what effect it has on performance. It does make everything sound nice however. I also keep SVM on, its the dynamic range manager on.

I just need to know how to rip in 24 bit audio. That Creative Media Source program is no help, and too cluttered lookin for me. I <3 iTunes

 

[anotherguy159]

Guys, come one.

CD audio is sampled at 44.1 Khz, 16 bits per sample.

Upsampling will do nothing for you.

 

[dravalier]

Don't spoil the placebo effect.

And besides, upsampling will change the sound. Whether it will make it better is debatable, but it will make it sound different. As well, I believe mediasource allows you to add effects (such as that of the crystalizer) to the sound when it is ripped, again making it sound different.

If they have disk space to burn, is there any reason to rain on the parade, whether the Emperor's wearing clothes or not?

 

[Donnie27]

I noticed on all my other music. MP3's , WMAs etc sound much clearer with the Crystalizer on. I keep it at 75% since I really dont know what effect it has on performance. It does make everything sound nice however. I also keep SVM on, its the dynamic range manager on.

I just need to know how to rip in 24 bit audio. That Creative Media Source program is no help, and too cluttered lookin for me. I <3 iTunes

The easiest way is to open up the Creative Media Player. Go to "View"->Recording. Once there, click either the Settings or the Arrow and arrow down. It gives options for any normal setting including Xxbit and XxKHz in Mono, Stereo or Multi. Bit for Bit is possible as well, use the help files.

I have some pretty good 5.1 24/96 made in real time analog from DVD Audio and 2Ch made for for 96KHz Stereo on my receiver. I get real good discrete 5.1 for a very nice placebo effect LOL!

Be warned. These files are 10X larger than 16/44.1 Wave files. Until I showed my bud one, he'd never seen a 5.1CH 24bit/96 KHz Wave files that takes up 580MB, that's right I said 580MB. Some songs take up even more. You need a 5.1 source.

Donnie27

 

[BBA]

Guys, come one.

CD audio is sampled at 44.1 Khz, 16 bits per sample.

Upsampling will do nothing for you.

Yes and yes kind of...

The upsampling itself does nothing for sound quality. The reason it needs to be upsampled is the crystallizer increases transient amplitudes and expands dynamic range and has the net effect of making music sound more 'gutsy' and cleaner. Gives bass a little punch. The deal is when you rip with the crystallizer on, it rips in 24 bit mode.

 

[anotherguy159]

Yes and yes kind of...

The upsampling itself does nothing for sound quality. The reason it needs to be upsampled is the crystallizer increases transient amplitudes and expands dynamic range and has the net effect of making music sound more 'gutsy' and cleaner. Gives bass a little punch. The deal is when you rip with the crystallizer on, it rips in 24 bit mode.

1. Why are you ripping through a sound card? Just make a bit-perfect rip using EAC.

2. Unless you can document empircal 'increases in transient amplitudes' (irrefutable fact) that somehow quantify music sounding 'gusies' (subjective validation), you sir, have said nothing.

Sorry man, but you made empirical claims to justify a subjective conclusion. That sir, is a fallacy.

Unless you guys cannot tell, I have a HUGE issue with people altering original recordings and claiming they are better. Different, yes, perhaps, but claims that upsampling something somehow cleans it up is bunk.

Accurracy is lost, not gained.

 

[dderidex]

Yes and yes kind of...

The upsampling itself does nothing for sound quality. The reason it needs to be upsampled is the crystallizer increases transient amplitudes and expands dynamic range and has the net effect of making music sound more 'gutsy' and cleaner. Gives bass a little punch. The deal is when you rip with the crystallizer on, it rips in 24 bit mode.

THIS Crystallizer?

Before the field tests of this technology, I have read and heard a record-breaking number of pseudo-scientific nonsense and blunt fairytales.

The funniest phrase belongs to the Creative website, it claimed that this technology enhances MP3 by making your music sound even better than it did on the original CD, before it was compressed to MP3 . This phrase is indeed an invention of marketing guys, who have their own alternative idea of quality.
...
We can also find a counterpart of the Crystalizer technology in the world of digital photography. Suppose there appears a new plug-in that converts a JPEG file, compressed from a high-quality TIF, into 16-bit color; then it adjusts tonal range (roughly speaking, it increases brightness/contrast) and sharpness by 10-20% depending on the original image. Here we go! We get a new brilliant "48-bit Picturelizer", which enhances JPEG and makes them better than the original TIF. Here is the question: in what case the quality is higher? You are right, only when this JPEG file has a quality margin for such violations and a display has problems rendering the lightest and the darkest halftones of the original image.
...
Thus, 24-bit Crystalizer will come in handy to owners of inexpensive acoustics or low end headphones, which automatically means insufficient LF and HF, as well as problems with medium frequency detailing. The good news for owners of high quality acoustics is that this technology can be easily disabled.
...
the way this technology is announced with a portion of wishful thinking is disappointing. In reality, Crystalizer does not expand, but narrows down the dynamic range.

 

[Xeero]

yeah alot of us knew that the crystalizer was gimmicky. whether it sounds better or not is dependent from person to person. to my ears? it "marginally" improves my sound. nothing earth shattering but it sounds a tad bit better to me

 

[BBA]

THIS Crystallizer?

The problem with that article is it is only talking about how it supposedly makes an MP3 sound better than the original.

No one in this post is even talking about that.

We are talking about applying those same filters and algorithyms to the 16 bit source material. The crystallizer shapes the signal amplitudes (look at the graphs in the article if you want to see the amplitude shifts per frequency) of the cd source and it in fact does make the sound have a higher degree of transient 'punchiness' if you will.

Look, all this argueing about what it does or doesn't do, I agree it will never sound better than the real source performance (not the CD itself, but the performance), it does produce a livelier and cleaner sound than the compressed 16 bit CD material.

The truth is: The Crystallizer is NOT accurate as the real source is, but then again, neither is the CD.

Now, as for accuracy and sounding better, thats a hard call. The only thing I can say is go to a live performance where your standing in front of a drum, guitar stage and listen to the impact and transients of the music performance. Then listen to a recordin of that same performance with the crystallizer on and off, you will definitely notice more of the live performance impact and feel with it on.

Creative did achieve the real time psychoacoustic processing pretty well in this case. That author was continually insulting CL for even claiming that, but that author is not considering the fact the X-Fi is a 10,000 MIPS processor dedicated to real time audio processing like nothing else ever made before it, so I'd say they can be arrogant about their real time processing claims and get away with it.

 

[anotherguy159]

higher degree of transient 'punchiness' if you will.

What does that mean EXACTLY. DO NO ALLUDE TO WHAT IT MEANS. EXPLAIN IN EXACT TERMS PLEASE.

Next, scroll down at the Rightmark audio tests. Extreme peaks in low and high frequencies with a decrease in midrange.

Do you know what that is?

Your loudness button on your car stereo.







The X-fi = loudness button.

 

[BBA]

What does that mean EXACTLY. DO NO ALLUDE TO WHAT IT MEANS. EXPLAIN IN EXACT TERMS PLEASE.

Next, scroll down at the Rightmark audio tests. Extreme peaks in low and high frequencies with a decrease in midrange.

Do you know what that is?

Your loudness button on your car stereo.

The X-fi = loudness button.

You don't have to like the X-Fi but it is obvious you havent listened to one or you definitely would not equate the loudness button of a car stereo to the crystallizer algorythms.

A loudness button is a simple boost of lows and highs, no computing involved. The graph and analysis of that article do not explain what the algorythm does. In fact he states the processing is similar to a professional studio processing algorythm that is done in 64 bit precision controlled by technicians and that the it would be arrogant for CL to claim they can do that automated in real time, yet he does not refute that it is actually doing it.

Also, here are some of his quotes:

This technology is similar to what we have seen in Intel with its HDA, in the bundled Intel Audio Studio.

Indeed, a record is remastered by a well-known mastering plug-in called "multiband compressor". Just to make sure I was 100% correct, I compared Crystalizer with three mastering multiband compressors: Waves LinMB, iZotope Ozone, Steinberg MultiBand Compressor. These plugins changed the audio character similar to Crystalizer.
....
Pay attention to the frequency response equalization and large intermodulation distortions - the plugins' effect is similar. But the results sound much better. It has to do with the music signal differing from the test sample. According to psychoacoustics, people don't notice overloads shorter than 6 ms. A high quality compressor does not tolerate long overloads, it quickly reduces the signal level, regulated by the attack time.

So where do you see that equated to a loudness button? A 'Multiband compressor" equals loudness button? Come on man, be for real.

Just for giggles and grins, I went to my car and played some music and set loudness on and off and you know what...the loudness button made the bass and treble stronger, but did not make it sound gutsy or punchier.

When I say those terms, if you want to be exact, it could be equatable to faster and tighter bass. It does NOT sound the same as a loudness button.

I really think you would be better served if you just listened to the X-Fi for a while before making your ill-advised conclusions.

 

[anotherguy159]

I really think you would be better served if you just listened to the X-Fi for a while before making your ill-advised conclusions.

That is EXACTLY my point. You are CLAIMING that the Xfi processor does something EMPIRICALLY measurable. You claim the effects are quantifiable and consistent.

Yet, you claim I must listen to it to understand.

If the evidence is repeatable, consistent, and measurable, then I do not have to listen to it.

All the evidence and measurable facts about the X-Fi show that is DOES alter the waveform.

But change isn't always good, my friend. All you are doing is deviating from the original waveform.

'Gutsier' and 'punchier' are barely words, let alone scientific and measurable ways to tell whether or not audio is being altered.

Once again, you make empirical claims justified by subjective observation. That is invalid. That is what I take issue with.

The truth is: The Crystallizer is NOT accurate as the real source is, but then again, neither is the CD.

My god, man. You refute your entire argument right here.

The more you apply filters, the more you deviate from the original source.


Also, do you understand what am multiband compressor is? I don't think you do.

Multiband compression is a gain reduction technique. It is used for making certain frequency bands of a recording less loud. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH TRANSIENTS.

You are dropping terms much like Creative Labs.

 

[BBA]

You want absolute terminology for the way modifying a sound to make it sound better?

Psychoacoustics.


You want to know what the term multiband compression is? Well, it's NOT equalization. The processing is a little more complex than that, or companies like Dolby would never have had any patents other than for a neat loudness button. Then again, EXPANSION is the processing you do to a signal to remove the effects of COMPRESSION, so if the card is made to remove the effects of compression, it must EXPAND the parts compressed (theres part of that similarity to Dolby stuff creepin in here again).

I can scientifically claim that processing a signal to remove multiband compression is a little more complicated than adding a simple 'loudness control' and I have to believe that maybe you just didnt realize that when you posted your last reply?

Regardless, if you think your going to rate a peice of innovative hardware without even experiencing it yourself, your a little too arrogant to be taken seriously. At least the author of the article actually listened to it himself:

the plugins' effect is similar. But the results sound much better.

Your barking up the wrong tree here, instead of me, why don't you ask the digit-life author of that article to quantify HIS words in YOUR scientific terms.

I think he will use something different from the term 'loudness control'

 

[anotherguy159]

You want absolute terminology for the way modifying a sound to make it sound better?

Psychoacoustics.

Are you joking? You can't be. You are so incredibly off.

Psychoacoutics is field of psychology that relates to how the brain interprets sound. It does NOT mean 'better.' It is a science, with easily documentable and reproducable results.

You want to know what the term multiband compression is? Well, it's NOT equalization.

You fail to explain what it actually is. I will stand by my point of gain adjustment over multiple frequency bands to reduce distortion.

The processing is a little more complex than that, or companies like Dolby would never have had any patents other than for a neat loudness button.

Patents mean nothing in this argument. Frivolous patents exist.

Dolby Noise Reduction. I've heard it. Read up on it. It reduces noise. But at what expense? Accuracy. You loose detail in the midrange.

Then again, EXPANSION is the processing you do to a signal to remove the effects of COMPRESSION

No, expansion is the process of DECOMPRESSION. The results of DECOMPRESSION is ARTIFACTING.

so if the card is made to remove the effects of compression, it must EXPAND the parts compressed (theres part of that similarity to Dolby stuff creepin in here again).

You just begged the questions. You are simply restating your original claims. What you should have said is that the card removes artifacts from the compression.

I can scientifically claim that processing a signal to remove multiband compression is a little more complicated than adding a simple 'loudness control' and I have to believe that maybe you just didnt realize that when you posted your last reply?

This sir, is where you are also incorrect. I very much realized and continue to stand by my original claims. I DISAGREE and CHALLENGE you to brandish scientific proof that the X-Fi removes the artifcats incurred during decompression. Show me a waveform BEFORE compression, after decompression, then after decompression+filtering. Then you can make your claims.

Regardless, if you think your going to rate a peice of innovative hardware without even experiencing it yourself, your a little too arrogant to be taken seriously.

Argument Ad Hominem. Regardless of my arrogance, my points still need to be considered. And yes, I am arrogant...because I know my stuff.

Your barking up the wrong tree here, instead of me, why don't you ask the digit-life author of that article to quantify HIS words in YOUR scientific terms.

\

The upsampling itself does nothing for sound quality. The reason it needs to be upsampled is the crystallizer increases transient amplitudes and expands dynamic range and has the net effect of making music sound more 'gutsy' and cleaner. Gives bass a little punch. The deal is when you rip with the crystallizer on, it rips in 24 bit mode.

Sir, I am challenging your logic. More gutsy and cleaner? That doesn't mean anything. That means the high frequencies and low frequencies have been boosted, as shown on the link you sent me.

AND CD'S ARE 16 BITS.

 

[USMC2Hard4U]

Well I didnt start this thread to be a bash. Im sorry but I just want to know if there was some special way, with the software included with the X-Fi to rip the Music to make it "sound better" on the X-Fi.

I just will contiune to rip with iTunes and be happy. Thanks

 

[anotherguy159]

I just will contiune to rip with iTunes and be happy. Thanks

You got it right. Rip at high quality and you can't get much better than that!

 

[tommo]

I don't see the ripping w/ X-Fi as being a bad idea. Doesn't the X-Fi have a powerful processor and a significant amount of memory on its IC?

 

[anotherguy159]

I don't see the ripping w/ X-Fi as being a bad idea. Doesn't the X-Fi have a powerful processor and a significant amount of memory on its IC?

Infinitesimal when compared to the power of a CPU.

 

[dderidex]

Infinitesimal when compared to the power of a CPU.

Especially given that 'Vista' will be dumping hardware-accelerated sound, ANYWAY.

 

[infiniti029]

anotherguy159: i love u, and have my babies please. Now i just need to point every other Creative, and X-Fi lover to this thread...

 

[anotherguy159]

anotherguy159: i love u, and have my babies please. Now i just need to point every other Creative, and X-Fi lover to this thread...

Haha! Thank you.

I should make an X-Fi sticky.

 

[Svperstar]

Just rip in EAC lossless APE/FLAC. Call it good.

All this other stuff is going to do is distort your sound, get some high quality headphones and/or speakers if you want your music to sound its best.

 

[BBA]

Especially given that 'Vista' will be dumping hardware-accelerated sound, ANYWAY.

Can you explain this a little more please?

 

[BBA]

Infinitesimal when compared to the power of a CPU.

And the truth is, every sound card BUT the CL cards forces the CPU to process the sounds in software.

Hardware sound acceleration: Just one more reason CL is the best sound card.

 

[dderidex]

Can you explain this a little more please?

Nothing to explain - Windows Vista will not support hardware acceleration of DirectSound3d. All done in CPU regardless of *what* soundcard you are running.

It's why Creative dumped the X-Fi on us already, in not quite a completed state - even still needing a firmware update after cooking for 5 years! Once 'Vista' hits, they will be just paperweights. Oh, sure, the advanced input/output ports will be handy. And the 24-bit DACs and good signal-noise ratio will be handy. But all that hardware acceleration, EAX5, etc - all gone.

(Well, unless Creative starts an API war with Microsoft, naturally. OpenAL will presumably still support hardware sound.)

 

[Donnie27]

Infinitesimal when compared to the power of a CPU.

So toss out your Video card and process everything in software mode too, LOL. Let's see, a top of the line Gefore 7800 GTX is about 450MHz, yup, almost any Processor would crush it too right? The X-Fi is only 400MHz and still processes as much as a P4 at 3.6GHz Running Optimized software like Premiere Pro, not unoptimized software (for it) like games. You guys get it with Video cards but totally blow it Sound, why?

Donnie27

 

[dderidex]

So toss out your Video card and process everything in software mode too, LOL. Let's see, a top of the line Gefore 7800 GTX is about 450MHz, yup, almost any Processor would crush it too right? The X-Fi is only 400MHz and still processes as much as a P4 at 3.6GHz Running Optimized software like Premiere Pro, not unoptimized software (for it) like games. You guys get it with Video cards but totally blow it Sound, why?

Because sound is nothing like video cards? There is nothing like pixels and vertexes and shaders with audio.

It's just playing sound files - simple .WAV files pulled off the hard drive and sitting in ram. Oh, sure, it can 'position' them to play different levels out of different speakers, and do some reverb effects on them...but when it gets right down to it, you are just playing WAV files. There is only so much you can do to fancy that up.

And there is only so much you NEED to do - humans, by FAR, operate on more visual data than auditory data (and more auditory than olfactory, etc). IE., it takes an order of magnitude (several, actually) more effort to create a scene that fakes out our eyes to convince us is "real" than it does to deceive our ears.

 

[Mister X]

It seems you "guys" have strayed a little to far off topic once again and as such any further off topic replies will be deleted.

 

[anotherguy159]

And the truth is, every sound card BUT the CL cards forces the CPU to process the sounds in software.

Nvidia Nforce/Soundstorm processes it all in hardware.

Your argument is not valid.

 

[Mister X]

Just rip in EAC lossless APE/FLAC. Call it good.

All this other stuff is going to do is distort your sound, get some high quality headphones and/or speakers if you want your music to sound its best.

Well said