Well, I figured out what's going on but not why.

Here's what's happening. XX can no longer find the flac files. It can find the others, like mp3, but not the flacs. My file system structure has not changed since it's inception years ago.

Here's a part of my structure (This is as deep as it goes)                                       Other folders/files on same level
Top Level QMultimedia
Level 1 Baroque-Early,                                                                                        Classical, Contemporary , Demo-Hi-res, Folk etc.
Level 2 Baroque-Early--Bach                                                                                Handel, Scarlatti, Various, Vivaldi
Level 3 Baroque-Early--Bach--Cantata                                                                  Concerti, Sonata, Vocal
Level 4 Baroque-Early--Bach--Cantata--51, 82a, 199, Dessay                                 61 Gardiner, 82a Bostridge
Level 5 Baroque-Early--Bach--Cantata--51, 82a, 199, Dessay--01 Aria.flac               02 Aria.Flac, 03 Aria.flac

I did a test. I took a flac file and moved it down one level at a time starting in Qmultimedia. XX only found it when I placed it on the top level and level 1. Lower down and it tries to decode every word in the path and comes back with an error for every word because the words of course are not flac files. It even dissects the individual words of the name of the track and tries to decode them individually.

Now remember, other programs find the flac files in this very same system, and XX finds other files e.g. mp3 and wav in this system.

So what could be going on? What's changed?

Chris
 

I don't understand. You don't see what? Are you referring to the log file? If so, here's the part of the log file that refers to flac.

23:18:30.3190000 : FLAC decoding start for processor 1 Output ++++ "UnicodeTrack0001.wav"
23:18:30.3445000 : FLAC decoding *ERROR* before user message for processor 1 Output Name ------- "UnicodeTrack0001.wav"
23:18:35.1080000 : Examine HDCD : UnicodeTrack0001.wav
23:18:35.1750000 : Not HDCD Encoded : UnicodeTrack0001.wav
23:18:35.1755000 : Must not Decode HDCD : UnicodeTrack0001.wav
23:18:35.1790000 : Done here (1)
23:18:35.1795000 : Done here (2)
23:18:38.5035000 : Attended Playback finished waiting for conversion for processor 1
23:18:38.5045000 : Logging is applied
23:18:38.5075000 : Split file at size : 0100
23:18:38.5335000 : Slider position :    0  :00:00:00
23:18:38.5345000 : Play at position : 0
23:18:38.5380000 : Error reading (100 attempts) WAV header from : UnicodeTrack0001.wav
23:18:38.7385000 : Error reading (100 attempts) WAV header from : UnicodeTrack0001.wav

If not, I have no idea what you don't see.

By the way, I had tried switching the flac.exe from another version in case the original was corrupted. No dice, same problem. And as I mentioned flac works with other programs, so the flac decoder or the flac file can't be the problem as far as I can tell.

Chris

P.S. I did install the new version of Dbpoweramp converter recently to convert files to .wav for jplay. I don't see how that could affect files that haven't been touched by Dbpoweramp, and flac hasn't been updated for several years still... I don't get it.

Hi Peter,
Suddenly XX isn't able to decode and play my flac files. I've tried all the usual, reboot, reinstall, also re-installed and tried 09-z2. Same problem all around. Mp3 files play fine.

No unicode file is created so naturally XX says "can't find unicode file.

Flac files play fine in J River.

I've attached a log file of an attempt to play a flac file.

Chris

Peter, Quest, etc.

I do think we understand each other to a degree. However I think my original reason for posting either wasn't clear or has just been forgotten. I do see much of what you are saying, and don't think I ever disagreed with it (at least in my mind).

My original objective was either to find a simple digital file player (files from a hard-drive) with just a digital out (for sound) and video out (for visible file management), (no dac initially, just simple and inexpensive) or to suggest someone build one. It could the take place of the ubiquitous cd player and become the new ubiquitous player. It need not be perfect. It would probably be tweaked along it's way to higher ends as was the cd player.

Peter, I realize a player of this type would need an os of a sort, as does every mp3 player (When I mentioned the problem of dealing with os's, I was referring to Windows or Linux, basically jack of all trade os's (which is probably part of the problem). But wouldn't starting with a simple os such as found in high quality portable players with digital outs (Cowon, Hifiman, Ipod) be much easier to deal with, than with a pc, it's os and environment? I'm not saying that you would be able to (I don't know enough about this type of thing or you), but I mean in principle.

Quest, As to the Ipod/Idecco, I read several private user comments and they basically said the once sometime fatiguing nature of the Ipod's sound was now gone. As to the Squeezebox, I think the same still holds, although I'm not sure. I know that lot's of devices can play music from hard drives. The problem, it's not their only or most important function, not their raison d'etre.

Cd players were pretty much a one function component initially, and at least in part because they were simple, they evolved over time into better  devices. It's just curious to me that someone hasn't done the same by producing an Hd player or licensed their technology to do so. Someone like Apple, or Cowon or Hifiman (a couple of "highish end" portable players).  I understand why the specialty high-end producers like Bryston haven't, it would undermine their more esoteric products.

Peter, I'm sorry to say that I didn't understand quite a few parts of your post; I wish I had as they seemed to be telling interesting things about your start with your audio/XX projects. Most forum members seem to have no trouble understanding you. Perhaps non-native English speakers understand each other better than native/non-native combinations--or maybe I'm just too literal, but whatever the case I sure have a hell of a difficult time I'm very sorry to say. I mention this in case I'm asking something that you just answered or answered earlier that I didn't decipher properly.  Having said all that, please don't let it stop you answering my posts, because I do still get the gist of some of your explanations, etc.

Quest, There's no reason to go on with this topic other than to point out an Hd-player if you run across one, or to speculate on why one hasn't been produced, or why you believe one will not or cannot be produced. Other than that I think we understand each other well enough--although that may not be obvious at first glance.

Chris

Quest, I don't know the Linn or PS Audio bridge. I do own the Squeezebox 3 which is a fine little thing for what it is. But all this stuff is too complex. Even the Squeezebox. I almost never use it because it's a streamer and has to access a hard drive via a network. I prefer to avoid all unnecessary complications particularly when it comes to network stuff. I think all the equipment you mention is relatively complex and therefore unnecessarily expensive compared to what I'm thinking.

You could think of "my," idea as very similar to a cd player, the difference, it gets its files from an external hard drive instead of a disc. That's what I haven't seen, everything available is either a network/streamer type, or a whole system with built in drives, proprietary of course (the Olive and other more expensive pieces), or portable music player like the Ipod.

The Ipod is really the closest to what I'm suggesting because of its digital out, however it's obviously limited in other areas and too proprietary. I mentioned the IDecco previously. That company has taken advantage of the Ipod's digital out. For those who don't know what the Idecco is: It's a very nice "digital" Ipod ready integrated amp which includes the now hot Saber Dac. It sells for $1000 sans Ipod. It's gotten rave reviews from the audiophile community as has their normal integrated for high quality at a very reasonable price. Here's a quote from Peachtree Audio the Idecco producer: "Not so with the iDecco. We use the “Pure Digital” 1’s & 0’s from your iPod directly into our Super DAC with 11 regulated power supplies, so for the first time your iPod can really perform like a high-end CD player." So if a 32 GB Ipod can be sold for under $300 and can sound like a high-end Cd player, a much more complex player than what I'm suggesting then... Why start with a pc?

Open source development should be do-able, particularly where it concerns such a straight forward and simple concept. But either no one has thought of this, or it doesn't interest anyone. I don't get. I guess it's just too simple.

Chris


 

Alright Everybody of late, one more time.

There truly is some kind of misunderstanding going on here. So let me be very specific and maybe we can come to an understanding.

1. To start with, I don't care if I'm right or wrong, I just want to be sure we've communicated and that what I'm envisioning is either possible or not possible. So far I feel we've spoken on different wave lengths, so that criterian has not been met.

2. My point here is not to create the best ever player that competes with $50,000 players. What I'm really asking is "Should we be starting with a pc or Mac, a product that certainly wasn't made for sound, and then strip it, rebuild it, try to understand it, try to clean up its inherent noise and myriad weaknesses, hope Microsoft comes up with a more Audio friendly OS etc. forever. It doesn't seem to make sense. Everyone's argument with me is --don't start with an AVR or an Ipod-- well at least they were made with audio in mind as their primary goal. By the way they were just examples to help readers to imagine what I'm getting at--that obviously didn't work. The point was that both of those include a little computer that is optimized for audio.

3. What do I envision? An inexpensive player (less $ than a computer with XX and usb -spdif converter) that can be connected to components that are already part of ones audio setup--like a dac. Think minimalist player, like Jplay, well maybe not quite that spartan.

(Can we agree that the new Oppo 93 is considered a pretty high quality player, especially where it comes to it's digital outs, definitely better than the Squeezebox). This is not a cheap stuff it with features kind of company. This player sells for $499. Less than a pc and already has a better functioning and sounding digital file playback system than any standard pc. And it was built with high quality audio in mind--that is key!

4. Now, take that Oppo and in your mind strip away all the non-computer parts, the disk playing apparatus and all the fancy video processors, the audio dac. Strip away streaming. Leave their excellent digital outs, the 2 GB of memory, their software which allows for wav, flac, mp3 etc. playback from external usb and esata drives, and rudimentary interface software who's images are ported to a tv. Redesign their remote, shrink the enclosure. 

5. Now what remains is a pretty good audio computer with a proprietary operating system of some sort. Why shouldn't someone start here instead of from a random Dell or Hp. Everything else is already better than a pc, after all it was built for sound. Just the software may need some tweaking.

6. Now the above was just for imagining. Why not build that imagining from the ground up? It seems so simple--not for me of course, but for any company that is already involved in audio players. Or maybe a couple of diyers could give it a go, or even Peter and Josef, both minimalists, both software guys, and Peter at least a some hardware guy too.

Chris

Peter,

I don't get DVDP. Why this?

Just imagine in your head a stripped down Ipod--NO MOVING PARTS. Instead of the mini screen you have a video out to your tv or monitor. You can leave the little dac in it if you want but you use the Ipod's digital out. The point is to use it with a better dac as for instance the dac in the Idecco (which is supposedly very good) and to access an external Hard drive instead of its internal. All the software and hardware is already there, it's just accessing internal mini components instead of the external regular size hardware I'm suggesting. And it does all this without a formal pc or Mac and no internal moving parts.

No wonder no one is building this, no one understands what the hell I'm talking about.   

Chris

Quest,

The problem with Bryston Bpd-1 for instance, it's over $2000. At the same time mid-fi companies are able to incorporate usb disk drive playback in Avr receivers and cd players that cost less then $500, and the usb playback is only an after thought. Have you listened to any of them? I haven't so I can't say anything about the sound quality. But it can't be awful. Some can even play flac and other better formats. So how are they producing it so inexpensively without using a pc?

Chris

Yes, all kinds of "players" exist. The problem is that 1.They all incorporate all kinds of parts that aren't part of what I'm proposing or looking for, i.e. dacs, streaming, lcd screens etc, 2.They are not meant to be audiophile gear for the most part.

I'm suggesting a very simple black box with a hard-drive interface (Esata, USB3) to connect to a drive with music files,  a digital out and/or an USB out to connect one's Dac, a video out to connect to one's external tv/monitor, and memory and software that is dedicated to decoding and playing back music files, and displaying a navigatible interface on one's tv/monitor.

All this is obviously possible and done on various systems from Ipods to high end portables to the devices you mentioned. But as I said, none of them keep it simple, nor do they put all their effort into creating a quality audiophile player.

I'll say one more time, It seems so much easier to go this route then to go the pc route and basically have to tweak the pc and Os forever to try you get to the state I'm suggesting, the simple audiophile dedicated black box. And the pc route gets ever more complicated as it now involves getting hold of a defunct Operating System (Vista), and then stripping it of everything that interferes with audio--basically everything, at which you're left with a relatively expensive box that was not meant for audio but that at this point is not good for much else. And it's too complex and frustrating a process for any but the most dedicated to endure for the sake of potentially high-end audio.

So, if anyone knows why my idea is not feasible, please let me know, so I don't go crazy trying to get someone to engineer this kind of black box.
And if y'all are gittin sick'a dis, no worries, I won't bring it up again (on my own anyway).

Chris

Hi Jamie

I agree with Flecko for the most part. Some people say they hear differences between Vista and W7, but from the way you're describing your audio system, I think those differences would not pertain to you, because they are surely relatively minor if they exist at all. You'll notice (and maybe you already have) that for many "audiophiles," monumental sound improvements happen every other month or every $1k spent. (However, you might want to let us know what you are using for a music system so we don't to jump to false conclusions.)

If you already own W7, you could install it along side of Vista. If you don't feel you have enough space for both, and you know that W7 runs well on your Dell or you just think it will, I'd install it. I don't think you'll lose anything sound-wise. Then, if at some point you decide you really want to delve into this pc sound morass, (and that's what it is now, although maybe when you're ready it no longer will be), you'll be spending so much time on it that re-installing Vista will be like a mini vacation to Hawaii.

Chris

That's just my point, why isn't someone producing this, it could/should be very inexpensive and much easier to deal with than a pc.

Let me paint a word picture. let's take the Oppo. As is it costs $499. It plays Bluray, Sacd, DvdA, Cd, Dvd, and various other disk formats. It streams Netflix and other internet video. Outputs 7.1 audio 24/192 dacs, 2 HDMI, and various digital, video, rs232, I/O, 10 - 100 internet, wi-fi dongle, 2 Usb 2.o and an Esata. It has 2 GB of memory. Plus other stuff I can't remember. It also sports a digital file player that plays mp3, wav, flac etc and sends video of your HD contents and what's playing to your TV or monitor. The content can be manipulated and played by remote control. This part is still fairly basic but apparently works fairly nicely. All that and more for $499.

Now suppose you strip away everything including the disk player and the good quality dacs, and leave only the digital file player, digital outs for your stand alone dac, video outs to your tv or monitor, Usb and Esata and possibly internet access I/O. Shrink the box. What have you got? Well it should be a very inexpensive, quiet, digital file player that can be accessed by remote via your tv or monitor. All you do is hookup your hard drives and you're ready to dance.

Obviously this is possible as demonstrated by those portable gadgets mentioned up a few posts and the Oppo.  But they all have too much other stuff. The gadgets have no video out and remote because they're mobile devices and the Oppo...

But I ask again, why bother with a pc when this so much simpler quieter device is begging to be manufactured. It seems the perfect project for someone like Peter, since it consists of software for playing files and an interface plus simple hardware. There'd be so much less to tweak, (of course audiophiles must tweak, so never mind).

Unfortunately I don't understand enough about the technicalities, if software in this non-pc environment would be too limited to reproduce really fine sound. Nevertheless, from what I've heard, it seems to have quite some potential and that with only limited funds and r&d thrown its way.

I'm just trying to inspire someone who can do this sort of thing to look into it. So look already.

Chris

This may be a naive question, (please don't kill me for it, this is a tough thread) but why do we need either computers i.e. pcs, macs or cd players at all for playing music these days?

Plenty of components come with elements that play files from flash drives, usb disks and even esata disks. These elements are still only secondary and after thoughts, but they are getting more attention.

I recently acquired the Oppo BD93. I haven't tried it yet, but it plays flac, wav, mp3 and possibly other formats from usb and esata disks. Which means it has to have a computer of sorts to decode the files and play them. It does so in a much less noisy (electrically and physically) environment than a pc's. It's interface software isn't much but then the section is not much more than an after thought. My question is why do we need a whole pc when so much can be done with so little? I say so little because the main functions of the Oppo are Blu-ray, Sacd, Dvda and internet video streaming and the disc play is at the bottom of the list. Couldn't someone much more easily and cheaply build a little "black box" audio only player for data files, instead of trying to tame a pc for that purpose.

Is there something that pcs have in particular that is needed for audio? They were certainly not built with audio in mind, speaking of after thoughts.

Chris

I agree 99.99%. I often think that a particular day's/hour's/moment's sq has more to do with my mood, the weather, my neighbor's mood, murder in Bangladesh etc. than any hardware/software. Why else could I be enthralled by a Bach violin concerto playing at Macy's through the p.a. system, when my favorite music played on my own very nice system makes me want to turn it off?

Some of my best musical memories (those that last into the next day I think Peter or someone said somewhere--how about into the next millennium) are "Big Brother and the Holding Co," Cheap Thrills, played on a Motorola? one box mono record player, and the Bach Mass in B minor played on an all Lafayette system (my first real stereo). They sounded so rich, spacious and moving. Really? Yup!

Please, no serious replies, I'm just sayin'.

For those not familiar with Lafayette. They were the first (I think) national
mid-fi--contemporary jargon unknown back then--solid state electronics and speaker producers in the U.S.

Chris

This is a great idea, although I don't think it's meant for people like me who aren't "hardcore." Nevertheless I'd like to add my .02.

I think it would be good if more common music tracks were used, of the 13 tracks that Flecko listed, I've only heard of 2 of the artists. I have several thousand cds/records whatever, and have been in the music business to one degree or another for many years and still--granted I'm from the U.S. but again, still...

So why does it matter. Well, I'm being selfish. It's for people like me, people who don't necessarily want to join in this group but who would like to learn by osmosis (or reading and comparing what you all come up with). So if we own some of the tracks or can acquire them easily we'll be able to, and in the long run that will help everyone here that's interested in quality music/music reproduction. I also think it's good to be familiar with music that your evaluating. It's hard to truly evaluate the "musicality" of a track if one is listening to it for the first time. If one is just listening for the sounds I suppose it doesn't matter so much, although I'm not even sure of that.

What can non-hardcores learn? Well for one thing, what exactly people mean by all the descriptive terms they throw around. Now we'll have an actual reference, i.e. the bloom on that rose (the violin when it enters at 2:10) is beyond red when XX is set to .... on my system, ok I'm joking, but you get the point, I hope. Now we can compare what if anything we here at that time in that track and stash the corresponding term in our memory.

I'm also constantly amazed by how someone's audio system that was already "high end" by all accounts, can take on seven "huge," improvements in sound quality over the course of a year or two. What is the system rated now? Uber Super dupey high end? So this might also help us get a better picture of what's really going on here soundwise, how important the improvements are to us individually.

So that's my say. I hope this thing gets off the ground and you consider what I said as it will help us all over time. If you want me to clarify what I'm saying let me know, as I realize I was being a bit goofy at times (just can't be serious straight through about much).

Chris