solution to ripping wirelessly

r-tee

Is this considered a prombem then?

I nearly alway rip wirelessly, although it is slightly quicker if I plug my laptop into the wired network, but most of the time I just leave it connected wirelessly.

Im using a Netgear ReadyNass, connected to a Zoom router via a netgear switch, Laptop is a basic HP Compaq. Generally rip using DBpoweramp.

yes ripping wirelessly can give unpredicatable results. if you turn on view bitrate in itunes and whatch the info as its ripping you can see the accuracy as its will say unreadable if not 100% ripped correctly with error correction on.

i suppose something like the ready nas will do this also but thats 4times the price of the SC101T. i have tried a few nas drives and this is by far the easiest way and runs raid1

i spoke to a computer build shop that makes specific units and networks, they told me ripping wirelessly accuratly can be very difficult

I'm confused. My music files are on an NAS connected to my laptop by wireless. I rip using the itunes on the laptop and resulting files are sent wirelessly to the NAS for storage. I don't see how this has anything to do with the rip quality. The errors (if any) presumably all occur in the creation of the file from the CD, not in the transmission of the resulting files. A music file is just a data file. My understanding is that the wireless protocol ensures error-free transmission of files.

What am I missing?

You're missing the same thing I am... the quality of the rip is down to the local pc with the CD drive, the data storage has to be 100% accurate whether wireless or not?

r-tee

I'm out of here on this one, I simply don't follow what you're saying. I don't use itunes, but as far as I'm aware, my laptop rips the CD and then simply writes the file to the Nas wirelessly (or wired, depending on whether I want to speed things up slightly). Makes no difference.

quote:

Originally posted by DaveBk:
You're missing the same thing I am... the quality of the rip is down to the local pc with the CD drive, the data storage has to be 100% accurate whether wireless or not?

no wireless can pickup interference from many things like a cordless phone for example and corrupt the data as can a microwave.

quote:

Originally posted by r-tee:
no wireless can pickup interference from many things like a cordless phone for example and corrupt the data as can a microwave.

With all due respect you are missing the point completely.

I can send a scan of the Mona Lisa across a 25 years old 300bps modem across the ocean with weak satellite links, it will take ages, it will either get to its destination in one piece or it will not. If the transmission is successful it will be 100% identical to the original. The file will be no different than sending it off a modern fiber line. Mono Lisa's smile will look exactly the same, her skin tone will not look any different than the original scan.

So yes if you have a better wireless router, you will have better speed and less disconnections caused by distance and intreference, but the ripped music will sound the same no matter what you use.

Which ripper you use can technically make a difference, but that is another matter entirely.

r-tee this is a problem with your pc, end of.

same pc. the only thing i have changed is the nas and all the firmware. problem has gone. JY's post is a good analogy but the picture can become incomplete and have pixels missing when finaly recieved. this is my point. some times wireless ripping can drop bits as its prone to interference.

Yea, but it can't r-tee, it either arrives or it does not, and it can do that at varying speeds.

Its your computer and how it rips. I suspect the router or the computer cannot handle the ripping and sending at the same time. Your are basically exposing the issues with NAS in my experience. It can be ropy.

A mac mini with attached storage on the network is far far more rewarding.

i diagree, i think bits can become corrupt. still what ever the issue was has gone with the new NAS and with the firmware updates on the router. the computer/laptop is the same one that i was using before. all the setup remains as it was but without the intermitant "white noise" of corrupt bits and data in the tunes.

ripping is now done wirelessly direct to the NAS via the router, where before i had issues wired or wireless.

i was ripping locally then transfering to the nas once ripped. but this is now all sorted too.

I'd be a "bit" disappointed if wireless transmission of files caused corruption. I both store music and back up the local drive wirelessly. If I needed to restore anything it would be nasty if I found that my back-ups were corrupt. But I've never, ever found a file changed in any way by transmitting it over wireless. This includes images, documents, spreadsheets and yes, music files. Sometimes wireless will get interrupted by external factors (microwaves, too many other networks etc - who knows?) but it never corrupts a file. It either transfers it or it doesn't. External effects can slow or stop the transfer, but in my experience do not ever damage the file.

Just my experience....

quote:

Originally posted by r-tee:
i diagree, i think bits can become corrupt.

Yes, files can get corrupted during transmission.

I have 20,000+ mostly lossless files stored in my NAS, and there are the odd corrupted files that did not somehow get corrected or aborted by the operating system. This happends once in a blue moon. I think I have discovered about 2-3 corrpted files in total, works out to be about 1 on 10,000 files.

Believe me, when a file is corrupted, you would know it. It either hangs my Transporter and refuses to play, or gives out loud noise that nowhere near resembles music.

That is why, as far as I know, errors in full digital files are usually considered as catastrophic, i.e. either it works or it doesn't. They would not come up as subtle differences in the quality of the music.

Likewise, just my experience.........

Yep, the transmission protocols use checksums and redundant transmission to minimise the chance of corruption. Undetected errors are very unlikely and therefore rare. As JY says, corrupt files should be pretty obvious. I personally have never encountered one though.