MaximumPC 2004 06

PLAYING IT BY EAR

I recently backed up all my CDs using the MP3

file format at the maximum-quality, variable-

bitrate setting. The music sounded fine, but

for comparison I also copied the CDs using the

WMA file format at the lossless, variable-bitrate

setting, and to my surprise, the WMAs sounded

far better and were ripped a lot quicker than the

MP3s. Am I doing something wrong? I thought

MP3s encoded at a high setting (e.g., 320Kbps or

higher) offered superior sound to anything WMA

could offer. I noticed that the WMA files were

recorded at bitrates up to 800Kbps, but I thought

the human ear was incapable of discerning qual-

ity differences beyond 320Kbps?

—MARC WAUGH

A person’s ability to discern differences between the

two archival methods you describe depends on the

quality of the speakers and the acuity of one’s hearing.

Remember that MP3 is a “lossy” compression for-

mat. It reduces audio file sizes by eliminating the audio

data least likely to be heard by the listener. The heavier

the compression, the more the compressor is going to

have to slice away audio data, eventually degrading

the signal audibly.

The codec you used —Windows Media Player 9

— is a “lossless” compression format, and therefore

does not discard data from the original file; instead,

audio data is compressed in a way similar to Zip files.

So instead of doing something wrong, you actually

did something right. By archiving your music using a

lossless compressor, you were able to reduce the size

of the files to almost half their uncompressed size,

while leaving the quality of the original CD intact. You

can later recompress any or all your tracks into MP3s

for your portable player without having to worry about

the horrible artifacts introduced by compressing an

already compressed signal (as you would by re-encod-

ing your MP3s at lower bitrates).

There are several other lossless com-

pressors available that you might want to

try. FLAC (flac.sourceforge.net) and APE

(www.monkeysaudio.com) are both lossless, and

should produce perfect reproductions of your CDs.

There are also a bevy of applications available that

will convert both formats to more popular lossy com-

pressed formats, like MP3 or AAC for listening on a

portable player.

Like a pink-faced babe reaching for a power outlet

with a shiny metal fork, you try to fix your computer.

You only lack proper guidance. Without help, your

days, or those of your PC, are numbered. Luckily, the

Doctor is here. E-mail [email protected]

with all your computer conundrums.

http://www.microsoft.com/directx, and

you can get current drivers for your

Radeon at http://www.ati.com.

PUTTING LOST CLUSTERS

WHERE THEY BELONG

When a lost cluster is found via

checkdsk or Norton Disk Doctor , it’s

saved to a folder as a file named

something along the lines of

“found001.” On many occasions

I have identified the fragments

recovered and been able to

manually return them where they

belong. Sometimes they even

work. On other occasions, I get a

“found file” whose original path

is unknown and I have no way

to replace it properly, so it resides

in its odd folder until the next

format and clean install. Is there a

reliable way to restore that found

file to its proper place?

—GREG HAVENS

Lost clusters used to be a much more

common Windows file system error,

mainly because older versions of

Windows crashed so often. Lost clus-

ters occur when your operating sys-

tem’s file allocation table (FAT) thinks

a certain sector of the hard drive is in

use when it actually isn’t. Say you’re

working on a Word document, and

your system crashes or you close the

program before your worked is saved.

The FAT entry for that file consists of

a chain of references that point to the

file you are using, but a spontaneous

system crash can break this chain

and orphan the clusters connected to

the original document.

Once lost clusters have been

created, you have a few options

for dealing with them. First, most

file scanning utilities will give

you a chance to save the entries

before they’re zeroed out in the FAT.

Scandisk will automatically assign

it the name FILE001.chk, and some-

times you can even open these files

and retrieve data from them. If a file

is inaccessible, it’s likely a binary

file that needs every piece of the

original file in order to be opened.

The best way to avoid this whole

situation is to upgrade to an OS with

an NTFS file system. It provides

internal redundancy for the files, so

in the event of a crash (which hap-

pens rarely) files can be recreated

with ease.

IS SOCKET 939 WORTH

THE WAIT?

I am collecting the parts for a

new PC and was wondering if I

should wait until the Socket 939-

based boards come out this spring

instead of going with the Socket

754 boards currently available.

Will the Socket 939 be compatible

with either the AMD64 or the

64FX? And when can we expect

to see the first boards based on

the 939 Socket?

One more question: Will the

939 be compatible with current

technology such as DDR400

RAM?

—KEN ULRICH

AMD says it’s committed to support-

ing Socket 940 for the Athlon

FX through this year. Regarding

Socket 754, AMD says it’s com-

mitted to support for the near

future (the Doc interprets this as

meaning until mid-2005 or so). Still,

bear in mind that any motherboard

you buy today will be pretty dated

by the end of the year. In fact, with

PCI Express, DDR2, and BTX on the

way, any current motherboard is

about to seem dated real soon. For

people who need to update now,

the Doc recommends the Socket

754, as the platform offers plenty of

power at a good price. If you can

wait six months, there’s always

something better.

As for the RAM: With the

memory controller embedded in

the CPU, that component, more

than the motherboard, really deter-

mines memory support. Socket 939

CPUs and motherboards are sure to

support DDR400 as it’s plentiful. But

there will undoubtedly be Socket

939 boards that support DDR2 RAM

as well. n

Compressing your music losslessly lets

you make perfect archival-quality backups

of all your CDs. You probably didn’t know

it, but Windows Media Player 9 comes

with a lossless compression function!

68 MAXIMUMPC JUNE 2004

Doctor

SECOND

OPINION

I have to disagree with

your March 2004 solution

to Richard Fern’s “Legacy

App Woes.” If you want

to get a DOS program

to run in Windows, you

should download DOSBox

( dosbox.sourceforge.net ) and

run it with the program

in question. DOSBox is

capable of running a

ton of DOS programs in

Windows XP. The only

problem is that the sound

is distorted when you

try to run a program at

more than 5,000 cycles

per millisecond, but that

shouldn’t be a problem

for a database program.

—ZACK GREEN