What are your most recent Hi-Res purchases? - Page 416 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!



Forum Jump: 
 996Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #12451 of 12472 Old 09-28-2016, 08:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
eljr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Futuristic London
Posts: 7,749
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 983 Post(s)
Liked: 7627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Mac View Post
sa-cd.net and HRAudio.net do not list DVD-Audio, only SACDs and Blu-ray Audio. I wish they did list DVD-Audio but they do not. I have the American Beauty MOFI SACD and it sounds excellent. But no surround mix .

Bill
Interesting

from what I read at the site this morning DVD Audio is defined by them as HRAudio.

I also read, high resolution downloads will be listed in the future?

What you got back home, little sister, to play your fuzzy warbles on? I bet you got little save pitiful, portable picnic players. Come with uncle and hear all proper! Hear angel trumpets and devil trombones. You are invited.
eljr is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #12452 of 12472 Old 09-28-2016, 08:11 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Bill Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 13,370
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1129 Post(s)
Liked: 1209
Quote:
Originally Posted by eljr View Post
Interesting

from what I read at the site this morning DVD Audio is defined by them as HRAudio.

I also read, high resolution downloads will be listed in the future?
I just checked HRAudio.net and below is what is on their home page. No mention of DVD-Audio that I could see.

HighResolutionAudio.net (or HRAudio.net for short) is the home for independent information and reviews of hi-res music content ... in both stereo and multichannel ... on disc (including Super Audio CD and Blu-ray Audio) or, in future, digital download. Full details, reviews and links to a number of online vendors for purchase are provided.

By simply creating a login you can comment on the music or reviews, maintain a library here of the music you own and add others to a wish list.

(High Resolution here is defined as anything better than CD quality. Since most music nowadays is recorded, or mastered from analogue, at better than 16bits/44.1kHz it makes sense to acquire the maximum lossless resolution available.)


Bill
eljr likes this.

My SACD collection and HRAudio.net Library, getting larger as my wallet gets smaller ;-).

Emotiva XMC-1, Wyred 4 Sound SX-500s, ST-500, ST-250, Oppo BDP-103/105D, Panasonic TC-P60GT50 plasma, Panamax 5100EX, Salk 1801-TLs, Salk 1801b center, ADS 300C (surrounds) and two Rythmik F12SEs.
Bill Mac is offline  
post #12453 of 12472 Old Yesterday, 03:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
eljr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Futuristic London
Posts: 7,749
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 983 Post(s)
Liked: 7627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Mac View Post
I just checked HRAudio.net and below is what is on their home page. No mention of DVD-Audio that I could see.

HighResolutionAudio.net (or HRAudio.net for short) is the home for independent information and reviews of hi-res music content ... in both stereo and multichannel ... on disc (including Super Audio CD and Blu-ray Audio) or, in future, digital download. Full details, reviews and links to a number of online vendors for purchase are provided.

By simply creating a login you can comment on the music or reviews, maintain a library here of the music you own and add others to a wish list.

(High Resolution here is defined as anything better than CD quality. Since most music nowadays is recorded, or mastered from analogue, at better than 16bits/44.1kHz it makes sense to acquire the maximum lossless resolution available.)


Bill

isn't dvd-audio 96 kHz/24-bit? This is greater than the 44.1 kHz Cd rate, hence High Res?

What you got back home, little sister, to play your fuzzy warbles on? I bet you got little save pitiful, portable picnic players. Come with uncle and hear all proper! Hear angel trumpets and devil trombones. You are invited.
eljr is online now  
post #12454 of 12472 Old Yesterday, 08:57 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Bill Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 13,370
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1129 Post(s)
Liked: 1209
Quote:
Originally Posted by eljr View Post
isn't dvd-audio 96 kHz/24-bit? This is greater than the 44.1 kHz Cd rate, hence High Res?
It sure is. But sa-cd.net and HRAudio.net choose not to include DVD-A in their database. I wish they did but I really don't have an issue with it. I'm just happy that there are sites like sa-cd.net and now HRAudio.net. If HRAudio.net were to include DVD-A just think of the huge amount of titles that they would have to add to their database. Maybe you should drop them an email asking why they don't include DVD-A and if they have considered it.

Bill

My SACD collection and HRAudio.net Library, getting larger as my wallet gets smaller ;-).

Emotiva XMC-1, Wyred 4 Sound SX-500s, ST-500, ST-250, Oppo BDP-103/105D, Panasonic TC-P60GT50 plasma, Panamax 5100EX, Salk 1801-TLs, Salk 1801b center, ADS 300C (surrounds) and two Rythmik F12SEs.
Bill Mac is offline  
post #12455 of 12472 Old Yesterday, 09:40 AM
Advanced Member
 
weekendtoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern MN
Posts: 629
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 203 Post(s)
Liked: 140
Barnes and Noble has 40% off all classical music, including SACD discs. I picked up a couple of Living Stereo stuff for about $6 a disc. Added a book for my kid to get free shipping.


http://www.barnesandnoble.com/b/40-o...0022381&st=EML
eljr and Tornado Red like this.

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

weekendtoy is online now  
post #12456 of 12472 Old Yesterday, 03:12 PM
Advanced Member
 
USAFChief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Mac View Post
It sure is. But sa-cd.net and HRAudio.net choose not to include DVD-A in their database. I wish they did but I really don't have an issue with it. I'm just happy that there are sites like sa-cd.net and now HRAudio.net. If HRAudio.net were to include DVD-A just think of the huge amount of titles that they would have to add to their database. Maybe you should drop them an email asking why they don't include DVD-A and if they have considered it.

Bill
Bill/All...HRAudio.net supports DVD-A, but they simply haven't added many titles...14 total.

http://www.hraudio.net/music.php?for...label=0&page=1

I have a significant number as well but haven't bothered because of the time involved to request loads.
Bill Mac likes this.

****************
Martin's Library:  http://hraudio.net/library.php?user=11733

Outlaw 990 Pre-Pro, Outlaw 7125 Amp, Oppo BDP-95 Universal Player, Aperion VGT/VGT Center/532LR surrounds/Dual Outlaw LFM-1 EX subs, Anti-Mode 8033 Cinema.
USAFChief is offline  
post #12457 of 12472 Old Yesterday, 04:19 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Bill Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 13,370
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1129 Post(s)
Liked: 1209
Quote:
Originally Posted by USAFChief View Post
Bill/All...HRAudio.net supports DVD-A, but they simply haven't added many titles...14 total.

http://www.hraudio.net/music.php?for...label=0&page=1

I have a significant number as well but haven't bothered because of the time involved to request loads.
Martin,

Thanks for the heads up on that! I had no idea that HRAudio.net listed DVD-As. I have quite a few as well but I'd guess not as many as you .

Edit: I just checked and found the DVD-A section at HRAudio.net.

http://www.hraudio.net/music.php?for...label=0&page=1

Bill

My SACD collection and HRAudio.net Library, getting larger as my wallet gets smaller ;-).

Emotiva XMC-1, Wyred 4 Sound SX-500s, ST-500, ST-250, Oppo BDP-103/105D, Panasonic TC-P60GT50 plasma, Panamax 5100EX, Salk 1801-TLs, Salk 1801b center, ADS 300C (surrounds) and two Rythmik F12SEs.
Bill Mac is offline  
post #12458 of 12472 Old Yesterday, 06:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mtrot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: east texas
Posts: 1,724
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 109 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Mac View Post
Martin,

Thanks for the heads up on that! I had no idea that HRAudio.net listed DVD-As. I have quite a few as well but I'd guess not as many as you .

Edit: I just checked and found the DVD-A section at HRAudio.net.

http://www.hraudio.net/music.php?for...label=0&page=1

Bill
FWIW, I actually sent them an email the other day and explained that I have a bunch of DVD-Audio titles that I would like to have added to their system, and asked if that was something they would be interested in doing. I have not heard back yet.
eljr likes this.

mtrot is offline  
post #12459 of 12472 Old Today, 04:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
eljr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Futuristic London
Posts: 7,749
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 983 Post(s)
Liked: 7627
Quote:
Originally Posted by USAFChief View Post
Bill/All...HRAudio.net supports DVD-A, but they simply haven't added many titles...14 total.

http://www.hraudio.net/music.php?for...label=0&page=1

I have a significant number as well but haven't bothered because of the time involved to request loads.
Now this makes sense. It has to be overwhelming for HRAudio to keep up.

They seem to do a great job.

Is there a formal request page to add a title?

I tend to be anal and not being able tolist one or two HIResolution discs really bugs me.

What you got back home, little sister, to play your fuzzy warbles on? I bet you got little save pitiful, portable picnic players. Come with uncle and hear all proper! Hear angel trumpets and devil trombones. You are invited.
eljr is online now  
post #12460 of 12472 Old Today, 04:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
eljr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Futuristic London
Posts: 7,749
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 983 Post(s)
Liked: 7627
Can someone educate me on bitrate and high resolution?

For example, I have one Flac file where the bitrate is around 4600, depending on the track, a little higher or a little lower.

I have another Flac file where the bitrate is 600, dependent on which track.


My MP3 bitrates (yes I still have a few) are all under 300.

What you got back home, little sister, to play your fuzzy warbles on? I bet you got little save pitiful, portable picnic players. Come with uncle and hear all proper! Hear angel trumpets and devil trombones. You are invited.
eljr is online now  
post #12461 of 12472 Old Today, 05:54 AM
Advanced Member
 
USAFChief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 49
There was for the SACD.net site so I'm assuming yes.

I've gone through that process a few times....you basically had to do all the inputs on a title. That's why you would get some titles with lots of detail and other entries would be sparse.

With the new site, it seems to be more consistent; so not sure how it works...just have to sniff around a little.

I'm thinking if I lay in the weeds a bit someone more anal will "get ur done":sunglasses:
USAFChief is offline  
post #12462 of 12472 Old Today, 06:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
eljr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Futuristic London
Posts: 7,749
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 983 Post(s)
Liked: 7627
Quote:
Originally Posted by USAFChief View Post
There was for the SACD.net site so I'm assuming yes.
I'll look around.

Thanks

What you got back home, little sister, to play your fuzzy warbles on? I bet you got little save pitiful, portable picnic players. Come with uncle and hear all proper! Hear angel trumpets and devil trombones. You are invited.
eljr is online now  
post #12463 of 12472 Old Today, 06:30 AM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On the beach in Quintana Roo
Posts: 26,916
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 769 Post(s)
Liked: 459
Quote:
Originally Posted by eljr View Post
Can someone educate me on bitrate and high resolution?

For example, I have one Flac file where the bitrate is around 4600, depending on the track, a little higher or a little lower.

I have another Flac file where the bitrate is 600, dependent on which track.

My MP3 bitrates (yes I still have a few) are all under 300.
MP3 format uses a "lossy" compression. To reduce file size, "information" is discarded. Discard so much and it can be heard. There has been much scientific research into bit rates and audible degradation. My take is that it depends on the material and one's hearing. IIRC, there is one low bitrate that everyone can consistently identify as "worse" than the original and one very high one that no one can. Everyone falls in between. Note that, like so many things, the science is minimized or simply ignored by many who "believe" they can hear the difference. Then there are some who, like me, don't care about storage space .. or what I can or cannot hear .. and use a higher bitrate just to have the highest quality. Quite a while ago I switched from the highest MP3 bitrate to Apple Lossless Codec. My file sizes increased a lot, but so did my storage capacity.

FLAC, on the other hand, is Free LOSSLESS Audio Codec. So, there should be no difference between the original and the FLAC file. Note that is you feed it a CD-quality original, you will only get CD-quality out. The less quality and complexity of the original, the lower the bitrate will be.

Jeff
bmcn likes this.

"Veni, vidi, vino!"
(I came, I saw, I drank wine!)

Last edited by pepar; Today at 06:35 AM.
pepar is online now  
post #12464 of 12472 Old Today, 08:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
eljr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Futuristic London
Posts: 7,749
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 983 Post(s)
Liked: 7627
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post
MP3 format uses a "lossy" compression. To reduce file size, "information" is discarded. Discard so much and it can be heard. There has been much scientific research into bit rates and audible degradation. My take is that it depends on the material and one's hearing. IIRC, there is one low bitrate that everyone can consistently identify as "worse" than the original and one very high one that no one can. Everyone falls in between. Note that, like so many things, the science is minimized or simply ignored by many who "believe" they can hear the difference. Then there are some who, like me, don't care about storage space .. or what I can or cannot hear .. and use a higher bitrate just to have the highest quality. Quite a while ago I switched from the highest MP3 bitrate to Apple Lossless Codec. My file sizes increased a lot, but so did my storage capacity.

FLAC, on the other hand, is Free LOSSLESS Audio Codec. So, there should be no difference between the original and the FLAC file. Note that is you feed it a CD-quality original, you will only get CD-quality out. The less quality and complexity of the original, the lower the bitrate will be.

Jeff
Thanks, this I knew.

and BTW, I too prefer the best available and I never take the time to compare... I am always happy

My question was not specific enough no doubt,

At what bitrate is music High Resolution?

Why is the bitrate for two Flac files different?

Why do most my Flac and MP3 files differ in bitrate from song to song?


Why do some of my .WAV files maintain an even bitrate for every song, always at 1411?

Can reading the bit rate tell me if I am listening in High Resolution?

Why when I rip a CD to Flac do I not get different bitrates as it's all 16-bit PCM encoding at a 44.1 kHz sampling rate per channel?

What you got back home, little sister, to play your fuzzy warbles on? I bet you got little save pitiful, portable picnic players. Come with uncle and hear all proper! Hear angel trumpets and devil trombones. You are invited.
eljr is online now  
post #12465 of 12472 Old Today, 08:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bmcn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,406
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1411 Post(s)
Liked: 1709
From Exact Audio Copy's EAC and FLAC wiki:

Do not worry what bit rate is shown in the bit rate drop down box; this will be ignored, as will the quality setting chosen below it.

http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=EAC_and_FLAC

bmcn is online now  
post #12466 of 12472 Old Today, 08:28 AM
Advanced Member
 
LairdWilliams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Raleigh, NC, USA
Posts: 524
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 191 Post(s)
Liked: 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by eljr View Post
Can someone educate me on bitrate and high resolution?

For example, I have one Flac file where the bitrate is around 4600, depending on the track, a little higher or a little lower.

I have another Flac file where the bitrate is 600, dependent on which track.


My MP3 bitrates (yes I still have a few) are all under 300.
Bitrate is often used as a heuristic indicator of audio fidelity. In this role it is terrifically flawed, but it can help in some cases (hence classifying it as a heuristic).

Let's simplify the discussion for a sec and assume that the source material for all audio compression algorithms is the same - CD-quality LPCM. We will come back to this later - but let's work this way for now...

Bitrate CAN BE, but is not always, an indicator of how much data compression is applied to a file. When you are talking about a lossy, or "perceptual" compression scheme (one that removes actual audible information under the assumption that a real human ear/brain would not hear the information anyway), bitrate is a pretty good indicator of how much audible information remains. The lower the bit-rate, the more potentially-audible information is removed and the more likely the listener is to be able to hear the difference. So with file formats that use a lossy compression scheme, like AAC and MP3, bitrate can to some degree be a reasonable initial quality indicator.

But lossless compression schemes are another matter. This is because a lossless compression scheme is different in nearly every way from lossy compression. Lossless compression schemes use mathematical constructs based on information theory to find truly REDUNDANT "information" and remove it. (In information theory, "redundancies" actually carry no information - that is kind of the point) The key word here is "redundant" - meaning that removing these "bits" results in no loss of real information at all. All of the meaningful information (in this case, all of the information needed to perfectly recreate the original signal) is still present even with those bits removed. The point is, when played back, the exact same bits that were in the original "uncompressed" source material are going to get played back - no matter what the bit rate is. The scheme knows what redundancies were removed and is able to perfectly replace, at playback time, that redundant information. Mathematically, rigorously provably, perfectly.

So for lossless compression schemes like ALAC and FLAC (and others of course), bitrate is really only a measure of the compressibility of the source information and has no bearing on playback quality whatsoever. Bitrate in a lossless compression scheme is a really BAD indicator of audio quality, all other things being equal.

There are caveats here, of course. If one lossless compression scheme does a poor job of compression and you are streaming and the networks involved are so poorly engineered that you can't stream that data rate reliably, then for you, yes, that scheme - even if lossless, is "worse" than another that might do more compression and result in fewer problems. So one could argue that with a lossless compression scheme, a scheme that results in MORE compression is going to be more likely to play back well and hence is superior - exactly the opposite of what one might say about lossy schemes. I find this argument fatuous at best. If you are using a network that is so piss-sorry that it can't keep up with high-quality audio (video is another matter) then you have no business streaming audio in the first place. Its like trying to dig a grave with a L'il Tykes shovel. Have a nice 2 years getting the job done.

And now we come back to the original source material. Bitrate, obviously, can vary for other reasons besides compression. Build a flac from a 2-channel BD-A source and from the CD-quality rendering of the same and, golly surprise, the bitrate for the BD will be higher. IF (this is a big "if") one is a believer in the audible superiority of hi-rez audio, then in this case, bitrate can indicate fidelity to some degree. But it indicates in this case the "fidelity" of the original source material and not the compression/storage/file-format scheme being used.

As for getting different bitrates on different songs from the same disk/source with flac (or alac, or whatever) - don't sweat it. It just means that one song had more statistical redundancy than the other. Think about it for a sec. Would you REALLY expect two completely different songs to have the exact same statistical redundancies in them? Of course not. So their compressibility will be different and the bitrate will be different.

So to shorten this diatribe to its essence: Bitrate can be an effective indicator of playback fidelity for lossy compression schemes like MP3 and AAC, but it is next-to-meaningless for lossless compression schemes like FLAC and ALAC, and should probably be ignored in such cases. (Of course, now, some 2-drink minimum marketing type will see this and see an opportunity to use bitrate of lossless material as a selling point, precisely because it IS meaningless)
eljr, natchie and bmcn like this.

Display: Panasonic P60UT50 (Plasma)
Speakers: (4) Monitor Audio Silver 9i (Front and Surround), (1) Monitor Audio Silver 12i (Center), (4) Monitor Audio Silver 4i (Rear and Wide), (2) Aperion Audio Bravus II 8d (Subwoofers)
Receiver: Pioneer Elite SC-87 AVR (9.2)
Sources: Oppo BDP-103, Roku 3, Cable...

Last edited by LairdWilliams; Today at 08:38 AM.
LairdWilliams is offline  
post #12467 of 12472 Old Today, 08:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
eljr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Futuristic London
Posts: 7,749
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 983 Post(s)
Liked: 7627
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmcn View Post
From Exact Audio Copy's EAC and FLAC wiki:

Do not worry what bit rate is shown in the bit rate drop down box; this will be ignored, as will the quality setting chosen below it.

http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=EAC_and_FLAC


read this just this morning from another site

What you got back home, little sister, to play your fuzzy warbles on? I bet you got little save pitiful, portable picnic players. Come with uncle and hear all proper! Hear angel trumpets and devil trombones. You are invited.
eljr is online now  
post #12468 of 12472 Old Today, 08:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
eljr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Futuristic London
Posts: 7,749
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 983 Post(s)
Liked: 7627
Quote:
Originally Posted by LairdWilliams View Post
Bitrate is often used as a heuristic indicator of audio fidelity. In this role it is terrifically flawed, but it can help in some cases (hence classifying it as a heuristic).

Let's simplify the discussion for a sec and assume that the source material for all audio compression algorithms is the same - CD-quality LPCM. We will come back to this later - but let's work this way for now...

Bitrate CAN BE, but is not always, an indicator of how much data compression is applied to a file. When you are talking about a lossy, or "perceptual" compression scheme (one that removes actual audible information under the assumption that a real human ear/brain would not hear the information anyway), bitrate is a pretty good indicator of how much audible information remains. The lower the bit-rate, the more potentially-audible information is removed and the more likely the listener is to be able to hear the difference. So with file formats that use a lossy compression scheme, like AAC and MP3, bitrate can to some degree be a reasonable initial quality indicator.

But lossless compression schemes are another matter. This is because a lossless compression scheme is different in nearly every way from lossy compression. Lossless compression schemes use mathematical constructs based on information theory to find truly REDUNDANT "information" and remove it. (In information theory, "redundancies" actually carry no information - that is kind of the point) The key word here is "redundant" - meaning that removing these "bits" results in no loss of real information at all. All of the meaningful information (in this case, all of the information needed to perfectly recreate the original signal) is still present even with those bits removed. The point is, when played back, the exact same bits that were in the original "uncompressed" source material are going to get played back - no matter what the bit rate is. The scheme knows what redundancies were removed and is able to perfectly replace, at playback time, that redundant information. Mathematically, rigorously provably, perfectly.

So for lossless compression schemes like ALAC and FLAC (and others of course), bitrate is really only a measure of the compressibility of the source information and has no bearing on playback quality whatsoever. Bitrate in a lossless compression scheme is a really BAD indicator of audio quality, all other things being equal.

There are caveats here, of course. If one lossless compression scheme does a poor job of compression and you are streaming and the networks involved are so poorly engineered that you can't stream that data rate reliably, then for you, yes, that scheme - even if lossless, is "worse" than another that might do more compression and result in fewer problems. So one could argue that with a lossless compression scheme, a scheme that results in MORE compression is going to be more likely to play back well and hence is superior - exactly the opposite of what one might say about lossy schemes. I find this argument fatuous at best. If you are using a network that is so piss-sorry that it can't keep up with high-quality audio (video is another matter) then you have no business streaming audio in the first place. Its like trying to dig a grave with a L'il Tykes shovel. Have a nice 2 years getting the job done.

And now we come back to the original source material. Bitrate, obviously, can vary for other reasons besides compression. Build a flac from a 2-channel BD-A source and from the CD-quality rendering of the same and, golly surprise, the bitrate for the BD will be higher. IF (this is a big "if") one is a believer in the audible superiority of hi-rez audio, then in this case, bitrate can indicate fidelity to some degree. But it indicates in this case the "fidelity" of the original source material and not the compression/storage/file-format scheme being used.

As for getting different bitrates on different songs from the same disk/source with flac (or alac, or whatever) - don't sweat it. It just means that one song had more statistical redundancy than the other. Think about it for a sec. Would you REALLY expect two completely different songs to have the exact same statistical redundancies in them? Of course not. So their compressibility will be different and the bitrate will be different.

So to shorten this diatribe to its essence: Bitrate can be an effective indicator of playback fidelity for lossy compression schemes like MP3 and AAC, but it is next-to-meaningless for lossless compression schemes like FLAC and ALAC, and should probably be ignored in such cases. (Of course, now, some 2-drink minimum marketing type will see this and see an opportunity to use bitrate of lossless material as a selling point, precisely because it IS meaningless)
great post, thank you.... I learned I am educable! I had my doubts,

So, in this world of Hi-Res how does one using JRiver know which of his files are hi-RES and which are not.

I do know which are Flac, .WAV AAC, MP3.... of course but how does one identify hi-res?

What you got back home, little sister, to play your fuzzy warbles on? I bet you got little save pitiful, portable picnic players. Come with uncle and hear all proper! Hear angel trumpets and devil trombones. You are invited.
eljr is online now  
post #12469 of 12472 Old Today, 09:09 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bmcn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,406
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1411 Post(s)
Liked: 1709
Quote:
Originally Posted by eljr View Post
I do know which are Flac, .WAV AAC, MP3.... of course but how does one identify hi-res?
Bubbleupnp displays the sample rate of each flac file on playback, presumably jriver does the same.
bmcn is online now  
post #12470 of 12472 Old Today, 09:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
eljr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Futuristic London
Posts: 7,749
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 983 Post(s)
Liked: 7627
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmcn View Post
Bubbleupnp displays the sample rate of each flac file on playback, presumably jriver does the same.
I am gonn awalk over to the JRiver thread and ask

What you got back home, little sister, to play your fuzzy warbles on? I bet you got little save pitiful, portable picnic players. Come with uncle and hear all proper! Hear angel trumpets and devil trombones. You are invited.
eljr is online now  
post #12471 of 12472 Old Today, 10:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
eljr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Futuristic London
Posts: 7,749
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 983 Post(s)
Liked: 7627
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmcn View Post
Bubbleupnp displays the sample rate of each flac file on playback, presumably jriver does the same.
found the info....

next question

why does both MP3, dowloaded from Amazon and Flac files ripped from RedBook CD's show the same 16 bit 44100 HZ

my Hi-Res downloads do not. They show 24 bit/ 192 kHz

What you got back home, little sister, to play your fuzzy warbles on? I bet you got little save pitiful, portable picnic players. Come with uncle and hear all proper! Hear angel trumpets and devil trombones. You are invited.
eljr is online now  
post #12472 of 12472 Old Today, 11:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bmcn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,406
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1411 Post(s)
Liked: 1709
Quote:
Originally Posted by eljr View Post
why does both MP3, dowloaded from Amazon and Flac files ripped from RedBook CD's show the same 16 bit 44100 HZ
dk; to Laird's point, Bubble displays bit rate of MP3 files on playback and doesn't w/flacs. Compared two downloaded mp3 files of rough sounding recordings from different artists' concerts: one shows 128 kbps, the other 256 kbps.
bmcn is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Surround Music Formats

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off