Lossless vs Lossy For Home Stereo - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 6Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 61 Old 08-05-2014, 02:59 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Bobby_A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 61
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 8
Lossless vs Lossy For Home Stereo

Hi, I'm new to the forum and I've been reading a lot about the difference between lossless and lossy sound recordings. I've read several articles that said that the difference in sound was minimal. However, I've read other articles that say that it depends on the type of device that you play your recordings on and that much of the lossy MP3 recordings and formats that are available are mainly for portable devices.

However, the music that I will be listening to will mainly be heard on my home stereo system, which has an Integra 5.1 receiver and Paradigm speakers and a Polk Audio subwoofer. Also, I am asking about this because I would like to burn all of my CDs to my computer and then listen to my music either from my computer and through my home stereo system, or perhaps downloaded from my computer into a USB flash drive and then through my home stereo system via my smart television.

However, is there *really* going to be a difference in sound when comparing ripping my CDs into the MP3 format versus ripping my CDs into a Lossless format for my home stereo?
TomC1315 likes this.
Bobby_A is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 61 Old 08-05-2014, 03:21 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
afrogt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 23,175
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 221 Post(s)
Liked: 390
Quote:
However, is there *really* going to be a difference in sound when comparing ripping my CDs into the MP3 format versus ripping my CDs into a Lossless format for my home stereo?
Yes, there will be, don't know if you can tell the difference though. It also depends how your computer audio is connected to your receiver.

If you've got the hard drive space why wouldn't you rip everything into lossless audio?

Afro GT

Last edited by afrogt; 08-05-2014 at 03:28 PM.
afrogt is offline  
post #3 of 61 Old 08-05-2014, 03:40 PM
Senior Member
 
JimWinVA's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Charlottesville, VA
Posts: 417
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby_A View Post
Hi, I'm new to the forum and I've been reading a lot about the difference between lossless and lossy sound recordings. I've read several articles that said that the difference in sound was minimal. However, I've read other articles that say that it depends on the type of device that you play your recordings on and that much of the lossy MP3 recordings and formats that are available are mainly for portable devices.

However, the music that I will be listening to will mainly be heard on my home stereo system, which has an Integra 5.1 receiver and Paradigm speakers and a Polk Audio subwoofer. Also, I am asking about this because I would like to burn all of my CDs to my computer and then listen to my music either from my computer and through my home stereo system, or perhaps downloaded from my computer into a USB flash drive and then through my home stereo system via my smart television.

However, is there *really* going to be a difference in sound when comparing ripping my CDs into the MP3 format versus ripping my CDs into a Lossless format for my home stereo?
I think it depends on your system and your ears. Personally, I have a hard time distinguishing between the two, but if you know what to listen for, there are some telltale artifacts, but imo you have to be listening for them to notice. MP3 at 320 sounds mighty fine on my system- good enough that I have no problem choosing to listen to a 320 MP3 off my ps3 rather than getting up, finding the CD, turning on another player and listening that way.

That being said, as aFrog pointed out, there's little reason not to rip losslessly unless HD space is really at a premium for you- or you want to rip as MP3's for portable use and don't want to have to do (and store) 2 rips for everything. Though if you're using an ipod, you can use ALAC to compress, which encodes/decodes losslessly; if you have FLAC-capable portables, you can use that compression which is also lossless.

But as to whether there's really an audible difference- only your ears can tell you. You could try a shoot-out: compare a lossless rip of a favorite recording (use something w/ lots of dynamics and as many different instruments as possible). If possible, have someone else do the switching, so you don't know which you're listening to.
TomC1315 likes this.
JimWinVA is offline  
post #4 of 61 Old 08-05-2014, 03:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gecko85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 2,183
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 121 Post(s)
Liked: 80
My best advice: rip all your CD's to lossless, then back up your lossless files offsite (in the cloud or other). Now you can do what you want from those lossless originals. If you transcode them to a decently high bit rate MP3 or AAC (192 is probably fine), you'll have smaller file sizes for syncing to portable media, streaming to your home stereo, etc. You won't be able to tell a difference between a high quality lossy file and lossless 99% of the time.

So, why start by ripping to lossless? Well, if you ever decide to use a different lossy codec, you want to transcode from lossless, not a lossy file. Always keep your lossy files one generation from your lossless originals.
jdcrox, deckarep and Shadowed like this.

Panasonic TC-P60ST60, Pioneer SC-1523-K, Oppo BDP-103D, Pioneer PL-550 + Cambridge Audio Azur 640P, B&W CM1 (fronts), B&W CM Centre, Athena Point 5 Mk II (rears), Hsu VTF-2
----------------------------------------
Sony 34XBR960, Onkyo TX-NR414, Sony PS3, Athena Point 5 Mk II (center and fronts), Wharfedale WH-2 (rears), Polk PSW10
Gecko85 is offline  
post #5 of 61 Old 08-05-2014, 05:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dirk1843's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northeast Arkansas
Posts: 1,601
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I can no doubt tell between MP3.0, even at 320kbs. This is a big job and you want to do it right. I have done it 3 full times for 200+ albums, and still not happy due to choices I made each time.

Did WMA at 192 before MP3 encoders were included with WMP. Then I did it over at 320 kips with iTunes when I joined the iPod nation.

Was never happy with that in my main system, so I went with WMA Lossless. That is a bastard format now, almost no hardware supports it.

FLAC will be my next choice. I have the space for WAV files, but not for sure about hardware support and tagging/id-ing the tracks.
dirk1843 is offline  
post #6 of 61 Old 08-05-2014, 05:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gecko85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 2,183
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 121 Post(s)
Liked: 80
Rip a handful of songs lossless, then use a high quality lossless encoder to make lossless versions at varying bitrates. Then do an ABX test for each song: lossless vs one lossy bitrate at a time. That'll let you know if *you* can hear a difference.

http://lifehacker.com/5903625/mp3-or...with-this-test
Shadowed likes this.

Panasonic TC-P60ST60, Pioneer SC-1523-K, Oppo BDP-103D, Pioneer PL-550 + Cambridge Audio Azur 640P, B&W CM1 (fronts), B&W CM Centre, Athena Point 5 Mk II (rears), Hsu VTF-2
----------------------------------------
Sony 34XBR960, Onkyo TX-NR414, Sony PS3, Athena Point 5 Mk II (center and fronts), Wharfedale WH-2 (rears), Polk PSW10
Gecko85 is offline  
post #7 of 61 Old 08-05-2014, 06:46 PM
Senior Member
 
ixion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 406
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I would also recommend that you archive everything in lossless such as FLAC or ALAC (personally I chose FLAC, but these days it's a fairly safe bet that ALAC will be around for a long time since it is supported by Apple).

Then convert everything into high bit rate MP3 (320) or AAC (256) and enjoy your music. Take the time to do an ABX test as mentioned above. I found that for me, I couldn't tell the difference, so I'm enjoying my music in the lossy format from all my devices, but I do have the peace of mind knowing that all my CDs archived in FLAC.
ixion is offline  
post #8 of 61 Old 08-05-2014, 09:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
67jason's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,888
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
Liked: 790
i use flac for home listening and high bitrate 320kbps mp3 for portable devices. no complaints with either format. i have abx'd both using the plugins available for foobar2000 and could not discern any difference between the two formats, but it makes me "feel better" using the lossless format for home listening.

I don't need snobs to tell me how to think, thank you!

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Why you wouldn't want to join
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
forum
67jason is offline  
post #9 of 61 Old 08-11-2014, 12:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 8,621
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 501 Post(s)
Liked: 272
Quote:
Originally Posted by dirk1843 View Post
Was never happy with that in my main system, so I went with WMA Lossless. That is a bastard format now, almost no hardware supports it.

FLAC will be my next choice. I have the space for WAV files, but not for sure about hardware support and tagging/id-ing the tracks.
I use AIFF for CD rips into iTunes (sync to car iPod and home AppleTV Gen1). Same as WAV except nicer for album art. And I can still pull the files straight into Adobe Audition for occasion sweetening. A 2:1 bitrate reduction is not worth the lossless hassle, IMHO. WAV will never go obsolete.

Roger

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Roger Dressler is offline  
post #10 of 61 Old 08-11-2014, 02:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
fatbottom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 3,847
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 438 Post(s)
Liked: 190
With the price and capacity of hard drives why wouldn't you rip and encode to lossless? It's not like 20GB hard drives are the norm. Buy a 3TB HD encode to flac, you'll fit thousands of albums in lossless format. And no need to re-rip them again.

Krell Evolution 900e x 7

Bose Jewel speakers.

 

Jealous of my speakers?

fatbottom is online now  
post #11 of 61 Old 08-15-2014, 12:49 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Bobby_A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 61
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gecko85 View Post
My best advice: rip all your CD's to lossless, then back up your lossless files offsite (in the cloud or other). Now you can do what you want from those lossless originals. If you transcode them to a decently high bit rate MP3 or AAC (192 is probably fine), you'll have smaller file sizes for syncing to portable media, streaming to your home stereo, etc. You won't be able to tell a difference between a high quality lossy file and lossless 99% of the time.

So, why start by ripping to lossless? Well, if you ever decide to use a different lossy codec, you want to transcode from lossless, not a lossy file. Always keep your lossy files one generation from your lossless originals.
First of all, I would like to thank everyone for their input. Also, I've already begun taking Gecko's advice and have started ripping my CD collection to lossless via the latest Windows Media Player, which I think is 11. I'm only on the Cs right now(I sort by alphabetical order), however, I can tell the difference in sound on my less expensive PC speakers. Lossless really does sound better.(Or at least to my ears it does.)

Also, I wanted to ask Gecko what he meant when he said: "Always keep your lossy files one generation from your lossless originals"?
Bobby_A is offline  
post #12 of 61 Old 08-15-2014, 01:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gecko85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 2,183
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 121 Post(s)
Liked: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby_A View Post
Also, I wanted to ask Gecko what he meant when he said: "Always keep your lossy files one generation from your lossless originals"?
Ok, here's what I meant by that:

Let's say you want to make copies of your lossless files in a lossy format to save space when putting on a portable media player/smartphone/etc. So, let's say you want to transcode them in to MP3 or AAC, you'd do so from your original lossless files...so the resulting lossy files would be one generation from the lossless. Make sense?

Now, let's say a few years from now, someone comes out with a miraculous new lossy format that has all the quality of a 320kbps MP3, but with 50% of the file size. So, let's say you decide to re-encode to that new format for portable use. You would want to transcode from the original lossless format, rather than re-encoding your old MP3 or AAC files. If you had re-encoded your lossy files, you'd now be TWO generations away from the original, and you would get worse sound quality.

That's why I suggest always keeping your master copies in lossless. You can always transcode them into another format at any time, but you'll always be one generation away from lossless.

Panasonic TC-P60ST60, Pioneer SC-1523-K, Oppo BDP-103D, Pioneer PL-550 + Cambridge Audio Azur 640P, B&W CM1 (fronts), B&W CM Centre, Athena Point 5 Mk II (rears), Hsu VTF-2
----------------------------------------
Sony 34XBR960, Onkyo TX-NR414, Sony PS3, Athena Point 5 Mk II (center and fronts), Wharfedale WH-2 (rears), Polk PSW10
Gecko85 is offline  
post #13 of 61 Old 08-15-2014, 01:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fatbottom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 3,847
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 438 Post(s)
Liked: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby_A View Post
First of all, I would like to thank everyone for their input. Also, I've already begun taking Gecko's advice and have started ripping my CD collection to lossless via the latest Windows Media Player, which I think is 11. I'm only on the Cs right now(I sort by alphabetical order), however, I can tell the difference in sound on my less expensive PC speakers. Lossless really does sound better.(Or at least to my ears it does.)

Also, I wanted to ask Gecko what he meant when he said: "Always keep your lossy files one generation from your lossless originals"?
WMP is a lousy ripper. Delete them and start again LOL

Install EAC. It's actually accurate unlike WMP.

Krell Evolution 900e x 7

Bose Jewel speakers.

 

Jealous of my speakers?

fatbottom is online now  
post #14 of 61 Old 08-15-2014, 05:46 PM
Senior Member
 
coli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 384
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked: 27
The biggest difference is mainly in the stereo imaging + reverb. But a setup capable of expressing it is expensive + difficult to setup.

Original soundtrack rips is where the biggest difference shows. (difference between 320k mp3 vs lossless here is huge)
coli is offline  
post #15 of 61 Old 08-28-2014, 02:03 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Bobby_A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 61
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gecko85 View Post
Ok, here's what I meant by that:

Let's say you want to make copies of your lossless files in a lossy format to save space when putting on a portable media player/smartphone/etc. So, let's say you want to transcode them in to MP3 or AAC, you'd do so from your original lossless files...so the resulting lossy files would be one generation from the lossless. Make sense?

Now, let's say a few years from now, someone comes out with a miraculous new lossy format that has all the quality of a 320kbps MP3, but with 50% of the file size. So, let's say you decide to re-encode to that new format for portable use. You would want to transcode from the original lossless format, rather than re-encoding your old MP3 or AAC files. If you had re-encoded your lossy files, you'd now be TWO generations away from the original, and you would get worse sound quality.

That's why I suggest always keeping your master copies in lossless. You can always transcode them into another format at any time, but you'll always be one generation away from lossless.
Okay, I see what you're saying. And it makes perfect sense to me. Thanks.
Bobby_A is offline  
post #16 of 61 Old 08-28-2014, 02:25 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Bobby_A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 61
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatbottom View Post
WMP is a lousy ripper. Delete them and start again LOL
It is? Does anyone else feel that way? Also, I recently read that WMP was one of the better rippers. Plus, I found these two articles:

http://www.knowzy.com/Computers/Audi...s_and_Cons.htm

http://lifehacker.com/5902147/is-the...yer-to-rip-cds

and if only things such as "detailed info. AKA tags about the artist, date, album art, etc," and proprietary issues that limit certain portable devices are the problem, then I am not particularly concerned about those types of things.

However, even though the first article is dated back to 2007 and some things don't seem like that still apply to the latest version of WMP(12), if things such as "No Volume Normalizing or Leveling" still apply, even though I wish that WMP did have volume normalizing, I can still live with it, if it doesn't.(I'm not a home right now, so I can't check my PC.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatbottom View Post
Install EAC. It's actually accurate unlike WMP.
I'll have to look into that, however, I have about a third of my CD collection already ripped.

Last edited by Bobby_A; 08-28-2014 at 02:29 PM.
Bobby_A is offline  
post #17 of 61 Old 08-28-2014, 02:32 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Bobby_A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 61
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by coli View Post
The biggest difference is mainly in the stereo imaging + reverb. But a setup capable of expressing it is expensive + difficult to setup.
Could you elaborate on that, coli? I don't understand what you mean. Also, interesting screen name that you got there.
Bobby_A is offline  
post #18 of 61 Old 08-28-2014, 02:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fatbottom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 3,847
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 438 Post(s)
Liked: 190
Yes it is. Use EAC, rip to flac. It's regarded as the best.

Do not normalise tracks. Then load up foobar, drag the whole lot, replygain scan as albums.

You do not want to alter the waveform. Replaygain scan only adds a volume adjustment in the tag info, it doesn't re-write the file boosting the actual waveform.

Krell Evolution 900e x 7

Bose Jewel speakers.

 

Jealous of my speakers?

fatbottom is online now  
post #19 of 61 Old 08-28-2014, 03:36 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Bobby_A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 61
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatbottom View Post
Yes it is. Use EAC, rip to flac. It's regarded as the best.

Do not normalise tracks. Then load up foobar, drag the whole lot, replygain scan as albums.

You do not want to alter the waveform. Replaygain scan only adds a volume adjustment in the tag info, it doesn't re-write the file boosting the actual waveform.
Thanks, fatbottom. Also, are you saying that WMP re-writes the file and alters the waveform? Plus, if I eventually play my ripped music from my computer through my home stereo system, would I be able to tell a 'significant' difference between the WMP lossless music that I already ripped on my computer.. and the music that I might rip using EAC? And the reason why I ask is because I don't want to have to rip a third of my CD collection for a third time.(Which is a 200+ CD collection.)
Bobby_A is offline  
post #20 of 61 Old 08-28-2014, 04:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
holt7153's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: City of Angels
Posts: 3,218
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by coli View Post
The biggest difference is mainly in the stereo imaging + reverb.
I prefer lossless as well, but I don't know that there would be a difference in how it images compared to a lossy track.

******************
Somebody told me it was frightening how much topsoil we are losing each year, but I told that story around the campfire and nobody got scared.
holt7153 is offline  
post #21 of 61 Old 08-28-2014, 05:13 PM
Member
 
mjd420nova's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 161
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
I hope that Bobby_a didn't get too confused. The quick and easy rule is that digital formats of all types have to set limits upon the content they are "sampling" and converting to a digital stream instead of an analog waveform. Once in a digital format, each has it's own appropriate software to decode the digital steram and route it to a converter for transposition back to an analog waveform. Kind of like the way a picture will pixilate when the resolution is not up to you eyes ability to make a picture, MP3 and many other formats are singly intended to reduce the file size. Most comerical CDs are in the .WAV file format, Pulse Code Modulation(PCM), 16 bit stereo, at a 44K bandwidth. Samples per second vary from hardware to hardware, but are the biggest stumbling block. Think of pixelation of an audio signal. When limits are set upon the input analog signal, those elements of the waveform outside the limits gets discarded. That content cannot be replaced or replicated once discarded. The term lossless supposedly refers to converting an analog waveform to a digital file and the converting back to an analog waveform. Just the first ADC creates substantial loss so that's just a pipe dream.
mjd420nova is offline  
post #22 of 61 Old 08-28-2014, 07:36 PM
Senior Member
 
coli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 384
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by holt7153 View Post
I prefer lossless as well, but I don't know that there would be a difference in how it images compared to a lossy track.
Joint stereo really destroys imaging for ost tracks. Thankfully not too many people use that one.
coli is offline  
post #23 of 61 Old 08-28-2014, 07:39 PM
Senior Member
 
coli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 384
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby_A View Post
Could you elaborate on that, coli? I don't understand what you mean. Also, interesting screen name that you got there.
Hard to explain until you got a setup that can reproduce "3d" Quite a few lossy encoding sounds 2d/bad, oddly, they don't sound that bad with normal setups...
coli is offline  
post #24 of 61 Old 08-28-2014, 08:07 PM
Member
 
Section 107's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 125
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby_A View Post
Okay, I see what you're saying. And it makes perfect sense to me. Thanks.
Just throwing my 2c in here in case it's worth anything to you.

After reading various audiophile sites, when I finally decided to rip my CDs, I ripped them in a lossless format. (This was expressly for listening on my home system.)

Because I was led to believe that lossy and lossless were two wildly different propositions, I actually maintained two separate libraries--one for lossless files, one for lossy--and would switch between them depending on to what I intended to listen. There is overlap between the libraries.

(FYI, I use iTunes, which opens to whichever library you last used. I'm sure that will open another audiophile can of worms.)

One day, after just turning everything on and going about my business, a track got my attention because the quality seemed so high. I checked, and it turned out to be the lossy library. I realized then that I couldn't tell the difference between either codec.

Now, I know there are people who swear it matters, but remember, there are people who will swear to any unprovable nonsense in audio.

I also know that there are certain artifacts found in lossy files that trained listeners (or the hearing impaired) can identify. But I don't believe that's most of us on this forum. Certainly not me. If you understand how lossy codecs work, then you know that the concept is to eliminate sounds that are out of the range of human hearing or are masked by the other content in the file. I think it works.

That said, I do think there is a good reason to rip your own CDs in a lossless format, even if you can't hear the difference.

If you are ripping your own CDs, it only makes sense to rip them in a format that could be considered archival, the same way you would preserve negatives if you were taking pictures on film. You don't know what might happen to the CDs, so it only makes sense to have a mechanism for duplicating them. (Is this an argument for ripping in WAV?)

But for listening purposes, I don't think it matters (assuming the lossy rip is at a high enough bitrate), and it would certainly be helpful for portability.

Last edited by Section 107; 08-28-2014 at 08:10 PM. Reason: clarity
Section 107 is offline  
post #25 of 61 Old 08-28-2014, 09:09 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
MichaelJHuman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 18,874
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 209 Post(s)
Liked: 109
I remember experimenting with MP3 bit rates. Sometime after 160 I think the differences were impossible to hear for me.

That being said, everyone is different and with the available space these days, and lossless compression, use lossless if you have the space and option to.

Or pick some high bit rate like 256 if available

On itunes, given that I use an iPod and Airport to stream music, I think I went with 128 kb/s AAC because it seemed pretty good. Of course given the situation these days, I would have gone higher.

"But this one goes up to 11"
MichaelJHuman is offline  
post #26 of 61 Old 08-28-2014, 09:27 PM
Advanced Member
 
sawfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 793
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 110
I would rip everything to lossless so I would always have a perfect reference copy that I will never need to rip again. It can be played back as is or at lower bit levels without incurring any possible artifacts due to transcoding one lossy format to another. As for whether you can tell the difference between lossless and lossy, here's a set of free slides from a scientific study using high end equipment in a dedicated listening room under ideal conditions:

http://music.mcgill.ca/~hockman/docu...tation2009.pdf

If I were to excerpt a one line summary from this rather rarefied experiment, it would be:

Quote:
Trained listeners can not discriminate between CD quality and mp3 compression (256-320 kb/s) while expert listeners could.
It's not clear from the slides how often the experts were able to tell; I don't care enough to spring $20 for the paper where perhaps they talk about that and give more details on the listening material. The best thing an ordinary person can do is use foobar2000's ABX comparator to see how they fare distinguishing lossless from lossy at various bitrates.
sawfish is offline  
post #27 of 61 Old 08-29-2014, 09:36 AM
Senior Member
 
EnjoyingMyRide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 215
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 24
FWIW- I've been using dbpoweramp to rip my discs for years. Usually to FLAC, if it special to me or something or I've downloaded in 96/24, I'll use the WAV format. I figure you can always go down in codec quality not up. Disc space is an issue with WAV files being almost 4x the size of the FLAC version. From WAV you can always convert to MP3 or other codecs that require less disc space.

I also use JRiver as my media center, with that I can take the original recorded at 44.1 kHZ 16 bit and up sample to 96 kHZ 24 bit using a WASAPI driver when I'm listening w/phones. When I use the ASIO driver and pass it along to my DAC via a USB cable then on to my amp I can achieve higher sampling rates and longer word length. I never thought I could listen to sound of this quality before!

Now, can differences in codecs be distinguished by someone? Then is it worth the extra disc space? For me I enjoy playing around with the capabilities we now have that were not available not that long ago. Maybe there is some info in here that has some relevance to the discussion.

Steve
EnjoyingMyRide is offline  
post #28 of 61 Old 08-29-2014, 10:00 AM
Advanced Member
 
sawfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 793
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnjoyingMyRide View Post
FWIW- I've been using dbpoweramp to rip my discs for years. Usually to FLAC, if it special to me or something or I've downloaded in 96/24, I'll use the WAV format. I figure you can always go down in codec quality not up. Disc space is an issue with WAV files being almost 4x the size of the FLAC version. From WAV you can always convert to MP3 or other codecs that require less disc space.
You understand that FLAC and WAV and all other lossless formats are equivalent in their losslessness, right? That they decode to the same data, that they can be converted one to the other without change, etc. The only reason to store in WAV is... Well, I can't think of one, at least not one that sounds reasonable.
sawfish is offline  
post #29 of 61 Old 08-29-2014, 11:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
fatbottom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 3,847
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 438 Post(s)
Liked: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnjoyingMyRide View Post
FWIW- I've been using dbpoweramp to rip my discs for years. Usually to FLAC, if it special to me or something or I've downloaded in 96/24, I'll use the WAV format. I figure you can always go down in codec quality not up. Disc space is an issue with WAV files being almost 4x the size of the FLAC version. From WAV you can always convert to MP3 or other codecs that require less disc space.

I also use JRiver as my media center, with that I can take the original recorded at 44.1 kHZ 16 bit and up sample to 96 kHZ 24 bit using a WASAPI driver when I'm listening w/phones. When I use the ASIO driver and pass it along to my DAC via a USB cable then on to my amp I can achieve higher sampling rates and longer word length. I never thought I could listen to sound of this quality before!

Now, can differences in codecs be distinguished by someone? Then is it worth the extra disc space? For me I enjoy playing around with the capabilities we now have that were not available not that long ago. Maybe there is some info in here that has some relevance to the discussion.
There is no benefit to WAVE at all. Well unless if you want to brag how many more hard drives are used for your music collection.

WAVE does not store full tag information, replaygain values, it has no built in CRC like flac.

Drag all those wave files into foobar/dbpoweramp and convert to flac level 8 and reclaim GB of storage, then wipe the WAVE files.

Krell Evolution 900e x 7

Bose Jewel speakers.

 

Jealous of my speakers?

fatbottom is online now  
post #30 of 61 Old 08-29-2014, 11:33 AM
Senior Member
 
EnjoyingMyRide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 215
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by sawfish View Post
You understand that FLAC and WAV and all other lossless formats are equivalent in their losslessness, right? That they decode to the same data, that they can be converted one to the other without change, etc. The only reason to store in WAV is... Well, I can't think of one, at least not one that sounds reasonable.
Exactly, in my final paragraph I proposed just that. Go with the codec that floats your boat and enjoy, there is nothing wrong with that.

Steve
EnjoyingMyRide is offline  
Reply Receivers, Amps, and Processors

User Tag List

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