Ripping music (Bitrate question)

It's highly unlikely you'd be able to tell the difference in sound quality between 320 and lossless. Lossless arguments are largely for archive purposes (perfect backup copy), although some swear by lossless for playback too.

Here are some basic graphs showing some differences at different compression levels:

http://www.bradjudy.com/audioblog/20...uency-content/

I ripped my collection to 320k MP3 and they sound very good, but not as good as lossless. I've done direct comparison of the 320k .MP3's against .WAV and .FLAC and you can definitely hear the difference. You can notice the difference in cymbals especially.

I chose .MP3 because of the disc space savings, but now that disc prices are so low...I would use a lossless format.

There is a difference, i would go lossless or just leave it ripped in wav. You are talking about rip and encode. Ripping is simply extracting wavs off of the cd.

The differences mainly occur in dynamic range and high frequncies (16khz+)

I have compared lossless and 320kbps and I really can't tell a difference. Not that it isn't there, but I don't think my ears are good enough to detect it. Plus I listed to mostly Hard Rock and some Hip-Hop, which are two of the more forgiving genre's. If you listed to a lot of classical and Jazz, you may notice the compression more.

I also think the play back equipment makes a huge difference. If you have a $10K stereo setup you will probably want to ensure the best rip as possible to get the most of your system. If you have a lower or mid range setup the differences may not be as noticable.

I rip mine to wave and then convert to FLAC. Best combination I've heard. Granted, not everything will play back FLAC.

Bryan

I agree with Bryan for a few reasons.

- Ripping is tedious, and I only want to do it once. By ripping to WAV, you have a lossless copy.

- Lossless will produce the best sound for home listening, and some cool music servers are out with more coming.

- Once you have lossless Rips, you can have the computer run over night to produce FLAC, MP3, or whatever new standard comes out for you car, Portable, etc.

- If we get to a point where WAVs are not supported on computers (several years from now), you can convert the WAVs to whatever the new standard is with little work and no loss in quality.

Unless you can't afford the disk space to go with WAV files, I would Rip to lossless/WAV, then encode to whatever lossy format you need for your portable/mobile devices.

And if you use EAC to do the WAV's, you can set it up to automatically do the FLAC convert while you're ripping the next WAV.

Bryan

Rip it to lossless, rip it once, and be done with it.

WAVs are a waste of space, not to mention there's no tagging with them, and there's no benefit (quality) over lossless formats.

And FWIW, J River Media Center offers secure mode ripping (similar to EAC), and will compress on the fly to FLAC, Monkey's Audio (APE), or WMA Lossless. It can be configured to rip/download info automatically when you insert a disc as well.

Guys maybe a bit OT but what is the easiest way/application to convert my FLACs to CDA directly burnt on a CD so that I can use it on a CDP. I guess what I am looking for an inverse logic to the J River Media Center. Thanks

JRMC ought to do it. Otherwise I think there's a plugin for Nero.

I already have Nero on my PC so I guess now I need to look for the right plugin.

Try googling for neroplugins, all one word.

found one at http://www.bitburners.com/Nero_Audio_Plugins_by_MauSau/

BTW any good sites other than www.allofmp3.com for downloading FLACs?

Well, that depends on what you use to encode the mp3s. The recommended LAME encoder and settings should produce virtually 'transparent' mp3s at that bitrate, though there may be *some* 'killer' tracks that will show artifacts when compared to source in an ABX. It should not be a general problem, unless you have absolutely extraordinary hearing and do all your listening on headphones. FWIW when I was using LAME and VBR (variable bitrate) encoding with --alt preset standard settings, I could not ABX any resulting mp3s from their sources, which included rock, jazz, and classical.


Ditto. I only convert my archival flacs to mp3 for my wife's Ipod.

no matter what mp3 encoder and what bitrate is choosed,you always lose because mp3 is not lossless and maybe never will be.
if you can't hear the differences,open the mp3 and the source wav in your audio editor,compare the waveforms ...the differences and what you lose are there.
...or convert the encoded mp3 as wave again....now your .wav from mp3 sounds worse.

regards.

No one EVER claimed mp3 was lossless, least of all me. Guess what: CD is 'lossy' too: you 'lose' frequencies above 22 kHz in the original signal. The thing is, you can't *hear* the loss. Now reread what I said about mp3. See the parallel?

I DID agree that lossless formats were preferred for archiving (because new artifacts are introduced in transcoding from lossy to other lossy formats) , so I'm not sure why you even brought up the transcoding issue. But curiously, you cited the one kind of transcoding that ISN'T likely to sound worse! Mp3 to *.wav* or other 'lossless' format should not introduce any *new* artifacts, unless you've got a very bad transcoder indeed; it's transcoding from m3 to other *lossy* formats, that's likely to produce an audible hit to quality (or going from lossy-->lossless-->lossy).

Mp3 encoders have been highly tweaked over the last decade or so, based on sound psychoacoustic principles and controlled listening tests, so to imply that all mp3s are created equal is to ignore tons of work e.g., at www.hydrogenaudio.org, where the LAME recommendation comes from. It's easy enought to encode *your own* mp3s and set up *your own* ABX tests of mp3s to .wavs, as I did, the software links are also at ha.org. *Those*, and not spectral views of mp3s vs wavs, will give you a better idea of what is and is not audibly transparent to you. (The misleading nature of spectral analysis for mp3 quality evaluation, is discussed at HA).

Then it doesn't matter if they exist.

We're talking about ripping for listening here, not ripping for archive purposes.

then what means "depends on what you use to encode the mp3s" in your answer when you quoted Rupert?


means that all formats are lossy,only depend if the source have for example 1.000.000Khz but

as we are talking about audio and we can't hear 22Khz then....cd is not lossy...


i have one idea.
host 3 files:
1- source from cd 44.1-16bit,
2- the source encoded as mp3(best bitrate/encoder of your taste)
3- the mp3 back to any format that you chose.

the whole forum will apriciate to hear,i'm sure beacuse don't need any ABX test.

...the resume is:
no matter in what format,if wav or other from mp3,you always lose and schapman43 posted:


in HA have tests for low bitrates and seems that they are bored about size and not for quality....read his tests in this thread,you will find lots about 80k,170k,etc: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...p?showforum=40
...i can't find nothing really serious about quality!
anyone found?


(sorry,i can't imagine if the target is for listening or archive, it's not clear in the first post :

regards

It means that if you use a Xing encoder instead of LAME at the same bitrate, you may well get an mp3 that sounds worse than the original. It means that if you use 128 kbps instead of 320 kbps, you may well get an mp3 that sounds worse than the original. It doesn't mean mp3 is EVER lossless, in terms of data.




And if the listener can't hear the data losses in an mp3, then it's not *perceptually* lossy to the listener. This is the whole point of perceptual encoding.




Well, what format you choose *is* going to make a difference. Mp3 transcoded to *another* lossy format (even another flavor of mp3) runs a very good chance of pushing the artifacts above audibility threshold. Mp3 to a 'lossless' format (e.g., wav or flac) doesn't. When you convert mp3 to .wav, you are sampling the mp3 to 'CD' standard -- 44 kHz/16bit. That is more than enough to capture all the information in the mp3, with zero loss.



I'll be happy to give it a try if you like (I've already done them in the past). But *I* get to pick the MP3 encoding, because which encoder is used, and what settings are used, *matters*.


Except, *data* loss does not NECESSARILY result in *audible* loss.



No, there isn't, in terms of *audibility*, assuming the encoding to 320 was doen witha good encoder. Differences are more likely in the *portability* of the file, and in whether it can be transcoded without quality drop.



Yes, lots. Look in the 'Listening Tests' subforum, for example, on this page:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?act=idx

Or read the 'pinned' threads at the top of the MP3-General subforum. Note that the primary focus is on optimizing low bitrate performance quality *because* they give the smallest file size -- in the best of both worlds, one would have small files that sound excellent. This is increasingly less of an issue for personal use because prices of storage are going down so much, but it's still desirable for transmitting files over the internet. The number of people who have ever reported being able to ABX *high* bitrate mp3s is *tiny*. Miniscule. It's considered a nonissue by all but self-appointed audiophiles who probably haven't ever tried identifying them in an ABX. In fact, HA.org won't even accept posts of such claims unless htey are backed up with some blind comparison results. There's a reason for that. I suggest you spend a bit more time on HA.org. YOu will find plenty of discussion about the characteristics of various bitrates, encoders, lossy formats, and lossless formats. Or, do some ABX comparisons of your own, and report the results. No one should assume mp3 must sound bad because they are 'lossy'.

krabapple
first i want to thank you for your educated answers and trust me,i always read your posts and apriciate your oppinions.


good explanations,you got the whole "feeling".


sorry,i was unclear.
i mean that when you encode the mp3 back to wav(for example) and compare with the wav source,you will listen the differences between the waves(original source vs wav from mp3) without any ABX.


only one clarification about cd standard:
wav format contains uncompressed audio in the pulse-code modulation (PCM) format.WAV is a data file format for computer use.
Audio CDs do not use WAV as their sound format, instead using Red Book audio.
The commonality is that both audio CDs and WAV files have the audio data encoded in PCM.
from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wav#Audio_CDs


nothing against but this is exactly what HA take care and not for real quality.


seems cool but not all members are really serious and have lots of kids,if you know what i mean.
as you know and recommend,ABX is for personal tests because you never will know how much another person can hear(to tell the minimum) and we can't use his results as base for anything.
is not a question of believe in their results,is how,where,what amplifier,what pc,what soundboard,what headphone and thousands more details.
then i quote you again
do you understand my position of his tests now?



i agree with you....and don't lol....i like AC3 and it's lossy.
download the penteosurround sample to feel that the source is very important.
for me the source have first importance...bad sources,bad results.

my sincere thanks and best regards!


edited: thousands typos(and have more)

And I repeat : *possibly*. It depends primarily on how well the initial mp3 encoding was done. It;s also possible you will NOT be able to pass an ABX of the two to waves.


That was not in dispute. WAV files tend to be sampled at CD rates.
Also from the wikipedia entry for wav: "Though a WAV file can hold compressed audio, the most common WAV format contains uncompressed audio in the pulse-code modulation (PCM) format. PCM audio is the standard audio file format for CDs at 44,100 samples per second" So, one would not expect that converting an mp3 to .wav would introduce audible problems. Therefore, one would again expect that its the INITIAL ENCODING TO MP3 that is the crucial variable. Do that well, and you stand a good chance of producing an mp3 that sounds identical to its source, in an ABX.




You base this one *WHAT* research exactly? I';ve been reading HA for several years now, quality is *certainly* a real concern.


Do your own then. Describe how you encoded the MP3s, all your ancillary equipment, and your ABX results. Post them the HA.org. You might learn something.

I feel the same. There is no debate that high bitrate (& optionally, vbr) MP3/AC3/OGG sound very good but there's that slight difference that only shows up during certain passages (like you mentioned: cymbals), and very rarely, noticable noise artifacts.

Disk is cheap. There's no reason to not rip to a lossless format like flac. Use a redundant disk array and never have to rerip your cd's. IMO the only reason to use a lossy format is for portable device use (limited storage) or transmission (limited bandwidth)

If you're pinching pennies building your media server I would jsut spend that money on music or other upgrades in your audio system until disk storage gets even cheaper.

let me tell you what i learn:


i don't do that.
i learn that mp3 is for internet,divx and now for mobiles where space is the target and quality is in the second place.
mp3 don't sounds good for my taste.

...
wow (i'm reading the "preview post" when was writing this)
here is the real good taste for who want quality
wonderful post ganto


regards for all

I ripped my first CD yesterday from FLACs. So the process I followed was to download FLAC file from www.allofmp3.com and burn them directly to CD using NERO with FLAC -> CDA plugin (so no need to convert to WAV before burning to a CD). When I put that CD on my system it somehow did not sound as good as CD. Maybe psycho acoustics are at play here but I wanted to confirm that this process theoretically should give me the exact performance of a CD right? The other problem is that I don't have any of the downloaded songs on a CD previously to compare.

Am I better off downloading the PCM WAV in some way compared to FLAC? I know the answer technically is "no" but would definitely appreciate a confirmation from someone who has played with this stuff longer than me.

Sincerely,
-dollarman

FLAC is mathematically lossless. You get out, exactly what you put in, like zip.


No.


The answer is unconditionally no, FLAC is mathematically (not psychoacoustically, or perceptually), it is actually lossless.

like stanger89 posted:
is the right answer but how allofm3.com did this flacs(have some informations/logs from the site about this flacs?) and how good is the nero plugin(flac-->cda)?

if you can download PCM WAV maybe will sounds better because you'll need less "steps"(convertions) to burn.

regards.

edit:
from the faqs in allofmp3,seems one cool option:
"There is also an advanced "Online Encoding Exclusive" (OEEX) feature for retaining the original quality of a recording in the following formats: Monkey's Audio, WMA 9 Lossless, FLAC, and OptimFrog. OEEX enables you to encode music using the original audio source a compact disc."

... and what was the intermediate step to get them into FLAC to start with? Again, something like EAC (Exact Audio Copy) will make a bit for bit copy of the CD, then FLAC does it's lossless thing. If a plugin or another format was the intermediate step prior to FLAC then it's quality is likely the culprit as was previously described.

Bryan

Then I have to wonder, again, whether you have ever compared a well-made mp3 fairly to its .wav source in a blind test.

I have encoded all my wife's CDs to VBR (~198 kbps avg) mp3, with LAME, after ripping them with EAC, and then dumped them on her Ipod. I would bet good money that most if not all of the tracks would be audibly indistinguishable from their wav source, in ABX comparisons. A couple of dozen CDs worth and she's still got over 20 Gb left on her 30 Gb toy. of course, if I went with 128 kbps constant bitrate, I could fit far more tracks on there. And guess what, if I kept the same production pipeline (EAC-->LAME) the hit to quality would be relatively small, though more likely to be audible more often.

That's what *I* learned from HA...and from my own comparisons.

[edit]

I see now that you were starting with a flac made by *someone else*. So there's all sorts of reasons it might not 'sound like CD'. You can test someof them by downloading a flac of a song you already have on one of your CDs. Decod ethe flownloaded flac to a .wav file. Then compare the .wavs of the decoded flac, to the wav of the same track, ripped from your CD. Use EAC's wav comparator to see if they're digitally identical.
- If they are, then the 'difference' you heard was probably 'psychoacoustic'.

- If they aren't, try telling them apart in a listening test with ABX software.
----If you can't, then the heard 'difference' was probably 'psychoacoustic'.
----If you can, it was probably due to the real differences between the .wavs.