Audiophile questions: CDs, FLACs, PC optical drives

[PostmanPot]

Hi all

Got a few questions:

1) FLAC music one may find on the net can be like 250MB per album (varies). I would imagine there is surely some loss of quality here, seeing as a ±60min CD should be about 700MB?

2) If storage isn't an issue, would one be able to rip a CD at its pure 700MB quality without any detail loss as FLAC? Would other formats need to be sought? Or will there inherently be loss when converting from CD to digital?

3) If so, what are your common PC optical drives like for CD playback? I've got a Sony-Optiarc.

Thanks.

[copacetic]

Hi all

Got a few questions:

1) FLAC music one may find on the net can be like 250MB per album (varies). I would imagine there is surely some loss of quality here, seeing as a ±60min CD should be about 700MB?

2) If storage isn't an issue, would one be able to rip a CD at its pure 700MB quality without any detail loss as FLAC? Would other formats need to be sought? Or will there inherently be loss when converting from CD to digital?

3) If so, what are your common PC optical drives like for CD playback? I've got a Sony-Optiarc.

Thanks.

Why are you assuming that WAV files are the only lossless form of presenting audio data?

Besides, if this is really a concern, then 16 bit 44 KHz sources (CDs) are not the best choice in first place.

[Mike43110]

I'm hot and bothered, excuse the sarcasm

FLAC- Free LOSSLESS Audio Codec

LOSSLESS being no LOSS

The reason it isn't 700MB is twofold: 1. No cd is full 72min 2. Compression similar to .zip is done, which does not affect the sound at all.

If you want it in the exact same format, but lose all tagging, that is what .wav is. wma lossless, apple losless or flac can at least be tagged.

Simply, if you can hear a difference a. you must have an amazing set up b. you must have a pathetic PC that it can't hold a wav file in RAM, which is what happens with lossless codecs, decompressed and converted to analogue.

[PostmanPot]

Why are you assuming that WAV files are the only lossless form of presenting audio data?

Besides, if this is really a concern, then 16 bit 44 KHz sources (CDa) are not the best choice in first place.

I did not realise the 700MB equated to .wav form?

[PostmanPot]

I'm hot and bothered, excuse the sarcasm

FLAC- Free LOSSLESS Audio Codec

LOSSLESS being no LOSS

The reason it isn't 700MB is twofold: 1. No cd is full 72min 2. Compression similar to .zip is done, which does not affect the sound at all.

If you want it in the exact same format, but lose all tagging, that is what .wav is. wma lossless, apple losless or flac can at least be tagged.

Simply, if you can hear a difference a. you must have an amazing set up b. you must have a pathetic PC that it can't hold a wav file in RAM, which is what happens with lossless codecs, decompressed and converted to analogue.

Setup is Asus Xonar Essence STX amplified sound card with Sennheiser HD 650. 8GB RAM. Rest of PC is fine. Not sure whether that is amazing enough, because I'm hearing distortion. I also heard it with my HD 595s. So I blame the certain FLAC files. I would imagine there are different ways of ripping to achieve different file sizes? In which case perhaps that's what the problem is. Unless I'm wrong?

[Messugga]

Yup, FLAC should be fine as far as audio quality goes. There are better media than CD out there providing better sound quality. This is where SACD comes in. If memory serves, BR is also capable of carrying quite a bit better audio quality than CD, but I stand to be corrected on that one.
I'm afraid I'm not that well versed with optical drive technology, so I can't comment on the sound quality being delivered by it. I would think that it shouldn't make a difference seeing as the data is digital.

[PostmanPot]

I would think that it shouldn't make a difference seeing as the data is digital.

My thoughts.

[Messugga]

Setup is Asus Xonar Essence STX amplified sound card with Sennheiser HD 650. 8GB RAM. Rest of PC is fine. Not sure whether that is amazing enough, because I'm hearing distortion. I also heard it with my HD 595s. So I blame the certain FLAC files. I would imagine there are different ways of ripping to achieve different file sizes? In which case perhaps that's what the problem is. Unless I'm wrong?

Nah you're spot on. As with video, there are different methods of encoding. All WAV files aren't even equal either. Completely raw WAVs generated when recording in studio get into the hundreds of MB per track, if not GBs. The trick is to get your hands on these really high quality tracks, which is easier said than done.

Oh, your distortion may be due to your soundcard's powersupply or how its DAC functions. No point in having 24-bit audio if your output device's DAC only supports 12-bit, as an example. Your sound card's firmware may also affect the decoding of the audio and not work perfectly due to the audio format.

[copacetic]

I did not realise the 700MB equated to .wav form?

What Cd's are made of is essentially a 16 bit, 44 KHz WAV file.

*edit*

700 megs is just how much happens to fit on the physical medium of a CD.

[PostmanPot]

Nah you're spot on. As with video, there are different methods of encoding. All WAV files aren't even equal either. Completely raw WAVs generated when recording in studio get into the hundreds of MB per track, if not GBs. The trick is to get your hands on these really high quality tracks, which is easier said than done.

Oh, your distortion may be due to your soundcard's powersupply or how its DAC functions. No point in having 24-bit audio if your output device's DAC only supports 12-bit, as an example. Your sound card's firmware may also affect the decoding of the audio and not work perfectly due to the audio format.

Doubt it's my sound card. As I said, specific tracks/albums only i.e notice slight distortion in the left channel or such, slight distortion of vocals... Then on another album from the same artist, no such thing. I can only put it down to poorly-ripped FLACs.

So my question, would I be able to achieve maximum CD fidelity if ripped to FLAC at its highest quality/size settings?

[copacetic]

Doubt it's my sound card. As I said, specific tracks/albums only i.e notice slight distortion in the left channel or such, slight distortion of vocals... Then on another album from the same artist, no such thing. I can only put it down to poorly-ripped FLACs.

So my question, would I be able to achieve maximum CD fidelity if ripped to FLAC at its highest quality/size settings?


FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec) is a codec (compressor-decompressor) which allows digital audio to be losslessly compressed such that file size is reduced without any information being lost. Digital audio compressed by FLAC's algorithm can typically be reduced to 50–60% of its original size, and decompressed into an identical copy of the original audio data.

It will be identical, bit for bit.

[Deezil]

Basically all tracks (or rather albums) are not created equally which is what it boils down to at the end of the day and why you are hearing distortions where you wouldn't expect.

Have to admit though that on a very high end head-fi setup I couldn't really tell the difference between a FLAC and a 320kps MP3 file so I ended up sticking to MP3 (7-8mb vs 27-30mb does add up after while :))

[copacetic]

Basically all tracks (or rather albums) are not created equally which is what it boils down to at the end of the day and why you are hearing distortions where you wouldn't expect.

Have to admit though that on a very high end head-fi setup I couldn't really tell the difference between a FLAC and a 320kps MP3 file so I ended up sticking to MP3 (7-8mb vs 27-30mb does add up after while :))

I struggle to tell @ 320 myself, but the main point here is that the 1s and 0s streaming off the CD will be IDENTICAL to those streaming off a FLAC rip of the same CD.

[PostmanPot]

It will be identical, bit for bit.

In my example above, I cannot understand how an artist/band could release a CD with distortion in the left channel, or distortion of high vocals. Surely not? Surely therefore the "ripper" (or their settings) is to blame.

I understand that an identical copy could be ripped to 50 - 60% of the original size. Further, my understanding that that could have varying success, depsnding on the ripper.

Yes?

[copacetic]

In my example above, I cannot understand how an artist/band could release a CD with distortion in the left channel, or distortion of high vocals. Surely not? Surely therefore the "ripper" (or their settings) is to blame.

I understand that an identical copy could be ripped to 50 - 60% of the original size. Further, my understanding that that could have varying success, depsnding on the ripper.

Yes?

Look, I don't want to argue with you. The point is that FLAC is a lossless format, end of story. It is identical to the CD, bit for bit.

Check here, this is my DAW's render dialogue:

http://i.imgur.com/tWvav.png

As you can see, the FLAC menu is in terms of encoding speed, not quality, as there are no quality choices to be made, as the encoding is identical to the original source.

There are many other processes that could have been run on those files, such as maximising the audio level, which would then more likely explain any distortion you get. But if you yourself rip something from a CD to FLAC without doing anything else to the file, it will be digitally identical.

[Rkootknir]

A wav file is simply a container for PCM (Pulse-code modulation) data. The size of PCM data depends on three things:

- Sample rate (44.1 kHz for CD)
- Bits per sample (16 for CD)
- Number of channels (2 for CD)

So, a 80min CD will contain 44100 * (16 / 8) * 2 * (80 * 60) = 846 720 000 bytes (807.5 mB) of PCM data. The Wav file header adds a couple of kB to that.

One of the reasons that FLAC can make lossless copies that are half the size of the raw data is that there's usually a lot of duplication between the channels.

[PostmanPot]

But if you yourself rip something from a CD to FLAC without doing anything else to the file, it will be digitally identical.

That's what I wanted to know, because I assume something else has been done resulting in distortion. If I do it myself, I can be assured of an identical copy.

[PostmanPot]

A wav file is simply a container for PCM (Pulse-code modulation) data. The size of PCM data depends on three things:

- Sample rate (44.1 kHz for CD)
- Bits per sample (16 for CD)
- Number of channels (2 for CD)

So, a 80min CD will contain 44100 * (16 / 8) * 2 * (80 * 60) = 846 720 000 bytes (807.5 mB) of PCM data. The Wav file header adds a couple of kB to that.

One of the reasons that FLAC can make lossless copies that are half the size of the raw data is that there's usually a lot of duplication between the channels.

What reasons would lead to there, for example, being distortion in the left channel or distortion of high vocals on one particular FLAC whose source I'm unsure of?

What would you put it down to... Poor production/mastering, or "other processes" having been run on those files by the ripper?

Who is to blame?!

[Messugga]

Easiest would be to put a scope on the output and look in detail at whether there is distortion. It could be many different things, from the sound card, your powersupply, to your headphones. It could be an unhealthy cap that doesn't filter noise properly at certain frequencies. It could be a resistor that's not balancing things out perfectly due to variance in its value. It could be the sound card's firmware.

[Rkootknir]

That's what I wanted to know, because I assume something else has been done resulting in distortion. If I do it myself, I can be assured of an identical copy.Are you sure the distortion isn't in the original? Most of the waveforms in sound recordings these days are compressed to the bleeding edge. Combined with some bad sound engineering this leads to clipping on CDs.

Some of the worst examples of this: Metallica's Death Magnetic and RHCP's Californication. I can't listen to either of these due to the constant clipping.

[Mike43110]

Nah you're spot on. As with video, there are different methods of encoding. All WAV files aren't even equal either. Completely raw WAVs generated when recording in studio get into the hundreds of MB per track, if not GBs. The trick is to get your hands on these really high quality tracks, which is easier said than done.

Oh, your distortion may be due to your soundcard's powersupply or how its DAC functions. No point in having 24-bit audio if your output device's DAC only supports 12-bit, as an example. Your sound card's firmware may also affect the decoding of the audio and not work perfectly due to the audio format.

Sorry, but the 100MB+ 3 minute WAV files are impossible at standard cd quality. Recording WAVs would be massive because of the much higher resolution and frequency width (96kHz 24-bit wav file has more data than 44.1 16-bit) and because of the fact that each instrument is recorded occassionally.

Or, show me an example, if I am wrong it will be intresting to see!

[Hydrofire]

That sound card has an awesome DAC, the 24bit TI Burr-Brown PCM1792A which has a 127SNR.

Like everyone has said, the FLAC should be an exact copy of the WAV that was extracted from the CD. However, that is not to say that the original rip was a perfect representation of the audio on the CD. Ripping is more complex than just copying a file off the CD, and if you do it wrong errors can and do crop up.

Ideally you should be ripping with a tool like Exact Audio Copy, set up to rip securely.

[Mike43110]

What reasons would lead to there, for example, being distortion in the left channel or distortion of high vocals on one particular FLAC whose source I'm unsure of?

What would you put it down to... Poor production/mastering, or "other processes" having been run on those files by the ripper?

Who is to blame?!

Well, I have a ibasso d4 and there is distortion. The issue was simply that the DAC could not handle the gain, solution was a crap one, but try testing it by taking the level in the media player down to say 50% and then push the amps level up to the same point.
Sometimes it might be that the flac is at a higher gain level for some unknown reason.

Test that and come back :) hoping it is simply a source issue, distortion is a bitch.

Forgot to add, unless the source was you, the disc itself could have had issues or the speed of reading may have caused one or two misreads. Though not too sure if that still happens.

[copacetic]

That's what I wanted to know, because I assume something else has been done resulting in distortion. If I do it myself, I can be assured of an identical copy.

Impossible to say, you'd have to ask the person who made the file in the first place.

I was just trying to point out that it's not an issue with FLAC.

[copacetic]

Are you sure the distortion isn't in the original? Most of the waveforms in sound recordings these days are compressed to the bleeding edge. Combined with some bad sound engineering this leads to clipping on CDs.

Some of the worst examples of this: Metallica's Death Magnetic and RHCP's Californication. I can't listen to either of these due to the constant clipping.

Death Magnetic is APPALLING. :wtf:

What was the mastering engineer smoking, I have to wonder.

[copacetic]

Sorry, but the 100MB+ 3 minute WAV files are impossible at standard cd quality. Recording WAVs would be massive because of the much higher resolution and frequency width (96kHz 24-bit wav file has more data than 44.1 16-bit) and because of the fact that each instrument is recorded occassionally.

Or, show me an example, if I am wrong it will be intresting to see!

At standard CD bit depths and sampling rates, the size will always be the same in relation to the length, you are quite right.

[HavocXphere]

In my example above, I cannot understand how an artist/band could release a CD with distortion in the left channel, or distortion of high vocals. Surely not? Surely therefore the "ripper" (or their settings) is to blame.
Neither option can really be eliminated unless you've got access to the CD itself.


I understand that an identical copy could be ripped to 50 - 60% of the original size. Further, my understanding that that could have varying success, depsnding on the ripper.

Yes?
Chances of a defective FLAC ripper are pretty low since its opensourced w/ reference implementation.

To answer the Q. Yes it'll work. 50-60% is a hint optimistic though. You can also look into Apple's lossless format...it was also recently opensourced afaik. I think its called AAC.

[copacetic]

Look, I don't want to argue with you. The point is that FLAC is a lossless format, end of story. It is identical to the CD, bit for bit.

As pointed out, this is not correct, sorry, not all CD drives are created equal, and are prone to potential errors.

Jitter:

http://www.jitter.de/english/what.html


What is Jitter?

Jitter is a kind of vibration - and the thing that vibrates is the time an event happens, that you expect to happen at a specific time.

So, if you have a girlfriend that you expect to see every day after work at 7.00pm you know, what jitter is: Sometimes she comes at 6.30, sometimes at 7.23 and sometimes maybe the next day. The time of arrival of your girlfriend then jitters.

If you then observe these irregularities in arrival time over a longer period, you will learn more about the kind of jitter.

The latest arrival time minus the earliest arrival time during the observed period of time is called the "peak to peak jitter amplitude".

The "jitter-amplitude" is the expected time minus the time of arrival. So jitter-amplitude can have positive (early) or negative (late) values.

You can build the average over a larger number of jitter-amplitues, if you want to know the time your girlfriend may most likely arrive. Then you may see, if the distribution of the arrival-times is completely random (random jitter) or depends on other events (correlated jitter).

Correlated jitter is, when you know that on Thursday she comes later, because she has to look after her mother.

If you got it to this point, you are already an expert concerning jitter.

[nihilist]

Easy way to prove that FLAC is lossless.

Get/make yourself a .FLAC file
1) decompress it to .wav
2) get it's md5sum/crc
3) convert that .wav to a new flac file
4) decompress that one to .wav
5) get that md5sum/crc
6) compare them.

11de3e38fd14e808f7e0d2d760b94761 *testfile1.wav
11de3e38fd14e808f7e0d2d760b94761 *testfile2.wav

In other words, you've transcoded a file from wav, to flac, then to wav, thento flac, then back to wav, if it was not lossless it wouldn't even survive ONE session, let alone 3 :P

[Messugga]

Sorry, but the 100MB+ 3 minute WAV files are impossible at standard cd quality. Recording WAVs would be massive because of the much higher resolution and frequency width (96kHz 24-bit wav file has more data than 44.1 16-bit) and because of the fact that each instrument is recorded occassionally.

Or, show me an example, if I am wrong it will be intresting to see!

I suppose I wasn't clear, but you're agreeing with what I said, which is that CD can't handle that sort of quality, which is where SACD and BR comes in. Even SACD wouldn't do that though.

[copacetic]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhA7Vy3OPbc

[HavocXphere]

As pointed out, this is not correct, sorry, not all CD drives are created equal, and are prone to potential errors.

Jitter:

http://www.jitter.de/english/what.html
^ Wrong kind of jitter.


The first thing to know is that there are two kinds of jitter that relate to audio CDs. The usual meaning of "jitter" refers to a time-base error when digital samples are converted back to an analog signal; see the jitter article on http://www.digido.com/ for an explanation. The other form of "jitter" is used in the context of digital audio extraction from CDs. This kind of "jitter" causes extracted audio samples to be doubled-up or skipped entirely. (Some people will correctly point out that the latter usage is an abuse of the term "jitter", but we seem to be stuck with it.)

http://www.cdrfaq.org/faq02.html#S2-15
http://docs.linn.co.uk/wiki/index.php/CD_Ripping_Terminology#Read_Offset_Jitter

I doubt jitter will be a problem in Postman case. Besides, even free software can compensate for it (CDex & co).

[copacetic]

^ Wrong kind of jitter.

Did you read the whole article? It seems to cover all forms of jitter, and specifically talks about CD jitter. :confused:

*edit*

Before any DA converters I mean, but as your article does correctly point out, this is possibly an abuse of the word, so I concede.

I don't think this is OP's issue, btw.

[PostmanPot]

Thanks for the responses all. I initially thought there would be varying degrees of lossless-ness, but now I understand that lossless pretty much denotes there is no room for error. Sorry if I don't reply individually but I value all your input and feel the cat's in the bag.

Which leads me to asking, so you guys would definitely recommend FLAC or AAC for ripping CDs to PC?

OP's interest complete, interest now lies in others' interests so please go ahead. It's all relative.

[Deezil]

Which leads me to asking, so you guys would definitely recommend FLAC or AAC for ripping CDs to PC?

If you have a high-end source and audiophile-class headphones and space isn't an issue then absolutely yes ... otherwise stick with high bit rate mp3's but obviously that is just my opinion

[PostmanPot]

Neither option can really be eliminated unless you've got access to the CD itself.

Agreed.

So I checked YouTube for the HD version of the song (likely lossless AFAIK?) and there is no distortion in the left channel, and hardly any with high vocals...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mf7UqPMfHjY

[PostmanPot]

If you have a high-end source and audiophile-class headphones and space isn't an issue then absolutely yes ... otherwise stick with high bit rate mp3's but obviously that is just my opinion

Cool. Agreed, mp3s are good enough if done properly. I guess there's more room for error there than FLAC/lossless. :)

[b1scu1t]

Death Magnetic is APPALLING. :wtf:

What was the mastering engineer smoking, I have to wonder.

Actually it's that idiot producer Rick Rubin's fault. he said something like it adds a nice grit and attitude to the music. WTF
I have NEVER listened through an entire song on that album. Maybe not even half way through a song.
To be honest, I haven't even listened to every song. I think I heard only about half the songs and was to irritated with the sound to listen to the rest.

Read a quote by the mastering engineer of Death Magnetic where he said he feels ashamed to have been associated with that album.

[copacetic]

Agreed.

So I checked YouTube for the HD version of the song (likely lossless AFAIK?) and there is no distortion in the left channel, and hardly any with high vocals...

I'm not certain, but I very much doubt that HD Youtube videos have lossless audio.

*edit*

Reading up, it looks like the audio is probably @ 128 kbps.

[copacetic]

Actually it's that idiot producer Rick Rubin's fault. he said something like it adds a nice grit and attitude to the music. WTF
I have NEVER listened through an entire song on that album. Maybe not even half way through a song.
To be honest, I haven't even listened to every song. I think I heard only about half the songs and was to irritated with the sound to listen to the rest.

Read a quote by the mastering engineer of Death Magnetic where he said he feels ashamed to have been associated with that album.

Lol, fair enough.

The poor mastering engineer must have then been cursing Rick Rubin when he was trying to master it, shame.

[copacetic]

Cool. Agreed, mp3s are good enough if done properly. I guess there's more room for error there than FLAC/lossless. :)

I'd totally recommend lossless, if you have a choice. That vid I posted earlier will explain why, although most of it is gibberish to me, it makes some scary points about how we listen to music these days.

[copacetic]

Thanks for the responses all. I initially thought there would be varying degrees of lossless-ness, but now I understand that lossless pretty much denotes there is no room for error. Sorry if I don't reply individually but I value all your input and feel the cat's in the bag.

Which leads me to asking, so you guys would definitely recommend FLAC or AAC for ripping CDs to PC?

OP's interest complete, interest now lies in others' interests so please go ahead. It's all relative.

Can't see any issue with using FLAC if you are ripping, it's what I would do.

[PostmanPot]

I'm not certain, but I very much doubt that HD Youtube videos have lossless audio.

*edit*

Reading up, it looks like the audio is probably @ 128 kbps.

:/

Hmmm, that's left me a bit baffled. I would think HD songs on YouTube would load fast then. :) I got the impression it was higher quality.

[copacetic]

:/

Hmmm, that's left me a bit baffled. I would think HD songs on YouTube would load fast then. :) I got the impression it was higher quality.

That's just the impression I got from reading up. I'll download one later, and see what the audio stream is at.

[ponder]

I've come across some youtube vids where the uploader labelled them has HQ sound and they really do sound better than the other videos. No ideas how they do it though.

Edit: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=HQ+Sound

[Rouxenator]

I have a pair of Sennheiser HD-437s and for the life of me I could not tell the difference between high quality VBR MP3s and FLAC. In the end I just used EAC and ripped all my CDs to MP3.

[PostmanPot]

I have a pair of Sennheiser HD-437s and for the life of me I could not tell the difference between high quality VBR MP3s and FLAC. In the end I just used EAC and ripped all my CDs to MP3.

That's low end stuff, plus you haven't mentioned sound card so one can only assume you use onboard... Nor music types...

[Rouxenator]

Well they haven't let me down in the past 9 years since I got them, don't see why I should get something else.

Of course I am using onboard, what kind of idiot pays for a sound card these days :) Last time I paid money for a sound card was when they still made ISA card. The only way to hear the difference between onboard and something else when you shake your wallet.

[copacetic]

Well they haven't let me down in the past 9 years since I got them, don't see why I should get something else.

Of course I am using onboard, what kind of idiot pays for a sound card these days :) Last time I paid money for a sound card was when they still made ISA card. The only way to hear the difference between onboard and something else when you shake your wallet.

A high grade soundcard, with professional DACs is going to kick the ass of most onboard cards, without a doubt.

I have HD202's which are essentially identical to yours, and they are good, but not up there with audiophile quality.

*edit*

I agree though, in that it's very hard for the average person to tell the difference between an FLAC, and a high kbps MP3. I can't really tell, on my system, but I'm pretty blase when it comes to sound...

[PostmanPot]

Well they haven't let me down in the past 9 years since I got them, don't see why I should get something else.

Of course I am using onboard, what kind of idiot pays for a sound card these days :) Last time I paid money for a sound card was when they still made ISA card. The only way to hear the difference between onboard and something else when you shake your wallet.

Lol, ignorance is bliss.

[Rouxenator]

I can't believe the HD202s are so pricey! When I bought my HD437s in 2003 they set me back about R200 and I thought I would never pay that much for headphones again, felt like I was being ripped off. Then again, all I want is good, clear audio that the neighbors won't complain about - my Realtek ALC 892 and trusty old Sennheiser do just that ;)

Soundcard wars remind me of my highschool days. I never could understand why my one buddy spent thousands on a Gravis Ultrasound when my fairly cheap ESS sounded just as good (except for the FM synthesis).

[PostmanPot]

Thread derailed with bs.

[Rouxenator]

Actually no, the point I am trying to make is MP3 is good enough, as is most other mainstream audio solutions.

[Messugga]

Actually no, the point I am trying to make is MP3 is good enough, as is most other mainstream audio solutions.

No, that's based on YOUR very lacking experience. That doesn't make it the truth. Run along now and keep your nose out of things you know nothing about. Someone in the car section said something about Volkswagens being better than Opel. Off with you.

[Rouxenator]

So you buy all your music on SACD and do not believe in lossy formats at all? I mean seriously, can you tell the difference? Just curious...

[Messugga]

So you buy all your music on SACD and do not believe in lossy formats at all? I mean seriously, can you tell the difference? Just curious...

Pretty much everything I have is lossless. High bitrate MP3 is pretty close to lossless on my equipment, but even 256kbps sounds pretty crap on my gear compared to the lossless stuff.

[PostmanPot]

Pretty much everything I have is lossless. High bitrate MP3 is pretty close to lossless on my equipment, but even 256kbps sounds pretty crap on my gear compared to the lossless stuff.

Don't even get me started on VBR...

[Rouxenator]

OK, fair enough, but what do you use to compare? Is there a specific type of music that is very sensitive to the compression methods of MP3? I mean, surely there must be some kind of sound that is more prone to compression artifacts than others?

Personally I can hear the difference between 128kbps and 256kbps but only when I listen to rock and pay close attention to percussion sounds. Then again, it is not that big a difference and the sound is still of acceptable and enjoyable quality.

Not trying to troll here, I just really would like to know what makes some people prefer lossless over lossy.

[PostmanPot]

OK, fair enough, but what do you use to compare? Is there a specific type of music that is very sensitive to the compression methods of MP3? I mean, surely there must be some kind of sound that is more prone to compression artifacts than others?

Personally I can hear the difference between 128kbps and 256kbps but only when I listen to rock and pay close attention to percussion sounds. Then again, it is not that big a difference and the sound is still of acceptable and enjoyable quality.

Not trying to troll here, I just really would like to know what makes some people prefer lossless over lossy.

Firstly you should get decent headphones and a sound card with amplification if needed.

You're being analytical with entry level headphones with onboard crap... Laughable!

[Rouxenator]

Firstly you should get decent headphones and a sound card with amplification if needed.

You're being analytical with entry level headphones with onboard crap... Laughable!
Look no offense and I should probably added this in my previous post, but I have no respect for so called audiophiles, videophiles or people that consider themselves connoisseurs of the AV world. Its nothing but snobbery and it has absolutely no concrete or technical backing that can help others.

So maybe with that in mind you can take another look at my last post? What music is less MP3 friendly?

[Messugga]

OK, fair enough, but what do you use to compare? Is there a specific type of music that is very sensitive to the compression methods of MP3? I mean, surely there must be some kind of sound that is more prone to compression artifacts than others?

Personally I can hear the difference between 128kbps and 256kbps but only when I listen to rock and pay close attention to percussion sounds. Then again, it is not that big a difference and the sound is still of acceptable and enjoyable quality.

Not trying to troll here, I just really would like to know what makes some people prefer lossless over lossy.

When I got my first set of Grado headphones to replace my HD437s a few years ago, I was pretty amazed at how much I was missing out on. There's just so much going on that you don't hear with lower quality headphones. Hell, in one song, I could even hear a studio door closing or something being knocked over - not sure which.
It's a bit like trying to explain to someone who is colourblind, what a colour looks like that they aren't able to see. You don't have a point of reference to compare with really. If you're truly curious, give a proper setup a listen to and judge for yourself whether it's worth it or not.
For the record, I listen to rock and metal mostly and generally, production quality's high enough to warrant a good setup. Classical music is also very popular amongst audiophiles, though I can't say that I personally enjoy it too much.

[copacetic]

Actually no, the point I am trying to make is MP3 is good enough, as is most other mainstream audio solutions.

Watch the youtube video I linked to earlier, and come back with the same story. :D

[copacetic]

OK, fair enough, but what do you use to compare? Is there a specific type of music that is very sensitive to the compression methods of MP3? I mean, surely there must be some kind of sound that is more prone to compression artifacts than others?

Personally I can hear the difference between 128kbps and 256kbps but only when I listen to rock and pay close attention to percussion sounds. Then again, it is not that big a difference and the sound is still of acceptable and enjoyable quality.

Not trying to troll here, I just really would like to know what makes some people prefer lossless over lossy.

128 kbps is SHOCKING, AWFUL and REVOLTING. I don't know how people can listen to it at all. :sick:

As for why lossless is preferred over lossy, well that's patently obvious. The point is, lossy implies that something is missing, which is going to be detrimental to the music, guaranteed, it's just a question of how perceptible/measurable it is.

Why would any rational person choose this, if given a choice?

[copacetic]

Look no offense and I should probably added this in my previous post, but I have no respect for so called audiophiles, videophiles or people that consider themselves connoisseurs of the AV world. Its nothing but snobbery and it has absolutely no concrete or technical backing that can help others.

So maybe with that in mind you can take another look at my last post? What music is less MP3 friendly?

While the term audiophile is fraught with pretentious connotation, there is much with regard to the technical aspect of music that is very important when it comes to our experience of it, from the performance, through recording and into the playback chain.

If we eschewed 'audiophile' grade expertise and equipment, the overall experience would be degraded very noticeably.

[Rouxenator]

Ok, makes sense I guess, seems like the lower tech you go the less fidelity you have for high frequency stuff - especially classic music. Maybe I'll get myself some Grados - any chance of them having stuff that are less than R1k?

On the topic of archiving music, isn't AAC better than MP3? Considering it is a more modern compression format it surly uses more advanced forms of lossy compression?

[copacetic]

Ok, makes sense I guess, seems like the lower tech you go the less fidelity you have for high frequency stuff - especially classic music. Maybe I'll get myself some Grados - any chance of them having stuff that are less than R1k?

On the topic of archiving music, isn't AAC better than MP3? Considering it is a more modern compression format it surly uses more advanced forms of lossy compression?

No idea about AAC, I'm sure there are thousands of nerd fights you could find about it though. :p

For archiving purposes, it makes no sense to me, other than to use lossless, for me personally.

[Rouxenator]

I can live with lossy because there are some things I do not need to (or cannot) hear so not having it stored is no real loss to me. Same goes for photos, I don't care if it is a jpg because I am not going to look at the image on a 1:1 scale and see funny artifacts in the background.

However I have started to think about new head phones if it means I will get a "bigger range" of sound out of it. Maybe there is more to the music I listen to and it could be worth spending some money to get that. On the other hand, most of it is 192 ~ 256 kbps so I am not sure if fancier headphones will help.

[copacetic]

I can live with lossy because there are some things I do not need to (or cannot) hear so not having it stored is no real loss to me. Same goes for photos, I don't care if it is a jpg because I am not going to look at the image on a 1:1 scale and see funny artifacts in the background.

However I have started to think about new head phones if it means I will get a "bigger range" of sound out of it. Maybe there is more to the music I listen to and it could be worth spending some money to get that. On the other hand, most of it is 192 ~ 256 kbps so I am not sure if fancier headphones will help.

What fancier headphones will do, with lower grade source material, is likely make it sound worse. :D

[PostmanPot]

Re "audiophile" - Roux I upgraded from Sennheiser HD595 to HD650 thinking the difference in sound quality would be average considering I'd already spent 2.5k on the 595. How wrong I was! Now the HD800 are 3 times the price of the 650s... Wonder how much better they sound. ;)

[Messugga]

Ok, makes sense I guess, seems like the lower tech you go the less fidelity you have for high frequency stuff - especially classic music. Maybe I'll get myself some Grados - any chance of them having stuff that are less than R1k?

Alessandro MS-1 (http://www.alessandro-products.com/headphones.html) are factory-modified Grado SR-60's or 80's. Can't remember which one. You buy direct from the manufacturer and they offer free international shipping. $99, so knock yourself out. They don't SEEM like much, but they're pretty damn nice and difficult to beat when it comes to getting value for your money.

[PostmanPot]

Ok, makes sense I guess, seems like the lower tech you go the less fidelity you have for high frequency stuff - especially classic music. Maybe I'll get myself some Grados - any chance of them having stuff that are less than R1k?

Also look at Goldring DR150 - £30 from Superfi, think you can get them via Amazon with shipping and what not. By far the best value headphones on the market from what I've read, and hearing them myself confirms how good they are. They rival Sennie HD555 at around £100.

http://www.superfi.co.uk/p-3869-goldring-dr150-headphones.aspx

[Happy Camper]

Flacs are lossless.

[copacetic]

Flacs are lossless.

We have established this. :D

[PostmanPot]

:D

But, things unbeknownst can be done to them post rip to reduce their quality to lossy mp3 level...

[copacetic]

:D

But, things unbeknownst can be done to them post rip to reduce their quality to lossy mp3 level...

To reduce their quality, lossy formats will have specific areas where they are degraded. Your issue was distortion iirc, so, some sort of 'making it louder' process was probably applied.

[paddy_za]

Goldring GR 150's FTW!

[xrapidx]

Quick question - what can you use for FLAC tagging in Windowz?

[Dolby]

but I have no respect for so called audiophiles, videophiles or people that consider themselves connoisseurs of the AV world

Guess you haven't heard decent sound, eh?

Not a put down at all - I just think you wouldn't feel that way if you've heard anything remotely decent

[Rouxenator]

Decent is a word, not a value. I have heard some pretty bad sounding setups and also some pretty good ones. Personally I believe you can spend 20% the money of a super top end audiophile solution and still get 80% of the sound quality.

The other 20% are the bits that aren't really that important and got lost via lossy compression anyway :p

[Dolby]

I'm not being funny at all - but maybe go listen to a quality setup :/

I once believed the same thing, until I started trawling trade shows and hanging around the demo rooms of some hifi shops. There's not a snowballs chance in hell that a (using your percentages) R20,000.00 system will yield results anywhere near a R100,000.00 system - let alone 80% of the sound

[PostmanPot]

Decent is a word, not a value. I have heard some pretty bad sounding setups and also some pretty good ones. Personally I believe you can spend 20% the money of a super top end audiophile solution and still get 80% of the sound quality.

The other 20% are the bits that aren't really that important and got lost via lossy compression anyway :p

This here is a problem. We already proved you otherwise, but you maintain the same argument from ignorance as when you entered the discussion... :/

[xrapidx]

I'm not being funny at all - but maybe go listen to a quality setup :/

I once believed the same thing, until I started trawling trade shows and hanging around the demo rooms of some hifi shops. There's not a snowballs chance in hell that a (using your percentages) R20,000.00 system will yield results anywhere near a R100,000.00 system - let alone 80% of the sound

I could hear the difference immediately between my current setup and the ****ty Sony 7.2 system I had the unfortunate displeasure of owning - what a piece of **** in comparison.

[Rouxenator]

You might hear a difference - yes - but is it worth the exponential increase in price?

I had some pretty crap headphones in my life, and dodgy speakers to, they usually sell for half the price of what I consider to be good enough. For example, R200 digitech headphones VS R400 sennheisers, but beyond that you are looking at quadrupling the price to get to something better that you might not notice all the time.

Its the same attitude I have about lossy VS lossless. Sure some stuff gets discarded and there is some bits "lost" but if you look at the file size difference and the compatibility of the format plus the fact that you might not even have heard those missing bits anyway... you see where I am going with this?

[xrapidx]

Price is relative - for some the difference between R400 - and R1000 isn't much... for me the difference in price between my current system and my sony system wasn't a back breaker, and the difference in quality is well worth it.

Once you get used to a good system its also difficult listening on a crap system - I can clearly hear ever little detail in my listening lounge - in the other lounge you struggle...

Although on some music the difference between MP3 and FLAC is pointless... hence only the stuff I really enjoy and can notice the loss in quality do I put in FLAC.

[Rouxenator]

Very true - and it also depends what type of listening you do. I hate music at loud volume when you can almost feel the bass traveling to the neighbors three houses from you. Other might spends thousands on sound proofing a room to prevent that while still enjoying music at a very loud volume on expensive system capable of producing excellent quality at that volume. As you said, price is retaliative to the application you have - so the same can be said for digital music formats I suppose.

For me headphones are perfect and I have sort of been swinged toward forking out what I consider to be a crap load of money (R1k) for a decent set. Perhaps then I will be kicking my own ass because I foolhardily stuck with 256kbps MP3 all this time :p

[Dolby]

The marginal difference for the extra price occurs at the higher end of the spectrum - I'd guess once you get to 40,000+ the differences are smaller ... And then you'll have to decide yourself what you feel its worth.

Even then, your 80/20 doesn't apply until you're at 100,000+ or something silly

[xrapidx]

Very true - and it also depends what type of listening you do. I hate music at loud volume when you can almost feel the bass traveling to the neighbors three houses from you. Other might spends thousands on sound proofing a room to prevent that while still enjoying music at a very loud volume on expensive system capable of producing excellent quality at that volume. As you said, price is retaliative to the application you have - so the same can be said for digital music formats I suppose.

For me headphones are perfect and I have sort of been swinged toward forking out what I consider to be a crap load of money (R1k) for a decent set. Perhaps then I will be kicking my own ass because I foolhardily stuck with 256kbps MP3 all this time :p

Now you just need a decent headphone amp or two...

[Rouxenator]

:D fat chance of that happening. My sub R1k Asus motherboard drives my HD 437s to a very high volume and there is no distortion.

[xrapidx]

Its not just about volumes though... I've heard cheaper speakers than mine sounding way better when powered properly.

(was actually disappointing.. but at the moment I can't afford the amp I want :()

[PostmanPot]

Its not just about volumes though... I've heard cheaper speakers than mine sounding way better when powered properly.

(was actually disappointing.. but at the moment I can't afford the amp I want :()

True, most/all headphones benefit from some amplification.