320kbps vs. lossless

cnjvh

Of course, lossless is better but I'm curious what everyone's personal experience is regarding actually hearing the difference. How many of you feel you can hear the difference between these two bitrates? Is it worth it for a Media Center PC to invest in the extra storage and rip everything lossless?

SolidSqual

Can't hear the difference on my iPod. The difference is clear on my 2-channel system.

cnjvh

What speakers are you running? I've got RTI 12's on the two channel setup.

SolidSqual

Emerald Physics CS2

WilliamM2

Hard drives are cheap these days. I would just get more storage, and rip them in the original format.

SolidSqual

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Hard drives are cheap these days. I would just get more storage, and rip them in the original format.

Lossless is Lossless. Rip it in whatever works best with your player. Apple Lossless is my preference. I got two 1 Terabyte Harddrives, one backing up the other.

heiney9

Yes, I can hear a difference every time. MP3's are not for high fidelity systems. I use 320 kbps for the car and for portables. Anywhere else it sounds pretty poor.

If you have any type of decent home audio system you should be using lossless media on your server.

I take it even a step further and rip using EAC; then FLAC.

H9

heiney9

SolidSqual wrote: »

Lossless is Lossless. Rip it in whatever works best with your player. Apple Lossless is my preference. I got two 1 Terabyte Harddrives, one backing up the other.

Lossless is NOT lossless. You should strive to make bit perfect copies if you really want an EXACT copy.

EAC properly optimized and FLAC will give you bit perfect copies. Then you have to look at how you are distributing the lossless information.

So lossless is not lossless and depending on system configs you can take a lossless file and actually make it sound inferior to the original. That sort of defeats the purpose in the first place.

H9

dudeinaroom

heiney9 wrote: »

Yes, I can hear a difference every time. MP3's are not for high fidelity systems. I use 320 kbps for the car and for portables. Anywhere else it sounds pretty poor.

If you have any type of decent home audio system you should be using lossless media on your server.

I take it even a step further and rip using EAC; then FLAC.

H9

Exactly what he said

later,
dude

cnjvh

OK, no problem to do that for CD's...that's what I'll do.

Now I just need to find a DRM-free lossless online music store...Amazon is DRM free but only 320kbps (site says 256 but you actually get 320).

SolidSqual

heiney9 wrote: »

Lossless is NOT lossless. You should strive to make bit perfect copies if you really want an EXACT copy.

EAC properly optimized and FLAC will give you bit perfect copies. Then you have to look at how you are distributing the lossless information.

So lossless is not lossless and depending on system configs you can take a lossless file and actually make it sound inferior to the original. That sort of defeats the purpose in the first place.

H9

Ok . . . this is right. I stand corrected and do take precautions to make a bit perfect copy.

cnjvh

heiney9 wrote: »

Lossless is NOT lossless. You should strive to make bit perfect copies if you really want an EXACT copy.

EAC properly optimized and FLAC will give you bit perfect copies. Then you have to look at how you are distributing the lossless information.

So lossless is not lossless and depending on system configs you can take a lossless file and actually make it sound inferior to the original. That sort of defeats the purpose in the first place.

H9

What about a .wav file? I need something that will Windows Media player will play as this is all controlled via Media Center

SolidSqual

I use Db Poweramp to rip bit perfect files in Apple Lossless.

rhulett

cnjvh wrote: »

What about a .wav file? I need something that will Windows Media player will play as this is all controlled via Media Center

You will have problems with tags using wav files, and the files will be much larger. I started out using wma lossless, but once I purchased my squeezebox, reripped everything to flac. Another vote for dbpoweramp, very easy to rip flac files with. Worth every penny it costs.
Rob

Sami

cnjvh wrote: »

What about a .wav file? I need something that will Windows Media player will play as this is all controlled via Media Center

FLAC. WMP will play it when you install proper plugin. Not sure if the library will detect those FLAC's correctly though as I do all mine through TVersity to PS3's.

CDEx is free and easy to use, if you're looking for ripper suggestions. Has FLAC option built-in IIRC.

dc55110

Sorry to hijack the thread... Anyone know an "easy" way to covert Apple Lossless to FLAC? Over 35k tracks (just shy of 600GB) into it and I am starting to regret the path I have chosen. I've been ripping at progressively higher bit rates over the past ten years and jumped on Apple Lossless as soon as it came around. I'm noticing that the Itunes error correction doesn't correct errors all that well not that I finally got a Squeezebox.
Am I up **** creek reacquiring all the cd's and reripping years worth of music?

Sami

I think the mentioned dbPowerAmp will do that. Also foobar. And if you have Linux, this script:

#!/bin/bash
#This script requires flac, alac-decoder

for a in *.m4a
do
OUT=$(echo "$a" | sed s/"\.m4a$"/"\.wav"/g)
alac-decoder -v -f "$OUT" "$a" # -v = verbose -f = output to standard .wav
flac --best *.wav
rm *.wav
done

unc2701

heiney9 wrote: »

Lossless is NOT lossless. You should strive to make bit perfect copies if you really want an EXACT copy.

EAC properly optimized and FLAC will give you bit perfect copies. Then you have to look at how you are distributing the lossless information.

I can't speak for ALL lossless formats, but I've gone through the exercise of ripping the same song a few different ways, back converting to wav's, then doing a comparison of the actual sample points and they were identical- occasionally I'd get a few frames more of silence at the beginning or end that I couldn't explain, but after that they were dead on (for as many points I chose to compare - I think I did about first and last 30 seconds). Your mileage may vary- it was all on the same system, so that may play into it.

SolidSqual

MAX is another good program that I'm experimenting with on my Mac.

http://sbooth.org/Max/#screenshots

Sami

unc2701 wrote: »

I can't speak for ALL lossless formats, but I've gone through the exercise of ripping the same song a few different ways, back converting to wav's, then doing a comparison of the actual sample points and they were identical- occasionally I'd get a few frames more of silence at the beginning or end that I couldn't explain, but after that they were dead on (for as many points I chose to compare - I think I did about first and last 30 seconds). Your mileage may vary- it was all on the same system, so that may play into it.

Have you tried ripping it multiple times with the same settings and then running file check sum on them? Unless the ripper inserts tags based on current time and date, the files should have the same check sum if they are identical.

cnjvh

Holy crap you guys werent joking...320 sounds like poo on my system...going lossless in 5..4..3..2..1..

Sami

Sami wrote: »

Have you tried ripping it multiple times with the same settings and then running file check sum on them? Unless the ripper inserts tags based on current time and date, the files should have the same check sum if they are identical.

To answer my own question, I tried this with both CDEx and EAC. Different software's must implement tags and etc differently since check sums were not identical between different rips with different or same CD drives. However, on the same software, all rips were identical between same and different drives.

So, I wouldn't worry about jitter at all since it seems like the copies are bit perfect. Even if someone is a "hardcore purist" who thinks they can hear jitter. If there was any on the drives, it would show up in the end result as bit errors.

olilugo

Guys where can I find more educational information on this subject.

What does 320kbps or lossless mean?
what does FLAC mean? does this only apply to itunes?
where do I start?
I only have regular CD's if I use a rip software(?) what are the different types of formats I can expect?
what can I use in .... yes.... windows? sorry not a Mac user.

On a different note on the unix script what is ALAC decoding? sorry too many questions...

SolidSqual

olilugo wrote: »

Guys where can I find more educational information on this subject.

What does 320kbps or lossless mean?
what does FLAC mean? does this only apply to itunes?
where do I start?
I only have regular CD's if I use a rip software(?) what are the different types of formats I can expect?
what can I use in .... yes.... windows? sorry not a Mac user.

On a different note on the unix script what is ALAC decoding? sorry too many questions...

Do some research. Here are some good places to start for PC users.

http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2007/09/12/pc_audio_101/1

http://www.highcriteria.com/Primer%20PC%20Audio.htm

http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/

cnjvh

Well just to update, I went with Windows Media Lossless, and here's why:

1. I've read all the links provided and agree that the EAC/FLAC option is superior
2. I compared both FLAC and WMA lossless on MY system and while I could hear a difference between MP3 320kbps and WMA lossless, I could not hear a difference between WMA lossless and FLAC.
3. The Windows Media ease of use factor is enormous. Drop in the CD - it finds all the tag information for you, rips the CD and adds it to your library database. Windows Media Center tracks the Window Media Player library perfectly and everything is organized and accessible with my Harmony remote through the Media Center PC. With my time limitations being what they are, this is a HUGE factor for me. I can set up my entire media library while feeding the baby, doing dishes, etc.

I know, I know MSFT is evil and all that but we do what we have to...

Lowell_M

dudeinaroom wrote: »

exactly what he said

later,
dude

+1....

unc2701

Sami wrote: »

To answer my own question, I tried this with both CDEx and EAC. Different software's must implement tags and etc differently since check sums were not identical between different rips with different or same CD drives. However, on the same software, all rips were identical between same and different drives.

So, I wouldn't worry about jitter at all since it seems like the copies are bit perfect. Even if someone is a "hardcore purist" who thinks they can hear jitter. If there was any on the drives, it would show up in the end result as bit errors.

I ran into the same thing, so that's why I used SAS (database and statistical analysis program) to read in the files and convert the sample points into a dataset of values that I could compare. I even did a rip, burn ,re-rip and got the same results.

Sami

olilugo wrote: »

What does 320kbps or lossless mean?

CD Audio is coded in 44.1kHz frequency, with 16bits and 2 channels.

44.1kHz * 16b * 2 = 44.1k / s * 16b * 2 = 1411.2 kb/s

If you convert the CD Audio into mp3 or other lossy format, it will leave out information (bits, 0's and 1's) based on the bit rate you selected. Higher bitrate = better quality sound, but loss of sound nevertheless.

1411.2 kb/s (CD quality) > 320 kb/s (lossy conversion)

Lossless compression preserves all 1411.2 kilobits per second. File size is much larger than mp3 but quality is preserved.

olilugo wrote: »

what does FLAC mean? does this only apply to itunes?

olilugo wrote: »

On a different note on the unix script what is ALAC decoding? sorry too many questions...

FLAC = Free Lossless Audio Codec
ALAC = Apple Lossless Audio Codec

olilugo wrote: »

where do I start?
I only have regular CD's if I use a rip software(?) what are the different types of formats I can expect?
what can I use in .... yes.... windows? sorry not a Mac user.

It depends on how you're going to use the system. I personally would choose FLAC since it is platform independent and thus provides better universal support than proprietary formats like WMA and ALAC.

The easiest way IMO for someone to start would be to download CDEx ripper (<-link to download) which has FLAC builtin and it's easier and faster to use than EAC (built-in FLAC support as well).

Downside to FLAC is that you will have to download plug-ins for WMP and other playback software but the good side is that those plug-ins exist for majority of them and are easy to find.

Face

cnjvh wrote: »

Well just to update, I went with Windows Media Lossless, and here's why:

1. I've read all the links provided and agree that the EAC/FLAC option is superior
2. I compared both FLAC and WMA lossless on MY system and while I could hear a difference between MP3 320kbps and WMA lossless, I could not hear a difference between WMA lossless and FLAC.
3. The Windows Media ease of use factor is enormous. Drop in the CD - it finds all the tag information for you, rips the CD and adds it to your library database. Windows Media Center tracks the Window Media Player library perfectly and everything is organized and accessible with my Harmony remote through the Media Center PC. With my time limitations being what they are, this is a HUGE factor for me. I can set up my entire media library while feeding the baby, doing dishes, etc.

I know, I know MSFT is evil and all that but we do what we have to...

I use the same method, keeps things simple.

mmadden28

What songs are you all using for your '320Kbs sounds like crap' vs lossless vs CD comparisons? What specific parts/playtimes of the song, and what is it that's different sounding or crappy or lost?
I'm assuming you'ree a doing these comparisons on a decent 2 channel setup and not just using simple computer speakers. What about headphones?

Thanks

cnjvh

I used an Evanescence CD and a Rascal Flats CD (to get something cleaner without crunchy guitars).

The AVR is a Denon 3805 and the speakers are RTi12's with 2 SVS PB10's. Speakers are run as small and crossed over at 60.

What's missing is hard to say other than it seems muffled and lifeless compared to the lossless files.