Lossless Audio
-
- DCEmu Super Fan
- Posts: 2498
- https://www.artistsworkshop.eu/meble-kuchenne-na-wymiar-warszawa-gdzie-zamowic/
- Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 12:11 am
- Location: United States
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Lossless Audio
I'm thinking of re-ripping all of my music when I reformat my computer. Currently, the majority of them are ripped at 320kbps (MP3s) by Windows Media Player. All real CDs, by the way. What's my best option for going lossless? I'm thinking about getting a Zune or some form of Creative player (not an iPod, although I *may* snag one if the price is right). I need the files to be playable by Windows Media Player 11, as well.
Very sexy hero, omg
- Quzar
- Dream Coder
- Posts: 7499
- Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2002 12:14 am
- Location: Miami, FL
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 10 times
- Contact:
I use FLAC when I do lossless, the downside is that it's usually pretty big (usually something between 200 and 300mb for a full CD). I don't think that any of those portable players support it though.
I've also had people tell me about ape, but that also isn't supported by anything that I know of.
Truthfully, unless you're using really good quality playback equipment (when I listen to music I use giant headphones, even for walking around music =P) you won't notice a difference between high quality mp3/ogg/lossyformatX and a lossless format.
I've also had people tell me about ape, but that also isn't supported by anything that I know of.
Truthfully, unless you're using really good quality playback equipment (when I listen to music I use giant headphones, even for walking around music =P) you won't notice a difference between high quality mp3/ogg/lossyformatX and a lossless format.
"When you post fewer lines of text than your signature, consider not posting at all." - A Wise Man
-
- Thomas
- Posts: 2999
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 3:12 pm
- Location: Ohio
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
I also use FLAC for my lossless. The thing i like about FLAC is the cue sheets when ripped with EAC, so oyu can have a perfect carbon copy with gaps and all. I think other lossless formats support cue sheets as well, but flac is the most popular. Flac probably produces the biggest file size for lossless rips. I think if you want the best lossless file size, wavpack is your best bet.
-
- DC Developer
- Posts: 9951
- Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2001 9:02 am
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 1 time
Doesn't matter. You can transcode from any lossless format to any other without quality loss, and to any lossy format you want.
If you actually care about performance, Monkey's Audio (APE) tends to provide the best compression ratio, and highest compression speed. Compression speed might be an issue (FLAC is pretty slow), but the difference it compressed filesize is typically only a few megabytes for an entire album that ends up around 300MB. Hardly worth mentioning really.
In terms of portable MP3 players, you can pretty much forget it. The only two lossless formats playable on any player are FLAC, and Apple Lossless. Apple Lossless is only playable on iPods. FLAC is only playable on a few players nobody has ever heard of, and iRiver and iPods when using the Rockbox firmware. In both cases, you'll drain the battery like crazy because the hard drive will be constantly running. Just use a lossy format at a decent bitrate.
I can't imagine why you'd actually want to use Windows Media Player 11, but you can use this to play Ogg Vorbis, Ogg Speex, Ogg Theora, Ogg FLAC and native FLAC. I don't think you can use it to encode FLAC from Windows Media Player though, so you'll have to use a decent CD ripper. EAC or CDex are both good.
For the few CDs I have, I ripped to FLAC, burned the FLAC files to a DVD-R (you can usually fit something like 14 CDs per DVD), and have Ogg Vorbis versions on my hard drive. Originally, they were encoded with the standard Vorbis encoder, but I re-encoded everything using the aoTuV encoder last time I wiped my hard drive, and I also made lower bitrate versions for a portable MP3 player. Works well if you can be bothered with it.
If you actually care about performance, Monkey's Audio (APE) tends to provide the best compression ratio, and highest compression speed. Compression speed might be an issue (FLAC is pretty slow), but the difference it compressed filesize is typically only a few megabytes for an entire album that ends up around 300MB. Hardly worth mentioning really.
In terms of portable MP3 players, you can pretty much forget it. The only two lossless formats playable on any player are FLAC, and Apple Lossless. Apple Lossless is only playable on iPods. FLAC is only playable on a few players nobody has ever heard of, and iRiver and iPods when using the Rockbox firmware. In both cases, you'll drain the battery like crazy because the hard drive will be constantly running. Just use a lossy format at a decent bitrate.
I can't imagine why you'd actually want to use Windows Media Player 11, but you can use this to play Ogg Vorbis, Ogg Speex, Ogg Theora, Ogg FLAC and native FLAC. I don't think you can use it to encode FLAC from Windows Media Player though, so you'll have to use a decent CD ripper. EAC or CDex are both good.
For the few CDs I have, I ripped to FLAC, burned the FLAC files to a DVD-R (you can usually fit something like 14 CDs per DVD), and have Ogg Vorbis versions on my hard drive. Originally, they were encoded with the standard Vorbis encoder, but I re-encoded everything using the aoTuV encoder last time I wiped my hard drive, and I also made lower bitrate versions for a portable MP3 player. Works well if you can be bothered with it.
-
- DC Developer
- Posts: 9951
- Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2001 9:02 am
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 1 time
Yeah, that would really be a pain. I don't have anywhere near that many CDs, so it only took a day to rip all of mine. Ripping 150 of them would take a long time.Looks like it's rather pointless for me to re-rip 150+ CDs, in that case.
Really? I think it's absolutely hedeous.Oh, and as to why I use WMP11, I like the interface. Although it is a bit buggy occasionally.
My audio > your audio.BlackAura wrote: If you actually care about performance, Monkey's Audio (APE) tends to provide the best compression ratio, and highest compression speed. Compression speed might be an issue (FLAC is pretty slow), but the difference it compressed filesize is typically only a few megabytes for an entire album that ends up around 300MB. Hardly worth mentioning really.
A few fries short of a happy meal.
-
- DCEmu Ex-Mod
- Posts: 4970
- Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2001 3:40 pm
- Location: The Canadian-Mexican border.
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
I think from what i've read that "LA" gives the best compression. But La is closed source, slow, etc. And the gains it gives over FLAC (even at medium compression) are fairly minimal. Probably a few percent, at the most.
I personally like Flac. It seems to have the biggest corporate following (though that's not saying much) and can be quite fast to encode with medium settings. The difference between medium and super-duper high with all the bells and whistles turned on is only a few MB per song. If that. I think one test I did was FLAC q-8 vs. flac q8 with every expensive setting i could find turned on. The compress time was probably 10x longer, but resulted in only about 100k difference.
Most of the lossless codecs (except some fringe ones, or in development ones) are fairly similar in size and quality (duh, lossless.) I'd say just go with the one that has the most features for you. You can always change later with a massive transcode. (whoo, lossless)
Just make sure your source WAV extractions are 100% perfect. That's probably the hardest part.
I personally like Flac. It seems to have the biggest corporate following (though that's not saying much) and can be quite fast to encode with medium settings. The difference between medium and super-duper high with all the bells and whistles turned on is only a few MB per song. If that. I think one test I did was FLAC q-8 vs. flac q8 with every expensive setting i could find turned on. The compress time was probably 10x longer, but resulted in only about 100k difference.
Most of the lossless codecs (except some fringe ones, or in development ones) are fairly similar in size and quality (duh, lossless.) I'd say just go with the one that has the most features for you. You can always change later with a massive transcode. (whoo, lossless)
Just make sure your source WAV extractions are 100% perfect. That's probably the hardest part.
- Disheveled DrFreeze
- DCEmu Mega Fan
- Posts: 2896
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:23 am
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
whats wrong with 320kbps mp3?
not flaming or anything, but with the quality of most portable audio players (and more importantly, headphones) in mind, why bother going lossless? it just doubles your file sizes up
not flaming or anything, but with the quality of most portable audio players (and more importantly, headphones) in mind, why bother going lossless? it just doubles your file sizes up
DrFreeze, thinking outside the box since 1985
DrFreeze, licensed road terror since 2006
DrFreeze, Sun Certified Java Programmer since 2007
DrFreeze, licensed road terror since 2006
DrFreeze, Sun Certified Java Programmer since 2007
- MulletMan13
- DCEmu Ex-Mod
- Posts: 2830
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2001 7:44 pm
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
- Contact:
Archival purposes -- and if you do have a set of headphones where you can tell the difference (mostly clearest in the highs), than you should experience your equipment to its' fullest potential.Disheveled DrFreeze wrote:whats wrong with 320kbps mp3?
not flaming or anything, but with the quality of most portable audio players (and more importantly, headphones) in mind, why bother going lossless? it just doubles your file sizes up
- Disheveled DrFreeze
- DCEmu Mega Fan
- Posts: 2896
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:23 am
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
this might be a stupid idea, but for the archival purpose, how about straight wav (or even a .iso or .bin/cue) and winrarren the stuff with the highest compression?MulletMan13 wrote:Archival purposes -- and if you do have a set of headphones where you can tell the difference (mostly clearest in the highs), than you should experience your equipment to its' fullest potential.Disheveled DrFreeze wrote:whats wrong with 320kbps mp3?
not flaming or anything, but with the quality of most portable audio players (and more importantly, headphones) in mind, why bother going lossless? it just doubles your file sizes up
as for the high quality stuff, that i can understand, but how many people here actually use such a high qual set of earphones (or even a protable player with an apropriate S/N ratio?)
and afaik there is little support for lossless in portables... (my creative only does wav for lossless i think.... doesnt even support ogg)
DrFreeze, thinking outside the box since 1985
DrFreeze, licensed road terror since 2006
DrFreeze, Sun Certified Java Programmer since 2007
DrFreeze, licensed road terror since 2006
DrFreeze, Sun Certified Java Programmer since 2007
- MulletMan13
- DCEmu Ex-Mod
- Posts: 2830
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2001 7:44 pm
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
- Contact:
That is a good idea for archival purposes -- but if you have enough space on your HDDs to keep compressed lossless files, then you might as well make them useful and play them.Disheveled DrFreeze wrote:
this might be a stupid idea, but for the archival purpose, how about straight wav (or even a .iso or .bin/cue) and winrarren the stuff with the highest compression?
as for the high quality stuff, that i can understand, but how many people here actually use such a high qual set of earphones (or even a protable player with an apropriate S/N ratio?)
and afaik there is little support for lossless in portables... (my creative only does wav for lossless i think.... doesnt even support ogg)
About the people with high qual equipment... probably a very small portion. Some people are spec whores and just do it because they want 'the best' even though they can't hear a difference.
There is little support on personal audio players for lossless, but it works for me. I only have my favorite or most dynamic albums ripped in Apple Lossless (songs are about 30mb apiece), and those play fine on my iPod. Granted the battery life is reduced by playing these high bitrate files, but I don't go 10+ hours a day listening to straight lossless files, so it's fine.
I'll probably stick to 192+kbps mp3 for most purposes, but I tend to rerip my favorite albums in apple lossless... I couldn't see myself ripping all my music in that at this point though.
- Quzar
- Dream Coder
- Posts: 7499
- Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2002 12:14 am
- Location: Miami, FL
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 10 times
- Contact:
The point of the audio compression schemes is that they can give higher compression than generic ones. Try raring a wav vs encoding it as flac and you'll see.Disheveled DrFreeze wrote:this might be a stupid idea, but for the archival purpose, how about straight wav (or even a .iso or .bin/cue) and winrarren the stuff with the highest compression?MulletMan13 wrote:Archival purposes -- and if you do have a set of headphones where you can tell the difference (mostly clearest in the highs), than you should experience your equipment to its' fullest potential.Disheveled DrFreeze wrote:whats wrong with 320kbps mp3?
not flaming or anything, but with the quality of most portable audio players (and more importantly, headphones) in mind, why bother going lossless? it just doubles your file sizes up
as for the high quality stuff, that i can understand, but how many people here actually use such a high qual set of earphones (or even a protable player with an apropriate S/N ratio?)
and afaik there is little support for lossless in portables... (my creative only does wav for lossless i think.... doesnt even support ogg)
"When you post fewer lines of text than your signature, consider not posting at all." - A Wise Man
- SuperMegatron
- DCEmu User with No Life
- Posts: 3523
- Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 8:47 pm
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
- az_bont
- Administrator
- Posts: 13567
- Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2002 8:35 am
- Location: Swansea, Wales
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
- Contact:
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php ... comparison
The above is a nice little comparison of all of the mainstream lossless audio codecs, plus a few of the more unpopular ones.
The above is a nice little comparison of all of the mainstream lossless audio codecs, plus a few of the more unpopular ones.
Sick of sub-par Dreamcast web browsers that fail to impress? Visit Psilocybin Dreams!