Lossless music: formats, software, players: info needed please

[mongers]

*sigh* See it's time for my semi-annual smackdown of lossless fucktardism.

First off, if you rip lossless from CD, you deserve everything you get.  CDs are sampled at 128kbps, which is actually a fairly low bitrate.  Most CD players use proprietary oversampling algorithms to fill in likely missing frequencies (so the difference in what you're hearing is literally completely generated by the CD player). 
.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_rate#CD-DA

CD-DA[edit]

CD-DA, the standard audio CD, is said to have a data rate of 44.1 kHz/16, meaning that the audio data was sampled 44,100 times per second and with a bit depth of 16. CD-DA is also stereo, using a left and right channel, so the amount of audio data per second is double that of mono, where only a single channel is used.

The bit rate of PCM audio data can be calculated with the following formula:



For example, the bit rate of a CD-DA recording (44.1 kHz sampling rate, 16 bits per sample and 2 channels) can be calculated as follows:



The cumulative size of a length of PCM audio data (excluding a file header or other metadata) can be calculated using the following formula:



The cumulative size in bytes can be found by dividing the file size in bits by the number of bits in a byte, which is 8:



Therefore, 80 minutes (4,800 seconds) of CD-DA data requires 846,720,000 bytes of storage



MP3[edit]

The MP3 audio format lossy data compression. Audio quality improves with increasing bitrate:
32 kbit/s – generally acceptable only for speech
96 kbit/s – generally used for speech or low-quality streaming
128 or 160 kbit/s – mid-range bitrate quality
192 kbit/s – a commonly used high-quality bitrate
320 kbit/s – highest level supported by MP3 standard

.......

[The Minsky Moment]

DSB is partly right, partly wrong:

First off, if you rip lossless from CD, you deserve everything you get.  CDs are sampled at 128kbps, which is actually a fairly low bitrate

This is just wrong.  The sample rate for CD is 44.1khz with a bit depth of 16, with 2 channels that translates into a bitrate equivalent of 1411 kbps.  That is why lossless is 1411 kbps  - it is the same as original CD.

Now there can be all sorts of compromises made in making the CD recording that could impact audio quality.  But once the CD is made you can only go downhill from there.  Lossless will give you an exact copy of what is on the CD.  Any lossy compression involves starting from there and losing information.

Those "missing frequencies" that make a 320kbps a "lossy" file format?  They're only audible to dogs.  If someone says they can hear the difference between a 320 and lossless, they're lying or dealing with the occasional auditory illusion.  No exceptions- do a blind listening test, and they'll fail 90% of the time (luck does net a few people wins through guessing).

That's true.  A while ago I did one of those ABX tests and could not tell the difference with any consistency down at 160, using pretty decent equipment.  The compression algorithms have probably improved since then.   At 320 there is no way anyone can tell the difference.

That said, it still makes sense to archive a CD to lossless because it gives transposing flexibility.  Its one thing to have a 320 kbps track.  But if you transcode (say from AAC to MP3 or other way around) you lose additional information.  I.e. doing a 320 encode of a 320 encode is not the same as a 320 encode of an original file.  It is more like 160, and it keeps degrading from there is you transcode further.

I do think that as streaming becomes the dominant mode for listening, as Moore's law keeps doubling storage capabilities and lowering costs and as wireless bandwidth expands to deal with HD video, we will see more lossless streaming because there won't be any need or value to compressing audio anymore.  But were are not there yet.

[The Minsky Moment]

I see mongers pre-emptied me on the math, with chapter and verse.   

[CountDeMoney]

DSB is partly right, partly wrong:

First off, if you rip lossless from CD, you deserve everything you get.  CDs are sampled at 128kbps, which is actually a fairly low bitrate

This is just wrong.  The sample rate for CD is 44.1khz with a bit depth of 16, with 2 channels that translates into a bitrate equivalent of 1411 kbps.  That is why lossless is 1411 kbps  - it is the same as original CD.

Now there can be all sorts of compromises made in making the CD recording that could impact audio quality.  But once the CD is made you can only go downhill from there.  Lossless will give you an exact copy of what is on the CD.  Any lossy compression involves starting from there and losing information.

Does it matter when the CD was made?  I have CDs from the late 80s-early 90s that do not have the same audio quality as ones made within the last few years, as if there's a drop in the sampling.

[mongers]

DSB is partly right, partly wrong:

First off, if you rip lossless from CD, you deserve everything you get.  CDs are sampled at 128kbps, which is actually a fairly low bitrate

This is just wrong.  The sample rate for CD is 44.1khz with a bit depth of 16, with 2 channels that translates into a bitrate equivalent of 1411 kbps.  That is why lossless is 1411 kbps  - it is the same as original CD.

Now there can be all sorts of compromises made in making the CD recording that could impact audio quality.  But once the CD is made you can only go downhill from there.  Lossless will give you an exact copy of what is on the CD.  Any lossy compression involves starting from there and losing information.

Does it matter when the CD was made?  I have CDs from the late 80s-early 90s that do not have the same audio quality as ones made within the last few years, as if there's a drop in the sampling.

I guess it depends on how you define audio quality? Some modern remasterings are rather good, especially if done by the original band members or producers, I guess they're the only ones who can rightfully claim "this record is nearer to how we wanted it to sound".

On the other hand there are remasters or new copies released, were the original artist has had no influence on the re-release, the record company have maxed out the loudness on all tracks, compressed the dynamic range and general trashed the record. 

I've more than a few records that were mixed when the bands were out of it on a cocktail of drugs, and guess what it sounds like it, muffled, poorly recorded, low levels, distortion etc.  But yet again perhaps that's part of the 'vision' thing.

When these artists come back 20-30 years later to try and getter a better remastering together and earn some pension, they're gonna be starting with rather inferior masters and that's assuming someone can even find them. I've heard and even bought 'remastering' that have come from a vinyl source.

Besides, as Captain Carrot implied, it's all rather subjective and your old tired vinyl may be nearer to the experience you want to re-created 20 years later and it might just be the sort of oddly compressed sound the original musicians aimed for?   

[DontSayBanana]

back in the early days of CD, there were often 3 letters on the back of the CD, AAD, ADD or DDD, wich, IIRC, meant that it was recorded in analog/digital, resampled in a/d and played digitally.  I don't see this anymore, but does it have any meaning on the quality of the CD?

No, all commercial audio CDs are encoded to the Red Book standard, which I misstated as 128kbps, it's actually 172KBps.  Recordable CDs are encoded to the Orange Book standard (Yellow Book is a data CD, and orange = red + yellow).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Disc_Digital_Audio

[Ed Anger]

I miss 8 tracks dammit.

[CountDeMoney]

DSB is partly right, partly wrong:

First off, if you rip lossless from CD, you deserve everything you get.  CDs are sampled at 128kbps, which is actually a fairly low bitrate

This is just wrong.  The sample rate for CD is 44.1khz with a bit depth of 16, with 2 channels that translates into a bitrate equivalent of 1411 kbps.  That is why lossless is 1411 kbps  - it is the same as original CD.

Now there can be all sorts of compromises made in making the CD recording that could impact audio quality.  But once the CD is made you can only go downhill from there.  Lossless will give you an exact copy of what is on the CD.  Any lossy compression involves starting from there and losing information.

Does it matter when the CD was made?  I have CDs from the late 80s-early 90s that do not have the same audio quality as ones made within the last few years, as if there's a drop in the sampling.

I guess it depends on how you define audio quality? Some modern remasterings are rather good, especially if done by the original band members or producers, I guess they're the only ones who can rightfully claim "this record is nearer to how we wanted it to sound".

On the other hand there are remasters or new copies released, were the original artist has had no influence on the re-release, the record company have maxed out the loudness on all tracks, compressed the dynamic range and general trashed the record. 

It's weird, since some of those older CDs sound more dynamic in range than more recent CDs.  But like you said, maybe the artist was aiming for that.

[Gups]

Anyone tried lossless streaming yet (e.g Tidal?)

Nope, primarily as I'm not keen on an always on internet connection and prefer a sneakernet or explicit mp3/music players that I can load flacs/mp3 for specific events/travel. 

Though I really should sort out some low power media server/network devices for the house, any suggestions?

All the steaming services let you download tracks and play them offline.

I use Sonos. It's great but v.expensive.

[Monoriu]

I am not convined that the so called high definition tracks are really worth it. 

[Duque de Bragança]

back in the early days of CD, there were often 3 letters on the back of the CD, AAD, ADD or DDD, wich, IIRC, meant that it was recorded in analog/digital, resampled in a/d and played digitally.  I don't see this anymore, but does it have any meaning on the quality of the CD?

Yep.
If it's AAD or possibly even ADD, you're better off listening it to a (good) vinyl. There are other factors as well.

Try listening to an old Metallica vinyl such as Kill'em All on vinyl and cd (not even remastered on CD IIRC) to hear what I'm talking about.
Problem is, for Metallica and other bands, while they have the money to be Deutsche Grammophon, they cling on to retro analog album recording techniques to stay "true" then the final digital product has to be aggressively compressed, along with the loudness referenced by Mongers because the marketing types say the kids like it, so you get an album like Death Magnetic which sounds better on Guitar Hero than on the original CD.

[DontSayBanana]

DSB is partly right, partly wrong:

First off, if you rip lossless from CD, you deserve everything you get.  CDs are sampled at 128kbps, which is actually a fairly low bitrate

This is just wrong.  The sample rate for CD is 44.1khz with a bit depth of 16, with 2 channels that translates into a bitrate equivalent of 1411 kbps.  That is why lossless is 1411 kbps  - it is the same as original CD.

Now there can be all sorts of compromises made in making the CD recording that could impact audio quality.  But once the CD is made you can only go downhill from there.  Lossless will give you an exact copy of what is on the CD.  Any lossy compression involves starting from there and losing information.

Those "missing frequencies" that make a 320kbps a "lossy" file format?  They're only audible to dogs.  If someone says they can hear the difference between a 320 and lossless, they're lying or dealing with the occasional auditory illusion.  No exceptions- do a blind listening test, and they'll fail 90% of the time (luck does net a few people wins through guessing).

That's true.  A while ago I did one of those ABX tests and could not tell the difference with any consistency down at 160, using pretty decent equipment.  The compression algorithms have probably improved since then.   At 320 there is no way anyone can tell the difference.

That said, it still makes sense to archive a CD to lossless because it gives transposing flexibility.  Its one thing to have a 320 kbps track.  But if you transcode (say from AAC to MP3 or other way around) you lose additional information.  I.e. doing a 320 encode of a 320 encode is not the same as a 320 encode of an original file.  It is more like 160, and it keeps degrading from there is you transcode further.

I do think that as streaming becomes the dominant mode for listening, as Moore's law keeps doubling storage capabilities and lowering costs and as wireless bandwidth expands to deal with HD video, we will see more lossless streaming because there won't be any need or value to compressing audio anymore.  But were are not there yet.

DSB is partly right, partly wrong:

First off, if you rip lossless from CD, you deserve everything you get.  CDs are sampled at 128kbps, which is actually a fairly low bitrate

This is just wrong.  The sample rate for CD is 44.1khz with a bit depth of 16, with 2 channels that translates into a bitrate equivalent of 1411 kbps.  That is why lossless is 1411 kbps  - it is the same as original CD.

Now there can be all sorts of compromises made in making the CD recording that could impact audio quality.  But once the CD is made you can only go downhill from there.  Lossless will give you an exact copy of what is on the CD.  Any lossy compression involves starting from there and losing information.

Does it matter when the CD was made?  I have CDs from the late 80s-early 90s that do not have the same audio quality as ones made within the last few years, as if there's a drop in the sampling.

I guess it depends on how you define audio quality? Some modern remasterings are rather good, especially if done by the original band members or producers, I guess they're the only ones who can rightfully claim "this record is nearer to how we wanted it to sound".

On the other hand there are remasters or new copies released, were the original artist has had no influence on the re-release, the record company have maxed out the loudness on all tracks, compressed the dynamic range and general trashed the record. 

It's weird, since some of those older CDs sound more dynamic in range than more recent CDs.  But like you said, maybe the artist was aiming for that.

Corrected for bitrate (still a disparity because I put it in KBps instead of kbps, comes out to 1375kbps, so I'll grant you the higher bitrate).

AAD is the closest you're going to get to vinyl, since there's no compression until encoding the bits on the CD itself.  ADD or the lazy producers that used DDD (re: got suckered into buying first-gen digital recorders and wanted a return on the investment)... well, you get what you pay for.

Another thing you need to realize is that AAD is all but extinct at this point.  All but the biggest indie hipster engineers have gotten away from editing tapes or wax/vinyl masters directly.  Alan Parsons struck gold when he spliced the cash register sounds in the Pink Floyd song "Money," but that was 41-42 years ago.

Yes, there are high bitrates, but they're still going to have gaps, and for size management purposes, the compression is still going to happen in the range of human hearing on less-used frequencies- I agree 100% with the comment about Moore's law, but I'm iffy on the pace.  I'd say it's closer to the inverse of the square-cube rule: as the size of the formats increases in a roughly linear fashion, we'll be able to store it with compression decreasing somewhere along the lines of O(log_n).

[CountDeMoney]

I have an old DAT player lying around somewhere. 

[mongers]

I have an old DAT player lying around somewhere. 

Bootleggers gear.

If only we'd had that kit back in the day.

[DontSayBanana]

I have an old DAT player lying around somewhere. 

Incidentally, I never claimed not to be a bit picky about my audio; in fact, I've been working on piecing together another vinyl-based stereo; I just choose to be realistic about my expectations- my vinyl's still likely to be digitally-edited, and I deal in physical sciences often enough to know about the inherent decay and just choose to accept it for the character it is.

It's the same reason I prefer using tube amps to solid-state amps for my guitar playing.  In the end, it's stylistic, but I prefer an overdriven sound for rock where you can still make out the guitar's tone vs. the ultra-processed, clipped distortion you get from a solid-state amp.

Long story short, when it comes to music, I'm a Gen-X throwback and a bit of a luddite.  That's just how I roll.