I really can't stand MP3s anymore, so I'm looking to convert my library into some lossless format: FLAC, WMA, ATRAC, I'm largely ignorant and don't want to do the job now and maybe have to do it again because I've chosen the wrong format. Is there someone who can help me fill the gaps with any information about what and how to do it?
Thanks
L.
Want lossless format? Try *.vinyl.
I have done the exact same thing. First off you can't convert mp3 to lossless. You need to get new replacement lossless files. Secondly, do you use itunes? I do, and itunes doesn't accept FLAC or APE. For itunes, applelossless and wave files are ok. As far as quality goes, I can't tell the difference.
There are a couple of ways to do it. Simplest way is to copy the files from a CD to itunes, but of course CDs cost money. Forget buying files from itunes, those are all 256k mp3s. The other way is to download. The problems with downloading are that (1) the files are often in the wrong formats, e.g. FLAC or APE, so you need a way to convert them. (2), often all the music files on a CD are lumped into a single FLAC or APE file. So you may want to have a way to separate the songs, otherwise you'll have to listen to the CD from start to finish. I use Audacity. If a computer idiot like me can use it, everybody can.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 07, 2014, 09:32:35 AM
Want lossless format? Try *.vinyl.
This is the other road I'm taking. At risk of seeming a hipster, my letter to Santa contains a request for a turntable.
L.
I refuse to have anything to do with vinyl for financial reasons.
Quote from: Pedrito on December 07, 2014, 09:18:28 AM
I really can't stand MP3s anymore, so I'm looking to convert my library into some lossless format: FLAC, WMA, ATRAC, I'm largely ignorant and don't want to do the job now and maybe have to do it again because I've chosen the wrong format. Is there someone who can help me fill the gaps with any information about what and how to do it?
Thanks
L.
I'm in the process of converting my CDs into lossless format, 400 albums down and a lot more to go, though I had 200-300 in flac lossless format already.
Rather than rely on one piece of software, I'm ripping the cds on my old laptop using 'Exact Audio Copy' ripper also know as Eac' for short.
The resulting wavs are then compressed into lossless flacs using a little program called 'Flac Frontend' quality set at 6. In the same process for each cd, I'm compressing them using the 'RazorLame' programme thats a nice front end for Lame (using 3.98r version) and I've set the quality at V0 variable bitrate(VBR), which gives nice quality MP3 that are as good as 320kps(CBR), but are averaging 25-30% smaller than that. Another way of looking at that is the mp3s end up around a 5th-6th the size of the raw wav files.
I then tagged them up using a 'Mp3tag V2.49b', then I backup the flacs and mp3 to a large external drive, probably going to need another bigger one or look into a nice little file server.
Personally, I use itunes because it is easy to use as a library. For actual player for the stereo system, I use JRiver. I think there is a one month free trial period, then there is a one-off US$50 fee. I have compared itunes and JRiver, and I think the latter is slightly better in terms of sound quality.
It is just me, but I try to do as few file conversions as possible. This is a hot topic in the audiophile community, and like everything audiophile related, there is no conclusion. But intuitively, I think the theory that there maybe loss in audio quality if there are too many file conversions makes some sense.
I don't care about file size. I mean, this is an age where I can get a 6T external HDD for US$250. Whether it is a 50M wav file or a 10M 320 mp3 file doesn't bother me.
I go from CD to FLAC. Traditionally using EAC like mongers.
From FLAC you can transpose to any lossy format pretty easily and it will be just like if it were direct to that format. That is the advantage of coding to lossless.
Player wise, this software will work perfectly now that Winamp is dead:
http://www.aimp.ru/
Anyone tried lossless streaming yet (e.g Tidal?)
Quote from: Gups on December 09, 2014, 10:42:42 AM
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?
*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). Vinyl is far more accurate than a CD... but only for the first 5 plays or so. Every time you touch needle to vinyl, no matter how sharp the needle is, you're grinding away some of that recording.
On top of that, your hearing sucks more than you think it does. The average human adult can only hear 20Hz to 20KHz, and that's without significant hearing damage (say, from the ludicrous number of times I've attended concerts sans earplugs). Kids can hear up to 24KHz, but the range tends to drop during puberty. 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).
For what it's worth, my current job has clued me in to who's been keeping the myth running, and why (money): mostly, Monster Audio.
Monster used to do demos where they would "demonstrate" RF interference from non-Monster outlet strips; they'd wave a wand that would spike a needle (not in any discernible units, BTW) and make the "detector" go crazy beeping. Turned out they'd put an RFID into their demo units so when the "detector" went over it, it would disable it. Other surge protectors, not having the chip, would get The Beep. Yes, they really went to retailers and pulled fraudulent sales tactics like that.
Long story short, the myth of "lossless" audio is kept alive by a handful of "premium" audio equipment manufacturers that want customers to feel justified in blowing exorbitant amounts of money for crap they could have gotten from the Home Depot for pennies. Mostly Denon and Monster.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 09, 2014, 04:11:47 PM
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).
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?
I agree that the difference between lossless and 320 isn't very pronounced. But still, I prefer lossless, just to make sure that the audio quality is not unncessarily compromised. It doesn't cost me much anyway. Either I already have the CD, or I just download the lossless instead of the MP3 version. In an age where HDD storage space costs so little, there is no reason to choose 320 over lossless anyway. HDD space is the only reason I can think of why I should pick 320 over lossless.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 09, 2014, 04:11:47 PM
*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).
.....
:hmm:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_rate#CD-DA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_rate#CD-DA)
Quote
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:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fmath%2F4%2Fa%2F9%2F4a9998107a97d49da4ee8a5f404ec490.png&hash=bc41067cd8452561aab6e9110c8b39bcfd304c1f)
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:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fmath%2F2%2F5%2F7%2F2577326851233e5ebfd1538a4e2e6d78.png&hash=92cfdc97664c44ef0aafbdb5cabc92e19c1061e7)
The cumulative size of a length of PCM audio data (excluding a file header or other metadata) can be calculated using the following formula:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fmath%2Fa%2F4%2F5%2Fa45dfc435d75d8cd2fff84cb119d9801.png&hash=4a270f79e8b7440d7e9eade8102be2ef9a6bee73)
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:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fmath%2F9%2F7%2F8%2F978a45b17b7c0449b8cd1e30faaf3c4f.png&hash=b747047485a35b16eae9a5c4d4825a6d9a005a08)
Therefore, 80 minutes (4,800 seconds) of CD-DA data requires 846,720,000 bytes of storage
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fmath%2F2%2Fd%2F4%2F2d486b2443636075283896881be758e9.png&hash=8d16a13e42148a29213b1ca3a020021ee26547fd)
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
.......
DSB is partly right, partly wrong:
QuoteFirst 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.
QuoteThose "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.
I see mongers pre-emptied me on the math, with chapter and verse. :)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 09, 2014, 06:07:35 PM
DSB is partly right, partly wrong:
QuoteFirst 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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 09, 2014, 08:07:45 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 09, 2014, 06:07:35 PM
DSB is partly right, partly wrong:
QuoteFirst 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? :)
Quote from: viper37 on December 09, 2014, 04:19:00 PM
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
I miss 8 tracks dammit.
Quote from: mongers on December 09, 2014, 08:23:12 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 09, 2014, 08:07:45 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 09, 2014, 06:07:35 PM
DSB is partly right, partly wrong:
QuoteFirst 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.
Quote from: mongers on December 09, 2014, 03:52:45 PM
Quote from: Gups on December 09, 2014, 10:42:42 AM
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.
I am not convined that the so called high definition tracks are really worth it.
Quote from: viper37 on December 09, 2014, 04:19:00 PM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 09, 2014, 06:07:35 PM
DSB is partly right, partly wrong:
QuoteFirst 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.
QuoteThose "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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 09, 2014, 10:53:50 PM
Quote from: mongers on December 09, 2014, 08:23:12 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 09, 2014, 08:07:45 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 09, 2014, 06:07:35 PM
DSB is partly right, partly wrong:
QuoteFirst 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).
I have an old DAT player lying around somewhere. :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 10, 2014, 10:07:44 AM
I have an old DAT player lying around somewhere. :lol:
Bootleggers gear. :wub:
If only we'd had that kit back in the day.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 10, 2014, 10:07:44 AM
I have an old DAT player lying around somewhere. :lol:
:lol: :cheers:
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 10, 2014, 10:07:44 AM
I have an old DAT player lying around somewhere. :lol:
/For the youngsters
Early, professional, digital format. :thumbsup:
Record companies hated it because they feared piracy.
I remember editing a DAT reference where DAT was taken to be a slang spelling of that. :D
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 10, 2014, 10:14:20 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 10, 2014, 10:07:44 AM
I have an old DAT player lying around somewhere. :lol:
:lol: :cheers:
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.
So you wouldn't approve of me recently buying an early 80s Roland Cube Chorus?
Or for using hybrid Peavey combos back in the day ?