MP3: V0 or 320?

  On 11/10/2010 at 8:52 PM, Boxing Day said:

i would kill myself if a had an untagged/unorganized library.

 

Same here.

  On 11/11/2010 at 8:06 AM, Backson said:

I was horrified to find out recently that my favourite album has been 192kbs the entire time I've had it on my iTunes.

 

about one year ago i found out that i had black dog productions' bytes - my favorite record - in 160kbps mp3.

 

that pretty much proves that the importance of quality is relative.

 

 

but i recently got a lossless copy of it and i am not missing the old 160's.

  On 11/11/2010 at 1:47 PM, ruiagnelo said:

that pretty much proves that the importance of quality is relative.

yeah, I find this.

 

i struggle to tell the difference between a WAV and a mid quality MP3

 

which scares me cos I'm studying to be an audio engineer.

 

good for my hard drive though.

  On 11/11/2010 at 2:59 AM, Boxing Day said:

^ Lossless is Lossless , don't be a fool.

Yup, but in this context that word only implies compression.

 

I will pose you a question:

 

Let's assume that we have a file with audio MD5 hash 9EB1D834F670B6C02B94F6F4FB17E871. This file is verified accurate with AccurateRip and with high confidence i.e. it's "exactly" (as exactly as it can be) the same as on the disc you ripped it from. If you convert this file, let it be FLAC or WAV, into ALAC, it will strip some samples from somewhere and the result is inaccurate with a different MD5 hash. Is this truly lossless despite losing some of the audio data? Even if the data loss is so minimal that no one in the world could ever hear it, but a data loss nevertheless?

Well the difference here is that V0 is a variable bitrate. It should sound just 'as good' as a 320kbps mp3, which is a constant bitrate. The only difference is that for moments in the audio file where a higher amount of compression can be applied (parts that require less bitrate to still sound good), a lower bitrate is used. So, it only dips below the quality of a 320kbps mp3 when it can do so without sacrificing on sound quality. The actual bitrate of a V0 mp3 (the best quality variable bitrate mp3 is actually the V0) fluctuates from roughly 200-300kbps, but you shouldn't be able to tell the difference.

 

So if hard drive space is an issue for you, you can save space and still have the same sound quality but using variable bitrate mp3s. I don't really think it's that much of an advantage when a 1TB ext. hard drive is like 70 bucks now.

  On 11/11/2010 at 3:21 PM, 40days said:

  On 11/11/2010 at 2:59 AM, Boxing Day said:

^ Lossless is Lossless , don't be a fool.

Yup, but in this context that word only implies compression.

 

I will pose you a question:

 

Let's assume that we have a file with audio MD5 hash 9EB1D834F670B6C02B94F6F4FB17E871. This file is verified accurate with AccurateRip and with high confidence i.e. it's "exactly" (as exactly as it can be) the same as on the disc you ripped it from. If you convert this file, let it be FLAC or WAV, into ALAC, it will strip some samples from somewhere and the result is inaccurate with a different MD5 hash. Is this truly lossless despite losing some of the audio data? Even if the data loss is so minimal that no one in the world could ever hear it, but a data loss nevertheless?

the only reason that the MD5 hash would be different is because the MD5 hash of 9EB1D834F670B6C02B94F6F4FB17E871 is for the original rip that you made, ie: if you originally made the rip as a FLAC, then that would be the hash result for a FLAC, as verified by AccurateRip.

 

if you then convert that FLAC to another format, of course the hash is gonna change you numpty

No. Like I said it's the audio MD5 hash, not MD5 for the file itself. Basically this hash is what you get for the FILE when you convert a flac or something else into WAV. This WAV hash is kept in the metadata of the flac file as audio md5.

  On 11/11/2010 at 6:28 PM, 40days said:

No. Like I said it's the audio MD5 hash, not MD5 for the file itself. Basically this hash is what you get for the FILE when you convert a flac or something else into WAV. This WAV hash is kept in the metadata of the flac file as audio md5.

right, so the hash is of the raw audio (the source audio)

 

why would you expect the hash to be the same after you've converted it to an MP3?

  On 11/11/2010 at 6:47 PM, oscillik said:

  On 11/11/2010 at 6:28 PM, 40days said:

No. Like I said it's the audio MD5 hash, not MD5 for the file itself. Basically this hash is what you get for the FILE when you convert a flac or something else into WAV. This WAV hash is kept in the metadata of the flac file as audio md5.

right, so the hash is of the raw audio (the source audio)

 

why would you expect the hash to be the same after you've converted it to an MP3?

I'm not assuming it to be the same after it's converted to MP3, I'm talking about converting to ALAC (WAV/FLAC/other lossless > ALAC that is). It is of course granted that the hash can't be identical when converting from lossless to lossy, but lossless to lossless should always maintain the same audio data regardless of what format is used.

 

My experiences with ALAC are that it breaks gaps and won't pass AccurateRip, so something is lost in the conversion. However it is possible to convert these ALAC files back into FLACs that will pass AR verification, but ALAC itself has something wrong about it. I don't know what, but knowing this I certainly would not use ALAC unless absolutely necessary.

  On 11/11/2010 at 7:11 PM, 40days said:

  On 11/11/2010 at 6:47 PM, oscillik said:

  On 11/11/2010 at 6:28 PM, 40days said:

No. Like I said it's the audio MD5 hash, not MD5 for the file itself. Basically this hash is what you get for the FILE when you convert a flac or something else into WAV. This WAV hash is kept in the metadata of the flac file as audio md5.

right, so the hash is of the raw audio (the source audio)

 

why would you expect the hash to be the same after you've converted it to an MP3?

I'm not assuming it to be the same after it's converted to MP3, I'm talking about converting to ALAC (WAV/FLAC/other lossless > ALAC that is). It is of course granted that the hash can't be identical when converting from lossless to lossy, but lossless to lossless should always maintain the same audio data regardless of what format is used.

 

My experiences with ALAC are that it breaks gaps and won't pass AccurateRip, so something is lost in the conversion. However it is possible to convert these ALAC files back into FLACs that will pass AR verification, but ALAC itself has something wrong about it. I don't know what, but knowing this I certainly would not use ALAC unless absolutely necessary.

ohh i see what you mean now.

 

well yeah, but that's just Apple all over - twisting things to work how they think, because they think differently

I concur. Apple causes more damage than good whatever it decides to touch. But I won't derail the thread with that rant :)

  On 11/11/2010 at 2:59 AM, Boxing Day said:

^ Lossless is Lossless , don't be a fool.

 

  On 11/10/2010 at 9:40 PM, T35513R said:

even though the files seem a little smaller than a "lossless" file should be. *shrugs* If I had an iPOD and not a Cowon, would probably go that route.

 

 

What are you talking about ??? , i have done some testing after reading your comment and the file size is pretty much the same.

 

Apple Lossless uses only 1 level of compression , FLAC has like 9 (0-8) , the lower the level the larger the size of the file , maybe you were using a low level of compression when you compared those two.

 

Yo! Yeah, I mean, it's been years since I was using Mac - at the time, did some tests using iTunes and converted files to AIFF, WAV, and Apple Lossless (didn't even know about FLAC) and it seemed like the Apple Lossless were on average about 20% smaller than either format. So things might have changed a bit since then in processing, etc.

 

Ultimately, as much as I hate Apple, what I'm saying is that I think apple lossleess format would be something to consider if you're looking for good sound quality that you can put on your iPod and play that way, with tagging etc. working out fine. I like flac, but that's mainly because I can play it on my Cowon without any conversion, and I feel fairly confident that what I'm hearing is lossless.

FLAC for my favorites, V0 for most others, V2 for trying new stuff. That's my rules. :)

FLAC, if I have a choice/room.

  On 11/11/2010 at 2:08 PM, Backson said:

i struggle to tell the difference between a WAV and a mid quality MP3

 

which scares me cos I'm studying to be an audio engineer.

 

A good way to develop your hearing is to take a track you know very well and convert it to a variety of qualities and do direct comparison starting from lowest to highest. In order to remove any additional artifacts, make each conversion directly from the original WAV. So something like this would be good:

 

64kps 128kps 160kps 192kps 256kps 320kps FLAC WAV

 

Hearing them from worst to best or conversely, best to worst, helps make clearer how the differing levels of compression affect the sound of the track. The most noticeable difference between an mp3 and a FLAC or WAV is the extreme top end, as high frequency soundwaves are much smaller than low frequency soundwaves. Converting to mp3 discards part of the audio and thus bass sounds can make it through slightly more intact whereas toppy sounds suffer, especially cymbals, vocals and ambience/reverb.

Edited November 13, 2010 by Greg Reason

  On 11/11/2010 at 8:18 PM, 40days said:

I concur. Apple causes more damage than good whatever it decides to touch. But I won't derail the thread with that rant :)

hahah you are retarded

  On 11/12/2010 at 7:02 PM, dr lopez said:

  On 11/11/2010 at 8:18 PM, 40days said:

I concur. Apple causes more damage than good whatever it decides to touch. But I won't derail the thread with that rant :)

hahah you are retarded

Why? Because iPod, iPhone and iPad are flawless slabs of technology?

40days of FUD.

 

Lossless is lossless and it takes about 30 seconds on Max to convert from FLAC to ALAC or ALAC to FLAC. Such a fucking non-issue for the mactards and wintards to get all 'tarded over. You fucking tards.

while lossless is lossless is lossless, apple's attempt to lock everyone into a closed lossless standard rather than an open one like flac is kinda shitty.

 

tl;dr 40 days is silly, but not as much of one as some posts might make him out to be.

Neither one is better really, 99.9% both are transparent, and if one isn't 99.99% of the time the other isn't as well. So if anything the V0 file is better since it's smaller file, innit.

 

Flac & other lossless formats have their purpose (backup, playback on the hi-fi, tagging, etc.) but niggaz gots to realize the whole purpose of lossy formats like mp3 is to achieve perceptual transparency in a much smaller file size. If you can't hear a difference then there is no difference. Bob uses flac on his computer/stereo and V4 on his portable because I can fit more music on my 4 gig player and it's transparent anyway.

Edited November 13, 2010 by Bob Dobalina

  On 11/12/2010 at 9:17 PM, baph said:

Lossless is lossless and it takes about 30 seconds on Max to convert from FLAC to ALAC or ALAC to FLAC. Such a fucking non-issue for the mactards and wintards to get all 'tarded over. You fucking tards.

Those 30 seconds quickly accumulate when you have multiple albums to convert. And for my kind of dinosaur PC it's a whole lot more.

 

It's quite annoying when it's for no apparent reason - there's no gain other than getting the music on your iPod, which god knows why won't accept FLAC.

I don't have any problems with Apple using their own formats. But Apple is keeping FLAC from becoming the standard lossless distribution format, which it deserves to be. You still need ridiculous workarounds to play FLAC in iTunes and that's probably the prime reason why a lot of online stores still distribute huge untagged WAV-files.

 

I don't mind that all ripping and buying in iTunes results in ALAC files. But not supporting it is just playing bully.

Edited November 13, 2010 by Ego

i've been having serious problems recently with audio quality. it never ever used to be much of an issue but recently anything non-320 or flac or whatever sounds like complete shit.

 

it's not quite unlistenable but once you hear it you can't unhear it. i actually don't totally understand which file types are the ones i should look for...

  On 11/13/2010 at 2:30 AM, Ego said:

I don't have any problems with Apple using their own formats. But Apple is keeping FLAC from becoming the standard lossless distribution format, which it deserves to be. You still need ridiculous workarounds to play FLAC in iTunes and that's probably the prime reason why a lot of online stores still distribute huge untagged WAV-files.

 

I don't mind that all ripping and buying in iTunes results in ALAC files. But not supporting it is just playing bully.

 

truth, except the ALAC file part. they're going to fall behind if they don't stop doing that.

 

another thing that pisses me off is old mp4 files i bought on itunes years ago... that i can't play because they're fucking password protected. that's just idiotic. i'm not going to go looking to fix that problem when i can go find the albums on mediafire in less time, but still it shouldn't exist in the first place.

anything but top quality files completely ruin any recording with cymbals on it