Music conversion

[AArdvark]

So I want to be a little more of an audiophile. Not like superior snob audio guy, but maybe a little more discerning. So for starters I'm thinking about going to an all lossless format. Everything I listen to is available in FLAC (no ripping CDs for me!) Trouble is, my zune doesn't want to know anything about it. That's fine, I doubt I could tell the difference between 96K and lossless through a pair of $5.00 earbuds anyway. What I want is to pump all my new and improved collection down through the PS3 and out to the stereo. Well PS3 don't know FLAC either. I guess there's some kind of media server thing that will transcode on the fly but I was thinking about going with a lossless format that is acceptable to all parties.
I have a couple ideas but thought I'd throw the advice net out and see what drags up.


THE
DEAF EARS
AARDVARK

[Tdarcos]

So I want to be a little more of an audiophile. Not like superior snob audio guy, but maybe a little more discerning. So for starters I'm thinking about going to an all lossless format. Everything I listen to is available in FLAC (no ripping CDs for me!) Trouble is, my zune doesn't want to know anything about it. That's fine, I doubt I could tell the difference between 96K and lossless through a pair of $5.00 earbuds anyway. What I want is to pump all my new and improved collection down through the PS3 and out to the stereo. Well PS3 don't know FLAC either. I guess there's some kind of media server thing that will transcode on the fly but I was thinking about going with a lossless format that is acceptable to all parties.
I have a couple ideas but thought I'd throw the advice net out and see what drags up.


THE
DEAF EARS
AARDVARK

I understand OGG vorbis is supposed to be good for this, but I'm not sure if it's a lossless method. It is open source and not patent-encumbered. But nobody has bothered with it much.

You could also try a standard WAV file, it's not compressed at all and a lot of systems do understand it natively.

The lossy MP3 format has basically become the standard, everything that plays music will understand it. Make a CD with about 150 MP3s on it (128 or 160 K bit), and put it in a cheap $30 DVD player connected to your TV and it will play all of the songs on it. Some can even retrieve the ID3 metadata if included in an MP3.

So I'd say keep the originals in a lossless format, then code them in 320K variable-bit MP3, which is about as good as possible. Basically everyone understands MP3s, and I think it may be possible to have an uncompressed MP3 that is not lossy at all, but since most people can't hear really high-end audio, lossy Mp3 cuts the size from about 20 meg per minute uncompressed (for CD-quality 44K WAV files) to 1 meg per minute compressed MP3s.

[Flack]

I've gone back and forth on this issue a few times.

Personally, I ruled out all the formats like AAC and WMA that wouldn't play on everything. That also included OGG, which I think is a little better than MP3, but if nothing plays it then who cares. That pretty much leaves you with WAV, FLAC, and MP3.

FLAC files are compressed WAV files with no data loss. I guess in a way they're like zip files, if you could run files while zipped, hah. FLAC files, depending on the level of compression, can be a little bit smaller than WAV files or a lotta bit smaller. Here's a real word example.

Metallica's Black album, when ripped to WAV, is 640 meg, give or take a few. I just searched Usenet, and there's a copy of the same album in FLAC format that's 820 meg. That one also has PAR files and album covers, but still ... that's bigger than the original! I checked my server, and I ripped the album using VBR. It's 100 meg, w/12 songs.

More players support WAV files than FLAC files, which is how things like TVersity are able to stream FLAC files to the PS3 -- they're transcoding them to WAV files on the fly, which the PS3 supports. It takes a lot of server resources to do, apparently.

I can't tell the difference between good (256k+) and FLAC files on my computer speakers. I can't tell the difference between CDs and MP3s in my car (w/Bose speakers) or in my computer room (w/Infinity speakers). I CAN tell with my old tuner and my old JBL speakers. Fortunately, years of listening to loud music have taken the edge off my hearing and I really have to concentrate to hear any kind of difference.

For me personally, the difference isn't noticeable enough to deal with the hassle (and additional storage needs). If I were you, I would download a couple of albums in FLAC format and a couple in high quality (VBR, 256, or 320) bit rates and compare the two. High bit rate mp3s sound pretty damn good, and more than that, are a lot more convenient. At least this week. ;)

[AArdvark]

Grabbed 'Who's Next' in FLAC. Converted it to the highest MP3 format Foobar2K would go. First song in 'standard' MP3 was around 4 megs, now it's 11 megs. That's gonna make for a huge amount of storage needs; basically gonna stuff my PS3 drive to the gills. Seriously need to think this through. Want to make lossless backups for safekeeping but still want some room left for other media.


THE
GETTING IN
UP TO MY EARS
AARDVARK

[Flack]

The "standard" bit rates are all 32 bits apart: 32, 64, 96, 128, 160, 192, 224, 256, 288, and 320. Of those, the only ones I have seen used are 96, 128, 160, 192, 256, and 320.

96 was really only used by dial-up people. It doesn't sound great on anything. 128 was am early standard. People moved to 192 over five years ago. A lot of people moved to VBR around that same time but I didn't as my mp3 player wouldn't play them.

I may have to do a sound test tonight but I would be surprised if I could tell the difference between 256k and a FLAC file.

[The Happiness Engine]

The differences between flac and 320vbr mp3 are really only noticeable once you get up to low-end studio monitors or high-end headphones. 192 mp3 sound fine for casual listening, but if you pull out a CD of the same tracks it will blow you away even on moderate speakers. mp3 also gets confused the closer your music gets to white noise, so punk sounds worse than new wave.

That said, I find 320vbr to be a fine compromise because it plays everywhere and can't be copy-controlled. I also like to be picky about ripping my own music with what I think is the best way, but I really don't think that's as important as it was 10 years ago.

Conduct some listening tests with the best playback you can borrow and what you normally use and it should be straightforward what will suit your needs. if you're a huge music fag you can always keep flacs around to re-encode every 5 years to whatever future-format we're using.

[AArdvark]

OK , after a couple days of listening to different formats on different equipment I decided to stick with the MP3 at a higher bitrate. There's a definite difference between 128K and 320K. After that the files just get too big for such a small difference in audio quality. Remember, my ears aren't what they used to be, the high ends are lost in the tinnitus ringing. Anything over 320K sounds the same to me. I even messed with the EQ when I encoded the songs but it didn't make enough of a difference. Besides, who wants to spend forever messing with settings. I just want to get my library set up.

So now that I got that settled I have to make the time to start converting, but that's another story.


THE
LISTENING ROOM
AARDVARK