High quality audio formats?

[Doremon]

ok all big brothers here... tons of info and links. Glad to have such huge response.

I conclude.. (correct me if am wrong..)

1. Original CDs to be rip into FLAC (lossless) format in computer.

2. Original MP3 to boost up from 128kbps to 320kbps makes also difference

3. Use media player........ Winamp is good option over windows media player....

4. Speakers/headphones should be high end quality makes notable difference to my ear

One last quick question pls:-

Is there any chances to loose/inferior on quality of FLAC files when transferring from Computer to audio gears i.e. ipod, pendrive, cd etc.

....in case of original FLAC?? -------->>>> audio gears

....in case of converted FLAC (from original MP3)??--------->>>audio gears

EDIT:- OOPS!!! XTechManiac overshoot when i am editing. Obliging...

 

[XTechManiac]

ok all big brothers here... tons of info and links. Glad to have such huge response.

I conclude..

1. Original CDs to be rip into FLAC (lossless) format in computer.

2. Use media player........ Winamp is good option over windows media player....

3. Speakers/headphones should be high end quality makes notable difference to my ear

Yup, there you go.

 

[Brendon]

Personally I prefer to use mp3s for portable use. I have tried blind tests and most of the time I cant decide which is mp3 320 kbps and which is FLAC.

I encourage you to try the ABX plug-in with foobar and see if you can tell the difference.

I generally use 245 kbps VBR mp3 files for portable but I keep FLAC files on my main PC.

Try this test - Do 320kbps mp3 files really sound better? Take the test! | NoiseAddicts music and audio blog

Ill admit I failed but I was not listening too intently.

So at the very least the differences wont be that great.

 

[Doremon]

ok all big brothers here... tons of info and links. Glad to have such huge response.

I conclude.. (correct me if am wrong..)

1. Original CDs to be rip into FLAC (lossless) format in computer.

2. Original MP3 to boost up from 128kbps to 320kbps makes also difference

3. Use media player........ Winamp is good option over windows media player....

4. Speakers/headphones should be high end quality makes notable difference to my ear

One last quick question pls:-

Is there any chances to loose/inferior on quality of FLAC files when transferring from Computer to audio gears i.e. ipod, pendrive, cd etc.

....in case of original FLAC?? -------->>>> audio gears

....in case of converted FLAC (from original MP3)??--------->>>audio gears

EDIT:- OOPS!!! XTechManiac overshoot when i am editing. Obliging...

 

[cranky]

Original MP3 to boost up from 128kbps to 320kbps makes also difference

No.

Is there any chances to loose/inferior on quality of FLAC files

1. If file transfer is incomplete the file may play partially or not at all.

2. If you transcode to a lossy format, you will lose quality.

No change is made in a file when it moves from one storage medium to another, it is a 1:1 copy. Decompressing FLAC files to PCM or AIFF cause no loss. Transcoders to other lossless formats may or may not work, so if you need to transcode to say Apple lossless it is better to decompress to wave and then recompress using iTunes.

Most portable players are not capable of revealing differences between MP3 and FLAC files, because they are optimised for portability and not sound quality. No matter how good the build, it is physically impossible to get faithful reproduction from a matchbox. Physics does not allow it, it's a not a prejudiced view.

....in case of converted FLAC (from original MP3)??--------->>>audio gears

Once again, there is no point in trying to covert an MP3 file to FLAC. The missing bits are impossible to replace. You can't make a goat out of mutton.

 

[GuruGulabKhatri]

1. Original CDs to be rip into FLAC (lossless) format in computer

Yes If u want the best possible quality But then again..

4. Speakers/headphones should be high end quality makes notable difference to my ear

2. Original MP3 to boost up from 128kbps to 320kbps makes also difference

Doesn't...Only deteriorates The quality.U cant reProduce what u already lost

3. Use media player........ Winamp is good option over windows media player....

Yes.Use It With enhancer 0.17 DSP Plugin

Is there any chances to loose/inferior on quality of FLAC files when transferring from Computer to audio gears i.e. ipod, pendrive, cd etc.

....in case of original FLAC?? -------->>>> audio gears

Never ever for any format,Use Either teracopy to Copy/Mediamonkey to Sync To be 100% Sure

....in case of converted FLAC (from original MP3)??--------->>>audio gears

told ya Already Doin this Will only increase the size not the SQ

 

[FaH33m]

Personally I prefer to use mp3s for portable use. I have tried blind tests and most of the time I cant decide which is mp3 320 kbps and which is FLAC.

I encourage you to try the ABX plug-in with foobar and see if you can tell the difference.

I generally use 245 kbps VBR mp3 files for portable but I keep FLAC files on my main PC.

Try this test - Do 320kbps mp3 files really sound better? Take the test! | NoiseAddicts music and audio blog

Ill admit I failed but I was not listening too intently.

So at the very least the differences wont be that great.

+1 .FLACs are not really noticeable better for most mid-fi or even high end gear. I do feel FLACs sound better to 320 kbps MP3 - as in they have more authority in sound but with a blind test , I can hardly point point the difference.

 

[Ritvik]

Try this test - Do 320kbps mp3 files really sound better? Take the test! | NoiseAddicts music and audio blog

Ill admit I failed but I was not listening too intently. So at the very least the differences wont be that great.

Thanks for submitting your answer. The correct answer is Clip #xx.

You selected Clip# xx …Congratulations!

It is hard to tell, had to listen to it thrice. With a crap source and crap headphones, but there is a small difference.

 

[titana]

I have often subjected myself & my friends to the torture of blind tests. My results are :

1) 128kbps & lower vs. V0 VBR mp3: Most people are able to find differences between this most of the time.

2) V0 VBR mp3 vs. FLAC : Most people fail to find differences between them.

 

[stalker]

I have often subjected myself & my friends to the torture of blind tests. My results are :

1) 128kbps & lower vs. V0 VBR mp3: Most people are able to find differences between this most of the time.

2) V0 VBR mp3 vs. FLAC : Most people fail to find differences between them.

I've experienced pretty much the same and find no reason to limit myself to flacs with the piddly amount of space that comes on a portable player.

 

[Doremon]

Once again, there is no point in trying to covert an MP3 file to FLAC. The missing bits are impossible to replace. You can't make a goat out of mutton.

I was referring original MP3 downloaded initially from original CD to computer in FLAC and ONWARDS transferred such FLAC to pendrive/ipode via USB port.

+1 .FLACs are not really noticeable better for most mid-fi or even high end gear. I do feel FLACs sound better to 320 kbps MP3 - as in they have more authority in sound but with a blind test , I can hardly point point the difference.

I have often subjected myself & my friends to the torture of blind tests. My results are :

1) 128kbps & lower vs. V0 VBR mp3: Most people are able to find differences between this most of the time.

2) V0 VBR mp3 vs. FLAC : Most people fail to find differences between them.

How VO VBR mp3 get?

I've experienced pretty much the same and find no reason to limit myself to flacs with the piddly amount of space that comes on a portable player.

Well, we stands again square root one!.....No difference between mp3 to FLAC!!

 

[cranky]

original MP3 downloaded initially from original CD to computer in FLAC

I have no idea what you're talking about in the above statement, do you? What exactly is an 'original' MP3? As opposed to what?

Once you convert to MP3, you cut the file up irretrievably. Trying to bring back the missing bits is impossible no matter what the source material was.

 

[sydras]

Re: High quality song!

My personal experience and opinion is that 320 kbps CBR or VBR mp3s are good enough for the average listener and close to CD-DA. With so much space available these days, I would think that it does not make sense to use anything below 320 kbps when encoding an mp3.

Like apex said, you cannot expect audio improvement by using any software. If you want good playback quality, never rip audio Cds into mp3-128kbps. Instead use FLAC mode for converting the files. Or At least use 320kbps mp3. (Higher bitrate conversion usually implies better quality. Eg: FLAC is 990-1100kbps. But once the data has been shed by converting to lower bitrate nothing can be done to get it back)

On a similar note, i was thinking which is the best player for playback of mp3 files? My current opinion about different players is as follows:

Winamp: Good beat separation, but its fast paced and not smooth continous sounding.

Windows media player: Smooth but feels a bit muffled

Foobar: Was using this until recently when i bought better headphones, I found foobar is a bit bass shy and mixes the midrange-high a little bit. Smooth but bad for fast music. Also, the beat seperation was pretty bad when compared to iTunes. (Using latest fooBar with DarkOne v2.1 interface)DarkOne v2.1 by ~tedgo on deviantART

iTunes: Very nice/fun sounding and feels clear somehow. Beats are distinct and correctly rolled-off as it is supposed to be. But there's lots of distortions as if the silent parts of the song are being unnaturally amplified.

:huh: Totally confused between latter two. Which is the ACCURATE one Or any other players / FooDSP, etc.?

+1. That is my biggest problem too. What is the best music playing software out there? I tried finding a good music player sometime ago and then gave up.

I tried FooBar but it was very basic at the time. I tried Winamp but it just doesn't seem to have the proper preset or sound good. I hate the Windows Media Player interface(I need something quick and snappy to use like Winamp).

I now play my music using Media Player Classic :ashamed: or VLC. I don't think they're the best option. Can someone enlighten us on the best music player out there?

 

[titana]

@Doremon : V0 is the the highest quality profile of VBR in lame encoder. It has identical quality to 320kbps CBR mp3s but takes lesser space than CBR.

BTW, I did not say that I did not say that I don't find any difference between V0 VBR/320 CBR mp3s & flac. Its just that most casual listeners are not able able to find the difference. It is usually possible for a person to differentiate between HQ mp3/FLAC on most occasions with some experience. One has to know what to look for before one can find it.

Though I do agree that there are no benefits of having flacs on most portable setups.

As for software to enhance sound quality - its usually the other way round. Most of my software tweaking is done in order to avoid the harmful effects of software processing.

 

[Doremon]

I have no idea what you're talking about in the above statement, do you? What exactly is an 'original' MP3? As opposed to what?

Once you convert to MP3, you cut the file up irretrievably. Trying to bring back the missing bits is impossible no matter what the source material was.

Oops! Let me try to explain again...
Original Audio CD------>>converted to FLAC & downloaded in computer----->>>rip to pendrive/ipod/cd := Q.:- Is there quality lose here?

 

[cranky]

WMP pre-processes sound files before they are sent to DS. Foobar doesn't, unless you use the volume control, equaliser or any of the plugins.

The best players are cPlay and XXHighEnd, but as of now they are very limited in playlist support and XX is not free. I personally am reasonably happy with Foobar. With over 50K sound files I need very good directory and tagging support, and don't mind the slight degradation in quality. It is still the best among mainstream audio software. Winamp interface doesn't float my boat, the resizing doesn't work very well and the playlist view is non-customisable.

Processing is beneficial for low-end hardware which has sucky performance to start with. For high-end systems processing degrades the sound. It's like makeup and women, the lookers don't need any and the rest need to hide something.

Edit:

Oops! Let me try to explain again...

Original Audio CD------>>converted to FLAC & downloaded in computer----->>>rip to pendrive/ipod/cd := Q.:- Is there quality lose here?

None whatsoever. File copy does not change anything in the file itself. Burning to CD may create fresh errors, and CDs created from a burning process are treated as one generation loss from source. Rip quality is also variable, so unless you use a solution like AccuRip with eAC your rip can be a bit different from others. This is affected by quality of the medium, condition of the ripping drive and the speed of your computer and hard drives. Generally, rip at the slowest speed for most accurate copies.

Note that CD playback and CD ripping are two completely different processes. In playback Redbook Audio CDs run at 1x and error-correction is applied on the fly. In ripping, an accurate rip will get you a 1:1 copy without error correction unless specified. If the CD contains errors, those errors get copied as well. The process is not an exact one, and results vary - sometimes pretty widely.

I notice you're not using the terminology correctly. Rip is when you copy something from a physical CD, burn is when you use a writer to create a fresh CD or DVD. For storage device transfers, it's called a file copy. Look at the glossary on Hydrogen Audio to get up to speed with all the terms.

 

[apextwin146]

Lets say i use Accu Rip to create a 1:1 100% copy/Rip without any errors. I then burn the same to another CD.
So then according to you i would find a difference in Sound Quality between the original and the copy.
/Assuming that the Writer/Cd Combo is noise free to the same extent as used in creating the Original CD from the studio recording.

 

[haraakiri]

WMP pre-processes sound files before they are sent to DS. Foobar doesn't, unless you use the volume control, equaliser or any of the plugins.

Is it true today with windows vista/7 ? I was thinking that with WASAPI, player now doesn't matter much.

 

[cranky]

Combo is noise free to the same extent as used in creating the Original CD from the studio recording.

Pressed CDs are totally different from burned CDs. CDs that you buy from a store are mostly (though not always) pressed. Burning is a process mostly related to piracy.

In theory there is no difference between a professional burn and a pressing, though in practice with consumer devices and media errors are common. Since the playback process correct errors on the fly and hearing is very subjective, the perceived effect may be small. But it is there. On even a mid-range audio system a straight CD copy has been shown to be inferior to original CD. However if the track is copied to the disk in data mode (by using a soft writer and making an image on the disk, then mounting and ripping the disk) playback can be better from the ripped files (given the rest of the reproduction system is sufficiently capable) as it does not have the error and jitter of the playback process.

It helps to remember that a CD is a physical entity. It has its own issues and problems - often an Indian pressing of a recording will be vastly inferior to the original import CD. On Eric Clapton's 'Unplugged', for example the left and right channels are reversed in relationship to both the actual performance and the recording itself. This is an extreme boo-boo, but I have learned the hard way and am replacing my 200 or so Indian pressings (read:cheap) with imports over a period of time. The differences are not very subtle.

Anyway the point is that the creation and reading processes are not independent of the medium itself, that it is not an ideal medium with zero error at all times. Also that preventing all errors may be counterproductive in some cases (such as badly scratched CDs), and that the number of variables involved is pretty large.

I was thinking that with WASAPI, player now doesn't matter much.

Pre-processing in the player is independent of data transport. Even WMP11 pre-processes, and the sound quality is much worse than (say) Foobar. MPC offers excellent playback due to the very small memory footprint, but it is hopelessly limited in playlist support. Again, differences are small and not always perceived clearly, specially on mid-range gear (below 1L for speaker systems, about half that for cans). YMMV.

 

[titana]

WMP does not support Wasapi exclusive mode, foobar does. WMP converts all its input to 32bit Floating Point output. ( In Vista/7)