Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › flac and bitrate question
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

flac and bitrate question

post #1 of 17
Thread Starter 
Hey guys! i heard here in head-fi that bitrate in lossless doesn't matter.
now.. i want to confirm this with you guys, is it matter?
the reason i ask this..is because whenever i rip a cd my software changes the bitrate in every track. so i wanted to know if this is normal, and if it so,than in what that depends..? i mean..by what parameter the ripping software set the bitrate for a certain track.
if this is not normal, i wanted to know if i should change the software setting to set a permanent bitrate setting.
thx in advance! and sorry for my poor english btw..
post #2 of 17
The bitrate doesn't matter in lossless because it is decompressing the file to the unedited wav. You get a lower bitrate with higher compression because the file is smaller.
post #3 of 17
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by smrtby123 View Post
The bitrate doesn't matter in lossless because it is decompressing the file to the unedited wav. You get a lower bitrate with higher compression because the file is smaller.
thx for the reply mate!
so the software set the bitrate of a track only by it's size?
post #4 of 17
The bitrate is also determined by the genre of the music, busier tracks would require higher average bitrates. But when decoded, it should output the same data as your original cd
post #5 of 17
Thread Starter 
thx for the info guys!
post #6 of 17
Yeah the more information it has, the bigger the file.

You'll notice that the more loudness War'ed the track, the bigger the file (more 1's [loudness] in the file).
Of course the more complex the file, the larger it is also.

e.g. Public Enemy tracks are far from Loudness War'ed but due to their complexity in the music, a lot of them are over 1000kbps+, some over 1100 kbps.
post #7 of 17
Thread Starter 
thx! very helpful information here.
lately, rip cds into flac and listen in my d2 is being a great hobby of mine, so it's good to know a little about this.
post #8 of 17
I'd use Vorbis -q8 for portable tbh as due to the inherit weakness of the source, I cannot tell between Vorbis @ -q8 and FLAC.
Remember, portable devices will never reach the fidelity of a decent home setup thus harder to differentiate. Thus why I feel using lossless on portables = silly.
My opinion anyway.
post #9 of 17
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chinesekiwi View Post
I'd use Vorbis -q8 for portable tbh as due to the inherit weakness of the source, I cannot tell between Vorbis @ -q8 and FLAC.
Remember, portable devices will never reach the fidelity of a decent home setup thus harder to differentiate. Thus why I feel using lossless on portables = silly.
My opinion anyway.
i am sure you're right, but i have the space so... and i am kind of a person that always (at least try to) go for the best,even if it cost more for no special reason or quality improvement. i guess it silly though!

anyway,i believe that the data should'nt be corrupted if there is no reason to.
post #10 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by chinesekiwi View Post
You'll notice that the more loudness War'ed the track, the bigger the file (more 1's [loudness] in the file).
1s and 0s take the same amount of space! But louder tracks do seem to compress less. Possibly because of boosted treble content?
post #11 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by plonter View Post
i am sure you're right, but i have the space so... and i am kind of a person that always (at least try to) go for the best,even if it cost more for no special reason or quality improvement. i guess it silly though!

anyway,i believe that the data shouldn't be corrupted if there is no reason to.
Thats pretty much my philosophy. I like having the flac instead of mp3 on my ipod because there are a few tracks I can definitely tell, even at 320kbps so I just keep them all that way.

Filesize it not too bad if you let the flac encode at -8. I usually get about 50% compression. Space is cheap so who cares.
post #12 of 17
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by smrtby123 View Post
Thats pretty much my philosophy. I like having the flac instead of mp3 on my ipod because there are a few tracks I can definitely tell, even at 320kbps so I just keep them all that way.

Filesize it not too bad if you let the flac encode at -8. I usually get about 50% compression. Space is cheap so who cares.
if you can hear the difference ( i don;t know about myself cause i never even bothered to make a direct comparisson) than it's even better reason than mine. i am right there with you mate! lossless all the way.

i don't want to make this thread another lossloss>lossy argument(there are enough threads for this i persume), but i said it before and my philosophy can be summerized in this sentence: IMO,it's not matter if i personally can hear the difference, what that matter to me is that THERE IS a difference.
and even if only dogs can hear it(although there are plenty of people that say they do and i tend to believe them) than it's good enough reason for me.
it may sound stupid for some,but i believe that the file should stay as it is. not relevant to the human hearing subjuect.
post #13 of 17
Correct, it does not matter!
As it will always store an identical copy of the source' audio data. Depending on input source (complexity - compressibility) it can be anywhere between 1kbps and 1411kbps (for audio CD).
post #14 of 17
There are many different lossless audio formats (FLAC, ALAC, APE, MP3HD, a.s.o.). They are mathematically lossless formats (using different mathematical algorithms to pack and unpack audio), so if you encode same son with different lossless format audio codec, then you get different size too. Also different codecs are different by used time, what is needed to encode audio.
post #15 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by chinesekiwi View Post
I'd use Vorbis -q8 for portable tbh as due to the inherit weakness of the source, I cannot tell between Vorbis @ -q8 and FLAC.
Remember, portable devices will never reach the fidelity of a decent home setup thus harder to differentiate. Thus why I feel using lossless on portables = silly.
My opinion anyway.
*sigh* I've always BEEN able to tell the diff. between MP3 and FLAC on my COWON devices and now my shiny new (old) iriver iHP-120 rockboxed using optical to the iBasso D10 Amp/DAC for FLAC... I couldn't disagree with you more that " lossless on portables = silly " ... to each their own.

HOWEVER I do appreciate much of your other opinions and appreciate the variety and spice you bring to Head-Fi is great! Keep it coming.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › flac and bitrate question