Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › Can I get better than 320kbps sound quality?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Can I get better than 320kbps sound quality? - Page 7

post #91 of 134
You misread it. The clipping that normalizing won't help is the clipping caused by hot mastering. I guess I didnt say it clearly enough.
post #92 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

You misread it. The clipping that normalizing won't help is the clipping caused by hot mastering. I guess I didnt say it clearly enough.


Fair enough. But doesn't hot masters generally clip even in their lossless forms?

 

The way I see it is. If you have a lossless master that doesn't clip and you apply the correct volume levelling before converting to MP3, then clipping should never really be an issue. But if the lossless master already clips due to hard limiting, then its going to clip regardless of what format you convert to, or whatever volume level settings you use.

post #93 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

As for heavy metal music, Heavy distortion can mask artifacting but hot mastering can introduce artifacts of its own as the file is converted to mp3. It's very likely that your "technical death metal" is hot mastered. Normalizing the track down to 90% before transcoding won't correct the clipping, but it will prevent overdriving from introducing artifacts in the encoding process. Doing this would probably result in a cleaner sounding mp3.

Hot mastering creates uncorrectable clipping.
Heavy Metal music is likely to be hot mastered.
Hot mastering can also create clipping in the encoding process from cd to mp3.
Normalizing the track down to 90% will prevent encoding clipping, but it won't correct hot mastering.
post #94 of 134

Sorry for being random, but what's you all's opinion on .wav vs flac?

post #95 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dukedudez View Post

Sorry for being random, but what's you all's opinion on .wav vs flac?


They are both lossless formats (EDIT: I'm not even really sure if it makes much sense to call WAV a 'lossless format' because AFAIK it is the way the recording comes when you get it off a CD).
WAV is uncompressed and FLAC is compressed. The only differences are that WAV will have a larger file size and FLAC will take more CPU power to decode.
As far as sound goes, they are the same.

My opinion is that it is better to use FLAC: You save a bit of space and tagging is much better supported for FLAC and other compressed formats.
Edited by theeyealtering - 7/5/11 at 3:32pm
post #96 of 134

Just use FLAC or ALAC (if you need to), WAV is a waste of space. Exactly the same SQ in all types of lossless files.

post #97 of 134

Ohhh.  Ok.  Thanks!

post #98 of 134

Ok... heres another one...

 

Why is it called "Lossless" when it technically isn't? tongue.gif

post #99 of 134

Because it technically is lossless.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraiz View Post

Ok... heres another one...

 

Why is it called "Lossless" when it technically isn't? tongue.gif



 

post #100 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by JesperZ View Post

Because it technically is lossless.
 



 


 

But "technically" it isn't. Not if you think about it.

 

How can any recording with a sampling rate be lossless?

 

Digital audio is nothing more than snap shots taken from the original analog signal. If snap shots are taken, it means that it hasn't captured the whole thing. Therefore, it can't be lossless. biggrin.gif

post #101 of 134

Are you suggesting that recording misses important frequencies? Ridiculous. 

post #102 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Satellite_6 View Post

Are you suggesting that recording misses important frequencies? Ridiculous. 



Not at all. Just because a recording sounds transparent, doesn't make it lossless. If that was the case, people could argue that a well encoded lossy file is in fact lossless.

 

I'm simply stating that in "technical" terms, a digital audio file can't be lossless as it is always missing something, whether you can tell its missing or not.

post #103 of 134

FWIR analog recording is even worse, so digital recording is ass "lossless" as it's going to get, so I wouldn't worry about it. Lossless is called lossless because it doesn't go through any lossy process like encoding an mp3, so I would call that an accurate term. 

post #104 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Satellite_6 View Post

FWIR analog recording is even worse, so digital recording is ass "lossless" as it's going to get, so I wouldn't worry about it. Lossless is called lossless because it doesn't go through any lossy process like encoding an mp3, so I would call that an accurate term. 


 

The point i'm making is that the term "lossless" can be misleading as it technically isn't lossless. Only an analog signal can truly be considered lossless as it contains the full spectrum.

 

You say an analog recording is even worse. Well that depends on how it was recorded and the quality of the Vinyl/Tape that it was recorded to.

 

In the best recording conditions, its impossible for digital to be considered better than analog in terms of quality.

 

I'm not suggesting that CD quality isn't transparent compared to an analog source. I'm simply talking in technical terms.

post #105 of 134

Yes it is. It's a compression format for digital audio, not analog audio. So to compare it with the CDA source (which is the actual source, not a vinyl or a collection of instruments or whatever you are referring to) it is lossless, as in it hasn't lost any audio details during compression from CDA to FLAC. That CDA is missing details compared to analog audio is a fact, whether audible or not, but that isn't really relevant to the discussion of whether FLAC is lossless compared to its source (CDA).
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraiz View Post

 

But "technically" it isn't. Not if you think about it.

 

How can any recording with a sampling rate be lossless?

 

Digital audio is nothing more than snap shots taken from the original analog signal. If snap shots are taken, it means that it hasn't captured the whole thing. Therefore, it can't be lossless. biggrin.gif



 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Music
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › Can I get better than 320kbps sound quality?