Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › 320kbps Vs. ALAC
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

320kbps Vs. ALAC - Page 5

post #61 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Doug View Post
you do realize that's quite illegal, right?

 

At that time I wasn’t aware of the legal situation, and I’m not sure how this is handled at the present in my country.

 

What I do know is that I didn’t cause serious harm to the music publishing industry. Most of my CDs I sold for a fraction of the original price, and all of them I had already purchased in LP format. The moment I became aware that the 256 kbps AAC files I had ripped from my original CDs at least for my ears didn’t sound as good as the CDs, I purchased all of them again, now for the third time. As I already wrote, this was a tedious process, because there has been some rare stuff and collector’s items in my music library.

 

During the last six years, the monthly average of my music shopping is between eight and ten CDs. And there’s not even a CD player in my home anymore, since I prefer file based music playback.

 

Let’s hope all the CD resellers on Amazon Marketplace and other second hand music outlets are aware of the questionable legal situation.

 

Werner.


Edited by wberghofer - 6/26/12 at 12:58am
post #62 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by slytown View Post
The best idea would be to archive in lossless and go ahead and convert to much smaller 256 AAC (or VBR) for portable; Some don't carry a lot of portable records so ALAC is fine.

 

That’s exactly what I suggested in → my first reply to the original question, long time before this thread turned into a heated discussion of lossy vs. lossless audio ripping.

 

Werner.

post #63 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

It's OK Currawong. That sort of thing doesn't bother me, and I'm not going to get down on that level myself. He can say whatever he wants. I'm not going to answer the ad hominems.


bigshot, much as I respect your opinion, this isn't about you.  This is about how Currawong wants to run this forum.  We all have to remember that we're guests here and that we need to abide by the rules the hosts set down. 


Edited by BlindInOneEar - 6/26/12 at 1:25am
post #64 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post


Do you know what the acronym JPEG stands for? It tells you who created the file format. Look it up.
The only people who think jpeg isn't good enough are the armchair photo nerds who own the most expensive equipment, yet only shoot hundreds of test charts and blurry pictures of their dog running around the living room. It's the photo equivalent of the hifi nut with thousand dollar headphones and 24 bit files of crappy AC/DC and Red Hot Chili Peppers albums to play on it.

 

RAW is more than an uncompressed copy of the photo.  It's the only way to go when you need to extract the full dynamic range of the image you capture.  Unlike mp3 vs CD, an image converted from RAW can be distinguished from an out of camera jpeg at a glance.  Just look at the blown highlights and blocked shadows in the jpeg.

post #65 of 110

Giddiyup Fido, and say cheese!

post #66 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

Unlike mp3 vs CD, an image converted from RAW can be distinguished from an out of camera jpeg at a glance.  Just look at the blown highlights and blocked shadows in the jpeg.

RAW is important if you don't do much adjustment as you shoot. You can fix incorrect exposure and white balance in post. Old timers like me who cut their teeth on film usually are used to getting it perfect in the camera, so all you have to do is output the file. JPEG works great for that. There's plenty of latitude if you aren't having to correct exposures by a full stop or more.
post #67 of 110

I don't correct the exposure, I fit all the extra exposure latitude I get in RAW into the final photo using tone mapping.
 

Like I said, blocked shadows AND blown highlights in the out of camera jpeg.

 

Photos coming out of my RAW workflow come out with more highlight and shadow detail AND look punchier (more perceived contrast) thanks to my tone mapping.

post #68 of 110

I don't think that the audio compression vs. picture compression is a good analogy. Like bigshot said, pictures, once taken, exist digitally and can be viewed digitally. Audio can be stored digitally, but must be converted to an analog waveform so that our ears can perceive it. Obviously professionals will use lossless copies in both fields, but bigshot seems to be arguing that consumers should be happy with lossy because there's no perceivable difference on the receiving end. I disagree with that though, enthusiasts will always want access to exact copies, and there's no real reason that they shouldn't.

post #69 of 110
Heck, I'd love access to the multitrack file before mixdown, so I can bring out vocals by changing the mix instead of by using EQ (which doesn't really work that well)!
post #70 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

I don't correct the exposure, I fit all the extra exposure latitude I get in RAW into the final photo using tone mapping.
 

Like I said, blocked shadows AND blown highlights in the out of camera jpeg.

 

Photos coming out of my RAW workflow come out with more highlight and shadow detail AND look punchier (more perceived contrast) thanks to my tone mapping.

If you're shooting for HDR, you need raw. But that doesn't necessarily mean the highlights and shadows are lacking in jpeg for non HDR images. Most photographers shoot within their latitude.

 

My point, OJNeg is that it's fine to want a perfect copy for theoretical reasons. But there is no real need for it if the compressed version is indistinguishable in normal use. For those who just want great sounding music, and don't care about what they will never hear, AAC is fantastic and has many practical advantages over lossless.


Edited by bigshot - 6/26/12 at 7:26pm
post #71 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by wberghofer View Post

 

I did this too, and I could tell a difference.

Post the log report?

 

I personally think even 192 Kbps AAC is overkill but I won't go 160 Kbps with MP3. AAC True VBR q82 (~165 Kbps) is perfect for me (and most of...everyone else).


Edited by jHoNDoE - 6/27/12 at 11:51pm
post #72 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by jHoNDoE View Post
Post the log report?

There is no log report, and I would not know how to generate one which makes you believe. If for your ears 192 or 256 kbps AAC sounds identical to CD, then so be it. To my ears it sounds different, and with your agreement I feel free to prefer listening to unaltered audio. My preference for losslessly ripped audio files is based on my own, personal experience. For my ears, listening with my equipment to my kind of music I can tell the difference anytime.

Werner.


Edited by wberghofer - 6/28/12 at 7:04am
post #73 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by wberghofer View Post


There is no log report, and I would not know how to generate one which makes you believe. If for your ears 192 or 256 kbps AAC sounds identical to CD, then so be it. To my ears it sounds different, and with your agreement I feel free to prefer listening to unaltered audio. My preference for losslessly ripped audio files is based on my own, personal experience. For my ears, listening with my equipment to my kind of music I can tell the difference anytime.

Werner.

 

http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx

post #74 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx

 

Many thanks for the link to foobar, highly appreciated! By reading my forum signature you would have noticed that I don’t use Windows …

 

Werner.


Edited by wberghofer - 6/28/12 at 8:10am
post #75 of 110
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › 320kbps Vs. ALAC