or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › 320 kbps MP3 vs. normal audio CD listening Sound quality
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

320 kbps MP3 vs. normal audio CD listening Sound quality - Page 32

post #466 of 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmoe View Post
 

 

We also have hard drives (and soon enough solid state drives) with TBs of space on them. Why settle for mp3s when you can have a perfect copy of your albums?

Actually, I do agree with this - all of my music archive is either in FLAC or WMA lossless (I used to rip in WMA, recent albums are FLAC). I also have a lot of it in MP3 for my portable players, but for archival purposes, lossless makes perfect sense in my opinion (given how cheap storage is now - you can get 6TB for $300). My prior post was facetious though, and certainly anything over 44.1/16 or 48/16 is useless for playback.


Edited by cjl - 5/15/14 at 8:48am
post #467 of 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjl View Post
 

My prior post was facetious though, and certainly anything over 44.1/16 or 48/16 is useless for playback.

 

Completely agree with you there.

post #468 of 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToddTheMetalGod View Post
 

This, right here. If MP3 finally gets replaced by a far superior codec such as AAC, I don't want to be the one left with a terrible codec and badly supported playback. As long as I have lossless copies of my audio, I can just convert to a different lossy format without a problem. Probably 80% of my music is FLAC and 20% is 320 MP3.

 

I rip to AAC 256 VBR and it's totally transparent. The only difference to me between it and lossless is file size. I always have the CDs themselves as backup, but I'm sure the AAC files will do for me forever.


Edited by bigshot - 5/15/14 at 9:46am
post #469 of 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

 

I rip to AAC 256 VBR and it's totally transparent. The only difference to me between it and lossless is file size. I always have the CDs themselves as backup, but I'm sure the AAC files will do for me forever.

I'm ripping to LAME mp3, but I also keep the CDs as a backup.  I read about people always saying that space is cheap and there is no excuse not to archive in lossless, but in my experience it is a pain in the ass.   If a solution comes up that is clearly obvious that my quality is suffering, I'll be the first to admit that I probably should have made arrangement to save everything in a lossless format.  However, a one time event to re-rip everything in the future will probably be much less effort than it would have been to keep a backup over the last decade or more.  At this point, I'm way ahead now in both money and time saved just by ripping directly to mp3, which is the format that works with everything I use to play my music.

 

I suppose that if when I initially started out that today's storage solutions were available, I'd think differently.  It wasn't always cheap, fast, and reliable.  Until I am confident there is any benefit, I'm holding out on the re-rip party.

post #470 of 545

My music libraries contain over a year and a half's worth of music. Maintaining and backing up two libraries... lossless and compressed would be a royal pain. I want control over how my music is ripped. For instance, I always rip mono tracks to real mono, not two channel because it reduces noise and fake stereo effects in some CD reissues. I couldn't do that with lossless. My music server runs 24/7 streaming music all over the house. Saddling it with music that is ten times bigger for no reason is more wear and tear on hard drives that just isn't needed.

post #471 of 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

My music libraries contain over a year and a half's worth of music. Maintaining and backing up two libraries... lossless and compressed would be a royal pain. I want control over how my music is ripped. For instance, I always rip mono tracks to real mono, not two channel because it reduces noise and fake stereo effects in some CD reissues. I couldn't do that with lossless. My music server runs 24/7 streaming music all over the house. Saddling it with music that is ten times bigger for no reason is more wear and tear on hard drives that just isn't needed.

 

You definitely can do lossless mono, and you're talking about a file size difference of 2-4x, not 10x. Still, if you're happy with your music collection, that's all that really matters.

post #472 of 545

You can't do mono with Apple Lossless using iTunes. It's all automatic.

post #473 of 545

Using iTunes - that's your problem right there ;) 

 

And personally I don't maintain 2 libraries. I have my FLACs, and whenever I need an album in mp3 format, it takes 2 clicks and 10 seconds to encode it. No big deal really. Soon enough though, I will drop mp3s altogether. We're pretty close from having portable sources with 500gb/1tb+ storage space, when that happens, I'll just use FLACs for everything.


Edited by elmoe - 5/15/14 at 11:56am
post #474 of 545

My server plays 24/7 and my library is over a year and a half. It would be encoding constantly for years. My entire library fits on a 2TB partition. If it was lossless, it would take more than a Drobo all to itself.

post #475 of 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

You can't do mono with Apple Lossless using iTunes. It's all automatic.

Who says you have to use iTunes - there are other programs available that are much better. Also, why would you use ALAC rather than FLAC? Finally, iTunes used to have a pretty significant problem with sample rate conversion, but they may have fixed it by now.

post #476 of 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

My server plays 24/7 and my library is over a year and a half. It would be encoding constantly for years. My entire library fits on a 2TB partition. If it was lossless, it would take more than a Drobo all to itself.

 

Actually you could encode it all in under a week or so. That being said, why would you need to encode the whole library?

post #477 of 545

No need to have two copies at all. I own all the CDs. The server is just the playing and portable copy for my iPhone, iPad and iPods. AAC is perfect for that. It sounds the same and more fits.

post #478 of 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjl View Post
 

Who says you have to use iTunes - there are other programs available that are much better. Also, why would you use ALAC rather than FLAC? Finally, iTunes used to have a pretty significant problem with sample rate conversion, but they may have fixed it by now.

 

My media server is a Mac mini. iTunes is the slickest. It integrates perfectly with my iDevices and Airport network and has incredibly powerful smart play listing features. My iPhone can control everything from anywhere in the house. AAC is compressed and sounds as good as lossless. The mini runs my projection video system too. I've never owned anything better suited for its purpose. I have my cake and I eat it too.

post #479 of 545

Sure, but the day you need to copy any of that on a device that doesn't support AAC playback, you'll get subpar quality. Of course you're free to stick with Apple products, but personally I don't like to waste my money on inferior products, and my FLAC library enables me to encode to any format with no audible quality loss, whether it's for an apple product or anything else.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

 

My media server is a Mac mini. iTunes is the slickest. It integrates perfectly with my iDevices and Airport network and has incredibly powerful smart play listing features. My iPhone can control everything from anywhere in the house. AAC is compressed and sounds as good as lossless. The mini runs my projection video system too. I've never owned anything better suited for its purpose. I have my cake and I eat it too.

 

 

All of which can be done from a PC, more easily, slicker, with more choices. Oh and did I mention for a fraction of the price? ;)


Edited by elmoe - 5/15/14 at 12:54pm
post #480 of 545

Most everything supports AAC doesn't it? Since the bitrate I'm ripping at is audibly transparent, if I ever need to, I can transcode it to lossless and it will still be audibly transparent, just several times as big. I've never had a reason to transcode anything yet though. AAC 256 VBR nails everything I want it to do perfectly.

 

I don't want to waste my time making different products and apps from different companies all play nice together. I bought a Mac mini, plugged it in and everything I needed was already there and working. And it worked with all my portable devices the same way. And with my wifi network... and with my 1080p projector... and every stereo in the house... Plug and play. I could go straight to watching movies and listening to music. With the hundreds of thousands of dollars I spent on media over the years, I'm not going to worry that I paid $700 for my media server instead of $600. I just want it to do its job out of the box. The only thing it doesn't do is play blu-rays. I got a $120 Sony blu-ray player and solved that problem. It's a swiss army knife for optical formats.


Edited by bigshot - 5/15/14 at 1:22pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › 320 kbps MP3 vs. normal audio CD listening Sound quality