[Bullseye]

Hey Head-5ers

Well i recently read a comment about TDSOTM hype. Amazing recordings, etc...
I have a CD that I ripped myself using EAC, following some nice settings(always the same), and when playing it with my Cowon D2 I see that none of the songs reach 1000kbps+ (749kbps, 845kbps, ..., being 543kbps the lesser)

Does that mean that they are less quality than the ones that have 1000kbps+? What could be the possible explanation for this to happen? How come other albums I have ripped have passed that bit rate quality with the same cd/dvd burner? I read the EAC log and i saw that all of the tracks except 2 have 100% quality, and those 2 having 99.99% quality.

Is there a notable difference when listening to a Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab
Ultra High Quality Recording ripped to FLAC than a SaCD FLAC regardless bit-rate? And including bit-rates?

Thanks in advanced

 

[krmathis]

Its all about audio data complexity and compression rate.
Some tracks have less complex audio data and compress tighter than others. Some encoders (compressors) also compress tighter than others.

Lossless is lossless though. Meaning no audio data loss.

 

[Bullseye]

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif Its all about audio data complexity and compression rate. Some tracks have less complex audio data and compress tighter than others. Some encoders (compressors) also compress tighter than others. Lossless is lossless though. Meaning no audio data loss.

Thanks for your answer krmathis

So basically you are telling me that more bit-rate doesn't equal to more quality, no?

Then how about Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab Ultra High Quality Recording. Would there be any difference between that and SACD (5.1 sound recording)? Why is there so much hype with that type of recording?

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullseye /img/forum/go_quote.gif So basically you are telling me that more bit-rate doesn't equal to more quality, no?

Correct!
Higher bitrate don't mean higher sound quality. It just means that the audio data is more complex and don't compress that much.

Quote:

Then how about Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab Ultra High Quality Recording. Would there be any difference between that and SACD (5.1 sound recording)? Why is there so much hype with that type of recording?

Don't really understand what you ask for.
Is the first one "Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab Ultra High Quality Recording" audio CD, while the other one SACD? Then the SACD have potential of higher sound quality.

 

[Aaron5604]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullseye /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thanks for your answer krmathis So basically you are telling me that more bit-rate doesn't equal to more quality, no?

However, just so you know...

Higher bit-rates do point out which songs contain the most instrumentation (frequencies/samples) per frame during playback.

Again, it's all lossless -- the same as what was originally on the CD. Though, what changes overall bit-rate (in this case) is the difference in sample rate held within every song; being how both the bit size and # of channels remain constant each and everytime.

For example:

You'll find that alternative bands (w/ multiple instruments) yield a higher kbps than individual artists who utilize only a couple of instruments, in addition to upholding greater lengths of silence within their spectrum of play.

 

[tongson]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullseye /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thanks for your answer krmathis So basically you are telling me that more bit-rate doesn't equal to more quality, no? Then how about Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab Ultra High Quality Recording. Would there be any difference between that and SACD (5.1 sound recording)? Why is there so much hype with that type of recording?

Bitrates in lossless only affect the disk space.

Sound quality is subjective. You are comparing different masterings and or analog to digital processing so they will sound different. Which is better will depend on you.

 

[Kicksonrt66]

If you are trying to judge the "quality" of the original recording by thinking that a higher bitrate flac file means more quality in the original, that's bogus.

If the original has a high noise floor (poor recording) a lot of bits go into exactly representing the noise, which doesn't compress well.

For yucks, I generated a 1 minute file of white noise. Flac only reduced the size by 6%, and maybe only got that much because it wasn't random enough or didn't go quite full scale.

 

[Bullseye]

Yeah, thanks for your reply, I was just wondering because i did not know how bit-rate was related to quality or to the music file.

 

[krmathis]

You're most welcome!