[Sir Nobax]

Oh, wait i think we are speaking about two different things. . . .

Anyway, i didnt do any stereo splitting, ...would make my comparison only more difficult\time consuming. (i have to reconfigure my screen-grabs and resizings, etc etc.)

 

[fraseyboy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Nobax /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, WMA10 Pro encodings sound like a real lossless file, this is my favorite encoder for ripping CD's to my HDD. You must however re-encode them for any portable device, since none can decode WMA Pro files (AFAIK). To encode WMA10 Pro files simply install WMP11 (on non-Windows OS' however this wont be 'simply'), this will update the old WMA9 Pro.

Damn... I guess I'll use 10 PRO for my PC and Lame 256 for my mp3 player?

Mmm... I have WMP11, but when I go tools>options>rip, then select the "Windows Media Audio Pro" option, it doesn't go up to 256kbps, only to 192... Is it the wrong option?

 

[Palm Springs]

.

 

[Palm Springs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Nobax /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, WMA10 Pro encodings sound like a real lossless file, this is my favorite encoder for ripping CD's to my HDD. You must however re-encode them for any portable device, since none can decode WMA Pro files (AFAIK). To encode WMA10 Pro files simply install WMP11 (on non-Windows OS' however this wont be 'simply'), this will update the old WMA9 Pro.

The zune can decode wma10 pro files, no need to re-encode it.

 

[donunus]

still waiting for the all important itunes settings... 192 vbr and 224 cbr
AAc that is

 

[Sir Nobax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fraseyboy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Mmm... I have WMP11, but when I go tools>options>rip, then select the "Windows Media Audio Pro" option, it doesn't go up to 256kbps, only to 192... Is it the wrong option?

You will need a 3rd party encoder to encode up to 256kbps, something like DBpowerAMP or EAC would do the job nicely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Palm Springs /img/forum/go_quote.gif The zune can decode wma10 pro files, no need to re-encode it.

Sweet

.

Quote:

Originally Posted by donunus /img/forum/go_quote.gif still waiting for the all important itunes settings... 192 vbr and 224 cbr AAc that is

Installing iTunes now, getting the results within a few minutes.

 

[donunus]

patiently waiting

 

[liquidfireboy]

the whole purpose of lossy compression is to throw out data while still being able to produce a wave that sounds close to the original.

let's look at the graphs. Even if a graph looks pretty messed up, how can you conclude that the missing data is not data that the encoder has deemed to be inaudible and thrown out? A track with a messed up graph may not have audible differences from one with a pretty one!

 

[donunus]

Thats true liquidfireboy but if you could get something that sounds transparent and measures that way too, its better isn't it? Especially if filesize is similar to the other codec that doesn't look as good. Let's face it, most of us are paranoid audiophiles (suffering from audiophilia Nervosa) around here

 

[Sir Nobax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donunus /img/forum/go_quote.gif patiently waiting

You'll be one happy iTunes user, i just encoded about all AAC and MP3 files from 16kbps (

) to 320kbps in both CBR and VBR.

BTW look at the filesizes of the AAC VBR compared to CBR...

Quote:

Originally Posted by donunus Thats true liquidfireboy but if you could get something that sounds transparent and measures that way too, its better isn't it? Especially if filesize is similar to the other codec that doesn't look as good. Let's face it, most of us are paranoid audiophiles (suffering from audiophilia Nervosa) around here

X2
...I was about to say exactly the same thing.

 

[liquidfireboy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donunus /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thats true liquidfireboy but if you could get something that sounds transparent and measures that way too, its better isn't it? Especially if filesize is similar to the other codec that doesn't look as good. Let's face it, most of us are paranoid audiophiles (suffering from audiophilia Nervosa) around here

yes. But has this thread addressed the "sounding transparent" part?

From what I see in this thread, the TS just showing us how much "data" each encoder/bitrate threw out, but nothing about whether the "data" being thrown out was inaudible/audible.

 

[donunus]

about the sounding transparent part, there are tests at hydrogenaudio.com for that or try abxing using foobar. 320 mp3 is not transparent to me thats why i want to try aac. mp3 sounds good but not identical to the original wav with some of my songs

 

[donunus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Nobax /img/forum/go_quote.gif BTW look at the filesizes of the AAC VBR compared to CBR...

the file is probably not complex enough to make it activate a higher bitrate than 192 for example in vbr mode. the lower vbr bitrates do have a difference in filesizes. Thats my best guess

 

[liquidfireboy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donunus /img/forum/go_quote.gif about the sounding transparent part, there are tests at hydrogenaudio.com for that or try abxing using foobar. 320 mp3 is not transparent to me thats why i want to try aac. mp3 sounds good but not identical to the original wav with some of my songs

my whole beef with this thread is the use of graphs to measure differences. There's no way to tell with graphs whether an encoder is doing a good job at throwing out inaudible data. The only way to tell is to listen/ABX!

Assuming we compare between 2 encoders of the same format. Encoder A w/192kbps and Encoder B w/224kbps

Common sense says the former will throw out more info because there're lesser bits available. However, the former *may* still sound closer to the original due to better handling on the part of the encoder, even if the graph of the latter looks better.

 

[donunus]

wheres the pics???