quality of your music collection?
post-1504032
Post #46 of 60

Erukian

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Mar 31, 2004
Messages
350
Reaction score
19
Joined
Mar 31, 2004
Posts
350
Likes
19
I'd guess about 25% flac, 40% musepack, %10 OGG and %25 MP3/M4A/WMA

-Joe
 
     Share This Post       
post-1504076
Post #47 of 60

jiiteepee

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Apr 5, 2005
Messages
1,573
Reaction score
52
Joined
Apr 5, 2005
Posts
1,573
Likes
52
Found some articles 'bout audio encoding

Mp3 compression
By Andrei Gule
Introduction The article is devoted to some fine features which appear when using audio data compression standard MPEG I/II Layer 3 (mp3). There is no any complete work like testing of coders or mp3 players; I just trie...
http://www.digit-life.com/articles/mp3comp/index.html

MP3Pro vs. MP3
By Evgeny Ignatiev
MP3... this format is now discussed a lot on the net, as well as others; ways of sound compression are also much spoken about: which coder is better - LAME or Fraunhofer and whether there is a noticeable difference be...
http://www.digit-life.com/articles/mp3pro/index.html

OGG vs. LAME
By Andrei Aspidov Preface
Today everybody knows quite well what sound possibilities a modern computer has. A record library on a computer, together with audio cassettes and CDs is no wonder for many. We all know that a CD is simple and ea...
http://www.digit-life.com/articles/oggvslame/index.html

Research quality of coding sound by different mp3 encoders
By Aleksey Lukyanov
The format MP3 for high-quality encoding of sound becomes more and more popular. Initially developed for usage within the standards of video compression MPEG1 and MPEG2 it v...
http://www.digit-life.com/articles/m...ity/index.html

jiitee
 
     Share This Post       
post-1504078
Post #48 of 60

fogia.4

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
243
Reaction score
10
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Posts
243
Likes
10
id say around 30% is flac/cd, the rest is mp3s... cant be very accurate though
 
     Share This Post       
post-1504416
Post #49 of 60

Skylab

Reviewerus Prolificus
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
21,802
Reaction score
977
Location
The Court of the Crimson King
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Location
The Court of the Crimson King
Posts
21,802
Likes
977
Quote:

Originally Posted by smittysan89
If I have apple lossless from itunes do I still need FLAC since they are both lossless? Or is itunes not as good or something...

and is there a way to make current songs that i have in bad quality better? like 128 to 192, or to lossless etc



Part one: If you use iTunes and an iPod, and not another kind of player or software, then you should use Apple Lossless. It is bit-perfect lossless coding (I have proven this by successfully encoding and decoding HDCDs with it), and iTunes does not support FLAC, unfortunately.

FLAC is more flexible, but it does no better (or worse) a job encoding CDs or WAV files -- lossless is lossless.

Part two: You CANNOT improve the songs that are already lossy-coded at 128 or 192 or whatever. You'd have to re-import them using a better (like lossless) codec.
 
     Share This Post       
post-1504570
Post #50 of 60

smittysan89

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Messages
545
Reaction score
10
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Posts
545
Likes
10
yeah, but like i mean if I put all my songs from my ipod onto my hard drive, then can i convert all of those files to a apple lossless with a program like dB amp, then put them all back on my ipod?
 
     Share This Post       
post-1504581
Post #51 of 60

Skylab

Reviewerus Prolificus
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
21,802
Reaction score
977
Location
The Court of the Crimson King
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Location
The Court of the Crimson King
Posts
21,802
Likes
977
Quote:

Originally Posted by smittysan89
yeah, but like i mean if I put all my songs from my ipod onto my hard drive, then can i convert all of those files to a apple lossless with a program like dB amp, then put them all back on my ipod?


This does you no good. Once you have used a lossy perceptual-coder like MP3 or AAC, you have changed the original data forever, and you cannot get the lost information back by taking the MP3 file and encoding it to a lossless format. This would only serve to make a copy of the MP3 file that took up more space, but sounded no better than the MP3 file itself. Once you have thrown the bits away with MP3 or AAC, you cannot get them back.

If you have the CDs, you can re-rip them using Apple Lossless, but if you downloaded them as MP3 or AAC, you should just leave them that way -- there is no way to improve them.
 
     Share This Post       
post-1504611
Post #52 of 60

smittysan89

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Messages
545
Reaction score
10
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Posts
545
Likes
10
really? man...even with a music converter program? unfortunately when i got my ipod i took my friends whole music collection that he had on his ipod and then went from there...hmm ok thanks
 
     Share This Post       
post-1504638
Post #53 of 60

Patu

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
3,302
Reaction score
15
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Posts
3,302
Likes
15
Most of my collection is 192kbps-320kbps/MP3 and maybe 5% is FLAC.

Now when I have a system which makes differences between MP3 and FLAC audible I've started to build my FLAC collection. Though I don't have such a "golden hearing" that I always even hear the differencies if I listen same track in MP3/FLAC.
 
     Share This Post       
post-1504641
Post #54 of 60

Skylab

Reviewerus Prolificus
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
21,802
Reaction score
977
Location
The Court of the Crimson King
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Location
The Court of the Crimson King
Posts
21,802
Likes
977
While audible, the differences between well-coded MP3/320 or AAC/320 are subtle. But I can hear them. And I can easily hear the artifacts of MP3 or AAC at 192 or (gasp) below. Some people are more sensitive to this than others.
 
     Share This Post       
post-1504673
Post #55 of 60

Bill Ward

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Dec 8, 2003
Messages
1,792
Reaction score
12
Joined
Dec 8, 2003
Posts
1,792
Likes
12
Everything in Flac.

Probably a little over 100 GB on a dedicated drive with a full back up via usb. I don't go mobile, and I never want to rip this stuff again.

BW
 
     Share This Post       
post-1505014
Post #56 of 60

Oink1

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Sep 24, 2004
Messages
2,152
Reaction score
13
Joined
Sep 24, 2004
Posts
2,152
Likes
13
320k Lame - alt.preset.insane setting
 
     Share This Post       
post-1505133
Post #57 of 60

grawk

Itinerant Miscreant
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Messages
8,739
Reaction score
34
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Posts
8,739
Likes
34
I used to have a lot of live recordings stored in SHN format. Like 100+gb. Well, I still have it, but it's on a couple of drives I can't mount because I don't have an openbsd box at hte moment. All my current music is either AAC 128 (being reripped), AAC 192 (not being reripped, but not my preference now), AAC 224 (current preference), or ALAC with AAC224 copies. The better the sound on the original cd, the more likely I am to rip to lossless. Also, if it's a recording I made myself, I rip to ALAC.

I have a few MP3s in various bitrates, but those tend to be songs I've downloaded, and the vast majority of my collection is just online copies of cds I own.
 
     Share This Post       
post-1505965
Post #58 of 60

gorman

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
Messages
1,132
Reaction score
45
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
Posts
1,132
Likes
45
My advice to you is. . . ABX

Seriously, without a double blind test, you might be wasting a lot of space. Especially for portable use.
 
     Share This Post       
post-1506241
Post #59 of 60

Skylab

Reviewerus Prolificus
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
21,802
Reaction score
977
Location
The Court of the Crimson King
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Location
The Court of the Crimson King
Posts
21,802
Likes
977
Quote:

Originally Posted by gorman
My advice to you is. . . ABX

Seriously, without a double blind test, you might be wasting a lot of space. Especially for portable use.



Well, without opening up THAT can of worms, I think that even with ABX testing it's easy to hear the artifacts of low bit rate lossy coding. I use AAC/320 sometimes for very lengthy Grateful Dead live tracks, and find it pretty benign there. But for really well recorded stuff, it's not a waste of space IMO.
 
     Share This Post       
post-1506346
Post #60 of 60

Talonz

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 18, 2003
Messages
608
Reaction score
10
Joined
Oct 18, 2003
Posts
608
Likes
10
Quote:

Originally Posted by gorman
My advice to you is. . . ABX

Seriously, without a double blind test, you might be wasting a lot of space. Especially for portable use.



I believe most people can tell the difference between a 192bit MP3 and a FLAC file. At least, I can, so I would rather not leave anything to chance by encoding to 320bit. However, I do use LAME to encode 320bit for my portable player. When you're on the go, the sound quality can't really be appreciated. Why lose any quality while at home at the cost of disk space? Disk space is so cheap, consider going lossless a free equipment upgrade.
 
     Share This Post       

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top