What format is your main collection encoded in? - Page 3

pokerapar88 · 04-14-2012, 14:04 | posts: 1,526 | Location: Argentina // Buenos Aires

Quote:

Originally Posted by thatguy91

Like I said earlier, don't see the point of using anything but VBR for MP3 these days (algorithm quality is set by -q, with -q 0 being the highest), and bitrate quality set by -V. -V3 or -V2 (higher bitrate) will provide sound much better than most MP3's you've heard, particularly when using the latest LAME (even the latest alpha's are fine if you test them first) and not one from 5 years ago.

192 CBR is still too low for some parts of music, and other parts too high and wasteful. 320 is definitely wasteful 99 percent of the time! I've actually heard properly encoded MP3 files (like I said above, almost all aren't encoded properly) using VBR settings even at -V 4 that sound better than 256 CBR, and in a couple of cases 320, simply because the algorithms etc in whatever they encoded it with sucked, or were based on older psycho-acoustic modelling.

I agree. It would mean to rip them yourself, which is always the best option. Anyway, I rather have lossless audio. Faithful to the original recorded sound.

thatguy91 · 04-14-2012, 14:07 | posts: 2,780 | Location: Australia

True

lossless is definitely well, lossless! but as a compressed format, a properly encoded MP3 is probably the most diverse and compatible format.

pokerapar88 · 04-14-2012, 16:35 | posts: 1,526 | Location: Argentina // Buenos Aires

Quote:

Originally Posted by thatguy91

True

lossless is definitely well, lossless! but as a compressed format, a properly encoded MP3 is probably the most diverse and compatible format.

Agreed. I believe nowadays there's no media player that doesn't support it !

ROBSCIX · 04-14-2012, 19:44 | posts: 16,087 | Location: Guru3D Audio Lab

Yes but Flac can always be converted to Mp3 BUT an Mp3 can never be converted back to a true lossless copy of the original.

An Mp3 may still have a place for portable media players where amount of files wins out over fidelity to some I guess but the question is regarding your main audio collection.

I just figure if you are building, tuning, upgrading and trying to get the best sound out of your system you possibly can within your budget a lossy destructive compression routine is really counter productive to your end goal.

Not to mention, the better your system becomes the more prominent the negative affects of lossy encoding become.
As the saying goes your chain is only as good as the weakest link.

pokerapar88 · 04-14-2012, 19:55 | posts: 1,526 | Location: Argentina // Buenos Aires

Quote:

Originally Posted by ROBSCIX

Yes but Flac can always be converted to Mp3 BUT an Mp3 can never be converted back to a true lossless copy of the original.

An Mp3 may still have a place for portable media players where amount of files wins out over fidelity to some I guess but the question is regarding your main audio collection.

I just figure if you are building, tuning, upgrading and trying to get the best sound out of your system you possibly can within your budget a lossy destructive compression routine is really counter productive to your end goal.

Not to mention, the better your system becomes the more prominent the negative affects of lossy encoding become.
As the saying goes your chain is only as good as the weakest link.

+1 to this.

Just listened to a 128kb/s MP3 on my brother's sennheiser HD280's and felt like if someone was rubbing the song against sandpaper

thatguy91 · 04-14-2012, 21:45 | posts: 2,780 | Location: Australia

Quote:

Originally Posted by ROBSCIX

Yes but Flac can always be converted to Mp3 BUT an Mp3 can never be converted back to a true lossless copy of the original.

An Mp3 may still have a place for portable media players where amount of files wins out over fidelity to some I guess but the question is regarding your main audio collection.

I just figure if you are building, tuning, upgrading and trying to get the best sound out of your system you possibly can within your budget a lossy destructive compression routine is really counter productive to your end goal.

Not to mention, the better your system becomes the more prominent the negative affects of lossy encoding become.
As the saying goes your chain is only as good as the weakest link.

Very true, but a properly encoded MP3 file, using the suggested settings and LAME versions I mentioned earlier, does actually make for a good listening experience. Its true lossless like FLAC does sound true to the source (as it should, otherwise its not lossless!) but a properly encoded MP3 file also sounds quite decent. Most people haven't experienced a properly encoded MP3 file, and the majority of audio encoded out there use crappy or old encoders and the wrong settings (or very average quality sources).

TruMutton_200Hz · 04-14-2012, 23:45 | posts: 2,756 | Location: Belgium

Well, if you use a program called DiffMaker to generate a file based on the amplitudinal differences between a 24/192 lossless file and the same lossless 24/192 file converted first to lossless 16/44.1 and then back to lossless 24/192 again, what happens is you get a lossless 24/192 file that contains only ultrasonic data so that if you listen to it, you hear absolutely nothing.

However, if you blindly compare the original copy to the version that's been converted to 16/44.1 and back again, even if you haven't received any special training to develop professional listening skills, during the blinded listening test if you're listening purely for pleasure and nothing else then I can guarantee most of you will very clearly hear a big difference in the three-dimensionality of the soundstage even with onboard sound and plastic multimedia speakers worth barely 100 bucks.

That's what the sound quality of an untouched audio CD is like when compared to proper Hi Res.

So to me it isn't about lossy versus lossless encoding, let alone how an mp3 file has been encoded. It's all about bit depth and samplerate because I can even hear the difference between lossless 24/96 and lossless 24/192 through my DAC that won't be better than a DAC worth less than a few hundred bucks maybe five years from now. It's like DVD video versus Blu Ray video, you don't have to be a cinephile to be able to tell the difference.

ROBSCIX · *Last edited by ROBSCIX; 04-15-2012 at 00:03.*

Quote:

Originally Posted by thatguy91

Very true, but a properly encoded MP3 file, using the suggested settings and LAME versions I mentioned earlier, does actually make for a good listening experience. Its true lossless like FLAC does sound true to the source (as it should, otherwise its not lossless!) but a properly encoded MP3 file also sounds quite decent. Most people haven't experienced a properly encoded MP3 file, and the majority of audio encoded out there use crappy or old encoders and the wrong settings (or very average quality sources).

That's the point what is quite decent? If the file has been damaged at all, to me it is too much.
Why even worry about any of the points you mentioned, this encoder, that encoder..this sounds not as bad as that..etc?
I just encode my media to lossless and be done with it.
The idea of any lossy encoding is counter productive to getting the best sound system possible IMO.
You can't get true to the source if your source media is not a 1:1 copy.

Your choice, Use what you want though.... as it is not really the point of the discussion.

Anarion · 04-15-2012, 00:23 | posts: 9,183 | Location: Finland

WMA Lossless. Pretty much equals size to FLAC but support in Windows is great and Foobar2000 doesn't have any issues with it nor its tags or embedded album art. I keep backups as FLAC (easier to convert into other formats).

I name files the same way (track number first, then track name). My folder structure is rather simple. Soundtracks and large albums have their own folders, otherwise they go under album artist. It's pretty irrelevant since I make sure that every track is properly tagged.

I just can't stand lossy music files any more. I mostly listen to progressive/uplifting trance and high bitrate is a must (lossy codecs reach about 0.75 compression ratio usually) or tracks sound bad. Anything less than 320 kbps is out of the question (and it must be in AAC). I can't understand how some use 128 kbps, MP3 at those settings sound absolutely horrible (ruined; MP3 doesn't sound that good even at 320 kbps).

Because of size related issues I use 320 kbps AAC for my phone but for PC there's no reason what so ever why you should ruin your listening experience by using lossy format.

ROBSCIX · 04-15-2012, 00:32 | posts: 16,087 | Location: Guru3D Audio Lab

What issues have you had with FLAC? I have never had issues with tagging, embedded art..etc. All fine for me using the apps I have been using.
I use Foobar totally customized and lately I have been using Album player, it is not free but has a ton of power and options I have not found in other players thus far.

Anarion · *Last edited by Anarion; 04-15-2012 at 00:44.*

Quote:

Originally Posted by ROBSCIX

What issues have you had with FLAC? I have never had issues with tagging, embedded art..etc. All fine for me using the apps I have been using.
I use Foobar totally customized and lately I have been using Album player, it is not free but has a ton of power and options I have not found in other players thus far.

Windows just has better support, that's it. When I brose individual files, I see album art on each file and tags work perfectly in Windows Explorer with WMA. It has much more pros than cons over FLAC in my case. I use FLAC for backups/archiving but for actually playback I use WMA.

ROBSCIX · *Last edited by ROBSCIX; 04-15-2012 at 01:11.*

Hmm, interesting. I set windows so it shows album art for each album although all my files have embedded artwork also. I seem to have become a stickler for proper information and artwork as time has went on. To me it takes time to add the artwork and bios..etc but so worth it in the end.
I have pic of band, front of album, back of album, inlay and pic of the CD itself if it is a CD.
I have never found any reason to go to something else over Flac.

I find I am using album player more and more as it has options like being able to show different albums as CD, Vinyl, collections..etc When you look at individual artists the albums can be further organized studio, Live, compilations, unplugged, bootlegs..etc. Nice to be able to organize all those weird albums I have collected over the years. Organization seems to have become very important as my collection has expanded.

TruMutton_200Hz · 04-15-2012, 10:02 | posts: 2,756 | Location: Belgium

Keeping an excellent overview of you music library including discogs, artwork etcetera has never been easier in foobar2000, really. A few very nice folks keep improving their WSH Panel Mod scripts in this amazingly helpful thread:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=77883

Weecka · 04-15-2012, 10:29 | posts: 213 | Location: UK

320kb/s mp3 + some FLAC

Anarion · 04-15-2012, 12:52 | posts: 9,183 | Location: Finland

Quote:

Originally Posted by ROBSCIX

Hmm, interesting. I set windows so it shows album art for each album although all my files have embedded artwork also. I seem to have become a stickler for proper information and artwork as time has went on. To me it takes time to add the artwork and bios..etc but so worth it in the end.
I have pic of band, front of album, back of album, inlay and pic of the CD itself if it is a CD.
I have never found any reason to go to something else over Flac.

I find I am using album player more and more as it has options like being able to show different albums as CD, Vinyl, collections..etc When you look at individual artists the albums can be further organized studio, Live, compilations, unplugged, bootlegs..etc. Nice to be able to organize all those weird albums I have collected over the years. Organization seems to have become very important as my collection has expanded.

Tagging all tracks is important. Makes searching just so much easier. My foobar is rather plain because I find it rather tedious to tweak. The one thing I really like about WMP is that it has pretty much perfect UI out of the box (but I love the ASIO out on Foobar way too much so...).

ROBSCIX · 04-15-2012, 16:26 | posts: 16,087 | Location: Guru3D Audio Lab

Foobar takes some work but once you get it down it is not that hard to work with.
As I said, lately I have been using Album player more and more for various tasks such as organization adding bios, band pics. Filling in info more thoroughly. Very in depth for such task, well many apps are really good for this type of tasks.

k1net1cs · 04-16-2012, 08:37 | posts: 3,328

Quote:

Originally Posted by thatguy91

Like I said earlier, don't see the point of using anything but VBR for MP3 these days (algorithm quality is set by -q, with -q 0 being the highest), and bitrate quality set by -V. -V3 or -V2 (higher bitrate) will provide sound much better than most MP3's you've heard, particularly when using the latest LAME (even the latest alpha's are fine if you test them first) and not one from 5 years ago.

CBR is mostly used for archaic players that does not properly support VBR back then.
These days, they're simply the only choice for streamcasting.
CBR mode, that is, not necessarily the MP3 format, as people are slowly transitioning to AAC.

-q 0 setting, to be honest, is a waste of time.
-q 2 is the best bet, and I doubt most people would know the difference between using -q 0 and -q 2.
Of course, some people would argue about that 'peace of mind' from using -q 0, but personally it's not worth the extra encoding time, especially when I transcode lots of albums from my lossless archive.

A user has made an 'extension' (of some sort) to LAME 3.99.5.
The 3.99.5y has a -V0+ argument which would sound better than -V 0 in most samples with pre-echo problems.
Of course, at the expense of a slightly bigger bitrate.

robert1990 · 04-16-2012, 09:08 | posts: 734 | Location: Sydney/Indonesia

80% FLAC (compression 8), and some MP3 ranging from 128-320 kbps. 90% of all my music collection are ripped from CD, rest I found it from 4Shared (lol). All played by using jetAudio (full version)with BBE effect enabled

sovietdoc · 04-16-2012, 21:11 | posts: 700 | Location: h4x0r_lund

Most of it is in .MLP but some are in 24/192 WAV's

sdamaged99 · 04-22-2012, 19:33 | posts: 1,912 | Location: Isle of Man

670GB of FLAC files ripped using EAC

I do the tagging using Tag and Rename and then use Mediamonkey to tag the artwork to each track

I then use DBPowerAmp Batch Converter to convert the FLACs to high bitrate VBR MP3s for use on my ipod when at the gym

All my FLACs and MP3s are backed up online using Sugarsync (£4.50 a month)

Used 1.4TB of online storage so far. Bargain.

ROBSCIX · *Last edited by ROBSCIX; 10-24-2012 at 15:47.*

removed the spam.

On topic, I converted my entire CD collection to FLAC.
I copied them off, put the CD's away for safe keeping. This way god forbid, I ever loose my Flac collection which is currently in a RAID 5 array

I can rip them again. I buy new CD's rip them and put them away.

I have been using Mp3Tag for quickly adding information. I have a bunch of custom scripts to make everything easier. I added in Discogs pone scripts which finds a great deal of information on almost any album. Even very obscure EP's or other albums you would never find info for anywhere else. Mp3Tag is a very simple app, but you can expand it and get it to do whatever you want with scripts.

As I may have mentioned I am a stickler for proper tagging, album art and keeping things organized. You have to with such a large collection.

Nato.dbnz · 10-24-2012, 21:13 | posts: 3,255 | Location: Auckland NZ

Quote:

Originally Posted by ROBSCIX

removed the spam.

On topic, I converted my entire CD collection to FLAC.
I copied them off, put the CD's away for safe keeping. This way god forbid, I ever loose my Flac collection which is currently in a RAID 5 array

I can rip them again. I buy new CD's rip them and put them away.

I have been using Mp3Tag for quickly adding information. I have a bunch of custom scripts to make everything easier. I added in Discogs pone scripts which finds a great deal of information on almost any album. Even very obscure EP's or other albums you would never find info for anywhere else. Mp3Tag is a very simple app, but you can expand it and get it to do whatever you want with scripts.

As I may have mentioned I am a stickler for proper tagging, album art and keeping things organized. You have to with such a large collection.

Yep, when I buy a CD these days the only time it gets played is in my car on the way home. Other than that it gets ripped, and put away on my cd shelf for safe-keeping.

I'm also a stickler for proper tagging and cover art. You have to be to keep a sizeable library under control.

Faces Of Death · 10-25-2012, 01:37 | posts: 864 | Location: Derby, England

Quote:

Originally Posted by TruMutton_200Hz

If I was forced to listen to nothing but mp3 all day long it wouldn't be a cat but it would be me that would suicide.

I cannot even stand the sound of a "normal" audio CD, not even if it's being played through a $50K stereo system. From my point of.. err.. "view", an audiophile quality vinyl record that's been transferred to a 24/96 lossless format is typically sounding so much better than CD that it makes 128 kb/s mp3 rips and their "untouched" CD versions both sound like poo in a blender. All that's needed to demonstrate how much CDs suck is a half decent $2.5K - $3K-ish turntable setup and a stack of used vinyl.

Semi-off topic: the improvements in sound quality from moving to a decent outboard DAC such as the one that I have is miles bigger than the difference between modern day onboard sound and any internal soundcard on the market.

It's like comparing a shabby 25 year old TV to a brand new 1080p Full HD $1K LED TV.

that is just completely and totally absurd, this is the absolute stereotype (forgive the pun) cliche Parody of an 'audiophile' records vinyl to some losless HI res blah de blah format? can't listen to CD's?

come on man! a jokes a joke!

Mufflore · 10-25-2012, 02:23 | posts: 9,554 | Location: UK

I agree.
I'm using the same DAC and amplifier as TruMutton but my speakers are different.
I find that vinyl rips lack dynamic headroom, are missing detail and are noisier, they sound flat and boring in comparison.
CDs and hi res audio sound so much better and have tons more detail, its no illusion.

My feeling is that the tweeters I am using (ribbon) are forgiving of some of the treble harshness that 'some' CDs exhibit, but it doesnt explain the lack of headroom and detail on vinyl rips.

Different systems give different results, then theres personal preference as well.
I'm no newb to music, I was a pro singer from age 7 and played in multiple orchestras, and have a degree in electronic engineering, so I'm not someone who doesnt understand what goes on under the hood.
My friends also agree with what I am saying when they hear my system.
They are like the general public in their ability to resolve music detail, yet they hold the same opinion, so its not just down to my perception.

TruMutton is absolutely anal about vinyl and there are many others with the same opinion.
I dont doubt what they are hearing with their systems, but they will not accept what we hear on ours.
Thats why I avoid this kind of discussion generally because they get pretty arsey about it.
Now its my turn

ps I was a big vinyl fan until I got this system.
Now I am an absolute fan of CDs, with this system.

Nato.dbnz · 10-25-2012, 21:00 | posts: 3,255 | Location: Auckland NZ

The problem with vinyl is that to get the most out of it you have to sink in serious cash. The cart/needle alone for a mid-range analogue setup could be upwards of $1000, not to mention the turntable & phono amp, heavy isolation plinth etc. It just gets out of hand really fast, however when it is done right it sounds magical.

I have a low end vinyl setup and a kickass digital setup and enjoy both but the digital gets played 99.9% of the time due to ease of use and how it fits in to my lifestyle and the fact that these days I can buy lossless FLAC albums for most of the music I'm interested in online for a fraction of the cost of new vinyl. Of course hi-res downloads are expensive and few and far between still but they will get there too eventually.