Sankaku Complex Forums » General

1. 

   cheese_cake
   

   --
   A thread for the pristine and even perhaps ultra sensitive eared.
   --

   anyhoo, a friend from school mentioned that CD quality music is not always the highest as its parameters may be that of a 256 kbps MP3. However, i believe different. Of course with the assumption that the CD quality is the best available to the average consumer, the only way the quality could be higher would be dependent on the recording quality then the encoding to fit the tracks on to the CD. i also noticed ripping straight from the CD to a .mp3 will result in something similar to encoding a .mp3 twice on separate occasions, resulting in a lower quality than that of the original parameters on the CD itself, thus ripping to a lossless type would be ideal. I.E. audio ripped from CD to 320kbps mp3 would have lower quality than ripping to, say, .wav or PCM.

   i wonder if anyone has thoughts about it.

   also, for the heck of it, post your cans & amps ^ ^

   Posted 4 years ago # Quote
2. 

   Bravo
   

   yes, lossless audio compression is ideal if you want to have cd like quality.

   Posted 4 years ago # Quote
3. 

   cheese_cake
   

   i was also wonder that the difference is between 32bit integer and 32bit float for PCM

   Posted 4 years ago # Quote
4. 

   Kudilicious
   

   cheese_cake said:
   --
   A thread for the pristine and even perhaps ultra sensitive eared.
   --

   anyhoo, a friend from school mentioned that CD quality music is not always the highest as its parameters may be that of a 256 kbps MP3. However, i believe different. Of course with the assumption that the CD quality is the best available to the average consumer, the only way the quality could be higher would be dependent on the recording quality then the encoding to fit the tracks on to the CD. i also noticed ripping straight from the CD to a .mp3 will result in something similar to encoding a .mp3 twice on separate occasions, resulting in a lower quality than that of the original parameters on the CD itself, thus ripping to a lossless type would be ideal. I.E. audio ripped from CD to 320kbps mp3 would have lower quality than ripping to, say, .wav or PCM.

   i wonder if anyone has thoughts about it.

   The vast majority of people can't tell the difference between lossless compression and 320kbps mp3, even with expensive audio setups. Most people who say they can are suffering from buyer's remorse. For ripping from CDs and listening, 320kbps mp3 is perfectly fine.

   What is true is that re-encoding from a lossy format into a lossy one (this includes mp3 to mp3) will eventually produce a very low audio quality, which is why lossless formats like FLAC are useful for people who do audio editing and need to re-encode.

   What's absolutely hilarious is when people re-encode lossy audio into FLAC and expect the quality to magically return. Or when people re-encode lossy music into FLAC for trolling purposes and the audiophiles who download are convinced that they can hear everything more clearly.

   Posted 4 years ago # Quote
5. 

   brningpyre
   

   cheese_cake said:
   i was also wonder that the difference is between 32bit integer and 32bit float for PCM

   A floating point number is signed and can have decimal values.

   An integer on the other hand is unsigned, and cannot have decimal values.

   In general terms, a 32-bit floating point sample format will be more precise than a 32-bit integer one.

   When I'm recording audio, I generally use 32-bit float at 44.1 or 48 kHz.

   Posted 4 years ago # Quote
6. 

   cheese_cake
   

   kudichan said:

   The vast majority of people can't tell the difference between lossless compression and 320kbps mp3, even with expensive audio setups. Most people who say they can are suffering from buyer's remorse. For ripping from CDs and listening, 320kbps mp3 is perfectly fine.

   What is true is that re-encoding from a lossy format into a lossy one (this includes mp3 to mp3) will eventually produce a very low audio quality, which is why lossless formats like FLAC are useful for people who do audio editing and need to re-encode.

   What's absolutely hilarious is when people re-encode lossy audio into FLAC and expect the quality to magically return. Or when people re-encode lossy music into FLAC for trolling purposes and the audiophiles who download are convinced that they can hear everything more clearly.

   true that. however a difference between lossy and lossless files is that lossy types degenerates quicker over time on a spinning disk. not so sure about flash disks tho.... encoding a 320kbps .mp3 to flac does have some value.

   also, my cans d:

   Attachments

   1. DSC_0011.JPG 4 years old

   Posted 4 years ago # Quote
7. 

   brningpyre
   

   cheese_cake said:
   however a difference between lossy and lossless files is that lossy types degenerates quicker over time on a spinning disk. not so sure about flash disks tho.... encoding a 320kbps .mp3 to flac does have some value.

   What do you mean (on each count)?

   How would a lossy audio file degrade faster on a disc? That doesn't even make sense.

   Encoding a 320 kbps mp3 into flac does nothing but increase the file size.

   Posted 4 years ago # Quote
8. 

   Kudilicious
   

   cheese_cake said:

   true that. however a difference between lossy and lossless files is that lossy types degenerates quicker over time on a spinning disk. not so sure about flash disks tho.... encoding a 320kbps .mp3 to flac does have some value.

   also, my cans d:

   brningpyre said:

   What do you mean (on each count)?

   How would a lossy audio file degrade faster on a disc? That doesn't even make sense.

   Encoding a 320 kbps mp3 into flac does nothing but increase the file size.

   Hearing the difference now isn't the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is 'lossy'. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA - it's about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don't want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.

   I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrange...well don't get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. FLAC rips from the same period still sound great, even if they weren't stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to FLAC, you may not be able to hear the difference now, but in a year or two, you'll be glad you did.

   Posted 4 years ago # Quote
9. 

   cheese_cake
   

   brningpyre said:

   What do you mean (on each count)?

   How would a lossy audio file degrade faster on a disc? That doesn't even make sense.

   Encoding a 320 kbps mp3 into flac does nothing but increase the file size.

   thx for the information on the difference between 32bit integer & float ^ ^

   Posted 4 years ago # Quote
10. 

    brningpyre
    

    kudichan said:
    rotational velocidensity

    I LOL'd.

    Seriously though, you shouldn't perpetuate that. Some people might actually believe it.

    Posted 4 years ago # Quote
11. 

    cheese_cake
    

    ah i noticed that the attachment is not showing ^ ^;;;

    

    hold on.... >.> velociraptor .... sigh

    Attachments

    1. DSC_0011.JPG 4 years old

    Posted 4 years ago # Quote
12. 

    Kudilicious
    

    brningpyre said:

    I LOL'd.

    Seriously though, you shouldn't perpetuate that. Some people might actually believe it.

    I have a PhD in Digital Music Conservation from the University of Florida. I have to stress that the phenomenon known as "digital dust" is the real problem regarding conservation of music, and any other type of digital file. Digital files are stored in digital filing cabinets called "directories" which are prone to "digital dust" - slight bit alterations that happen now or then. Now, admittedly, in its ideal, pristine condition, a piece of musical work encoded in FLAC format contains more information than the same piece encoded in MP3, however, as the FLAC file is bigger, it accumulates, in fact, MORE digital dust than the MP3 file. Now you might say that the density of dust is the same. That would be a naive view. Since MP3 files are smaller, they can be much more easily stacked together and held in "drawers" called archive files (Zip, Rar, Lha, etc.) ; in such a configuration, their surface-to-volume ratio is minimized. Thus, they accumulate LESS digital dust and thus decay at a much slower rate than FLACs. All this is well-known in academia, alas the ignorant hordes just think that because it's bigger, it must be better.

    Posted 4 years ago # Quote
13. 

    Gogetters
    

    FLAC is a waste of space! Very few people can tell the difference between FLAC and AAC that it's a major waste to use on most anime. How's that for being a audiophile?

    Posted 4 years ago # Quote
14. 

    brningpyre
    

    Aaaaaaaaaanyway, aside from people who don't really know much about audio compression and recording talking about lossy/lossless audio in abstract/simplified terms and regurgitating trolls... (takes breath)... how about getting this thread back on track?

    Posted 4 years ago # Quote
15. 

    Kudilicious
    

    brningpyre said:
    Aaaaaaaaaanyway, aside from people who don't really know much about audio compression and recording talking about lossy/lossless audio in abstract/simplified terms and regurgitating trolls... (takes breath)... how about getting this thread back on track?

    But that's no fun!

    Posted 4 years ago # Quote
16. 

    cheese_cake
    

    Gogetters said:
    FLAC is a waste of space! Very few people can tell the difference between FLAC and AAC that it's a major waste to use on most anime. How's that for being a audiophile?

    better flac than wav....

    kudichan said:

    I have a PhD in Digital Music Conservation from the University of Florida.

    that part actually kills it...

    brningpyre said:
    Aaaaaaaaaanyway, aside from people who don't really know much about audio compression and recording talking about lossy/lossless audio in abstract/simplified terms and regurgitating trolls... (takes breath)... how about getting this thread back on track?

    picture-fy this thread by posing your equipment d:

    Posted 4 years ago # Quote
17. 

    Kudilicious
    

    cheese_cake said:

    that part actually kills it...

    I was just quoting an expert :3

    Anyway, digital dust isn't a real problem. It can be picked up by a magnet, so all one has to do is run a magnet over one's hard drive every few months in order to prevent build-up.

    Posted 4 years ago # Quote
18. 

    cheese_cake
    

    kudichan said:

    I was just quoting an expert :3

    Anyway, digital dust isn't a real problem. It can be picked up by a magnet, so all one has to do is run a magnet over one's hard drive every few months in order to prevent build-up.

    will a neodymium magnet do????? i've got a strong one at home that looks like this:
    

    Posted 4 years ago # Quote
19. 

    Kudilicious
    

    cheese_cake said:

    will a neodymium magnet do?????

    SURE!

    Posted 4 years ago # Quote
20. 

    cheese_cake
    

    SHIT SHIT SHIT i tried it on my dad's laptop HDD & it suddenly starting making clicking sounds HELP!!

    Posted 4 years ago # Quote

Reply »

You must log in to post.