Music! Better quality!

[Arkaign]

First, yes I know this is more topically relevant to the A/V & Home Theater section, but I think I'll get more regular-person responses and thoughts here in OT, so here goes :

I've been used to regular MP3s and AAC (iTunes store stuff) for quite a long time, and I never thought much about it. The quality seemed decent enough. Well recently, I was at a buddies place and was listening to some tunes (Pink Floyd, Satriani, etc) and commented that his system sounded really damned good. He proceeded to tell me that it wasn't the system so much as the source. He had a library of FLAC lossless stuff that had been transferred by audio nerds from really good vinyl sources. We switched back and forth from some of the duplicates that were on his Ipod from the iTunes store and the FLAC stuff, and jesus what a difference. Particularly notable was the crisp seperation of sounds towards the high end, and the discernible punch of the low end as well.

Came home, checked it out on my much less expensive hardware, and sure enough, a big difference.

Anyone else notice this?

Yes, I know I'm probably many years behind the cue ball on this one.

Makes me wonder when/if any industry movers and shakers will start offering a really decent digital audio player/file format. I imagine if Apple brought out iTunes HD Audio section, a lot of people would buy much of their libraries all over again just for the big difference in quality.

Back to tunes...

 

[Icepick]

Good catch. Thanks for the PSA.

 

[Anubis]

yes. go flac or go home. even on not great systems its noticeable.

i would stop buying CDs if i could get FLAC off amazon.

 

[Arkaign]

yes. go flac or go home. even on not great systems its noticeable.

i would stop buying CDs if i could get FLAC off amazon.

Definitely! I think what's particularly crazy, given the brief bit I've learned about it, is that if they started supporting some time of lossless format like FLAC during the production/distribution process, that we'd have much greater quality even than CD to FLAC transfers.

From what little info I've gathered ..

Direct high-resolution digital studio recording to FLAC > Really high quality master tape transfer to FLAC > Really clean Vinyl transfer to FLAC > CD transfer to FLAC > MP3/AAC.

Listening to my MP3s and itunes sounds so .. flat now.

 

[zokudu]

I use FLAC just because I can transcode it without the huge loss in quality lossy -> lossy gives. I can't hear the difference between a FLAC and a -V0 but if I'm paying for it I have to have FLAC.

I also wouldn't say vinyl is innately better than CD. Its just different and depends on a mastering a lot more than the actual medium. Thats why a lot of older stuff may sound better on vinyl than their modern CD counterparts they're mastered differently.

 

[IronWing]

Can you play FLAC on an iPod?

 

[zokudu]

Can you play FLAC on an iPod?

No but you can convert FLAC to an ALAC file which is playable on iPods: http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=ALAC

 

[IronWing]

No but you can convert FLAC to an ALAC file which is playable on iPods: http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=ALAC

Thanks. I'm going to have to see if I can try it out from CD => ALAC.

 

[Arkaign]

No but you can convert FLAC to an ALAC file which is playable on iPods: http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=ALAC

cool, how are the results?

 

[Ronstang]

Yes lossless is the way to go these days considering lots and lots of hard drive space is super cheap. In fact as I type I am imaging my CD collection to hard drives. I prefer WavPack over FLAC though.

 

[Ronstang]

cool, how are the results?

They are both lossless so the results are the same and you can use either dBpoweramp or CueTools to transcode. I am sure there are other tools available but these are two that I have and use a lot for other things. CueTools is not only a great piece of software but it is also FREE.

 

[sdifox]

shit, you should give dvd-audio or SACD a try if you are impressed by CD.

 

[SP33Demon]

That's why I still buy CD's. I can tell the difference, particularly with the lows. Huge difference especially with decent headphones!

 

[darkswordsman17]

Yeah the key is the original recording. Its why I wouldn't recommend remasters as they're often worse than the early releases. Seems like at best they're a tradeoff (they'll be improved in some area but worse in others). Its actually sad though as there's been some pretty big improvements in mixing and mastering technology over the years, but for some reason stuff seems to be getting worse in quality.

You should check out https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php and http://www.linnrecords.com/

Pickings are still kinda sparse if you want more popular stuff, but there's some worth considering, and I find even stuff I don't typically like are enjoyable with good quality of the recordings.

There have been rumors that Apple is going to start offering high res music downloads on iTunes, which could be helpful, but we'll see. I really wish a company had come out and pushed binaural recordings for media players as it helps quite a bit with many people's issues with headphone listening (the in the head affect). It also would have been good for movie watching and I wish more movies would do binaural tracks for headphone listening.

 

[HendrixFan]

He had a library of FLAC lossless stuff that had been transferred by audio nerds from really good vinyl sources. We switched back and forth from some of the duplicates that were on his Ipod from the iTunes store and the FLAC stuff, and jesus what a difference. Particularly notable was the crisp seperation of sounds towards the high end, and the discernible punch of the low end as well.

FLAC is great for storage, my music collection has swelled since I went back and replaced my MP3s with CD to FLAC rips (usually older non dynamic range compressed CDs) or vinyl rips if the music can be benefited from it.

I do listen to V0 MP3s on my Ipod or through google music. For the most part, V0 MP3s will stand up to a blind test so it is good enough for listening. I transcode the FLACs through foobar easily enough.

Source material is the key, and it is weird to find out that some random CD has 4 or 5 masterings that all sound different. CDs can sound as good as vinyl rips if the mastering is correct, after all, the vinyl is converted to CD format for easier listening and less wear. The problem is that the majority of CDs have terrible mastering and the dynamic range is compressed beyond belief. Check out the video on youtube about it to see how it works.

The Steve Hoffman forums are a good place to go to find information on the best CD mastering or best vinyl pressing. As vinyl is making a comeback, some vinyl is pressed from the same compressed CD master, negating what should be an opportunity for better sound. Again, mastering is the key and those specific vinyl aren't mastered any better.

 

[IronWing]

I tried out CUEtools to rip a CD to ALAC and loaded it on my iPod. It does sound better than the same CD in AAC. The tradeoff is that it takes up 4x the space. So while I won't be re-ripping all my CDs I will certainly convert the ones that disappoint me in AAC. Thanks for the info!

 

[Ronstang]

I tried out CUEtools to rip a CD to ALAC and loaded it on my iPod. It does sound better than the same CD in AAC. The tradeoff is that it takes up 4x the space. So while I won't be re-ripping all my CDs I will certainly convert the ones that disappoint me in AAC. Thanks for the info!

Are there any quality options when you encode to ALAC? I know there are with FLAC and WavPack and with those if you move the slider bar all the way to the right you get the highest compression and smallest file at the expense of encode time....which with today's computers is not even noticeable.

 

[lsv]

Your friend is right... but that's because Itunes sells songs at 128kbit for both mp3 and mp4(aac). This is a joke, I wouldn't go for anything but 320 for MP3 and at least 256 AAC.

So yes, playing a shitty 128kbit MP3 versus FLAC will be day and night.

However... get yourself a 320kbit MP3 (stereo channels not shared) and a FLAC or WAV version of your favourite album and see if you can tell the difference.

The lossless format will sound a bit 'brighter' on the top end and will have better stereo separation characteristics but this will be most noticeable when in listening position of the speakers or on headphones. For most listening you really won't be able to tell the difference...

 

[IronWing]

Are there any quality options when you encode to ALAC? I know there are with FLAC and WavPack and with those if you move the slider bar all the way to the right you get the highest compression and smallest file at the expense of encode time....which with today's computers is not even noticeable.

There is a compression slider. For my test I just accepted the default for ALAC since I couldn't find a help file.

 

[IronWing]

Your friend is right... but that's because Itunes sells songs at 128kbit for both mp3 and mp4(aac). This is a joke, I wouldn't go for anything but 320 for MP3 and at least 256 AAC.

The default for AAC has been 256kbit VBR (iTunes Plus) for the last two or three years.

 

[zokudu]

Your friend is right... but that's because Itunes sells songs at 128kbit for both mp3 and mp4(aac). This is a joke, I wouldn't go for anything but 320 for MP3 and at least 256 AAC.

So yes, playing a shitty 128kbit MP3 versus FLAC will be day and night.

However... get yourself a 320kbit MP3 (stereo channels not shared) and a FLAC or WAV version of your favourite album and see if you can tell the difference.

The lossless format will sound a bit 'brighter' on the top end and will have better stereo separation characteristics but this will be most noticeable when in listening position of the speakers or on headphones. For most listening you really won't be able to tell the difference...

Mmm listen to that 320 kbps silence. Go variable bit rate and save yourself the trouble and hard drive space.

 

[IronWing]

Just noticed that iTunes offers an Apple Lossless format option for ripping CDs. Is this the same encoder as libALAC on CUETools?

 

[Ika]

I can tell the difference between V2 mp3 and FLAC in an AB comparison, but I can't *quantify* the difference - all I know is that it sounds... different. Because my library is so large (near 200gb, including maybe 40-50 FLAC) I store my music in V2 and keep only those musics that I listen to often and critically in FLAC (Pink Floyd, Dream Theater, classical pieces).

 

[William Gaatjes]

First, yes I know this is more topically relevant to the A/V & Home Theater section, but I think I'll get more regular-person responses and thoughts here in OT, so here goes :

I've been used to regular MP3s and AAC (iTunes store stuff) for quite a long time, and I never thought much about it. The quality seemed decent enough. Well recently, I was at a buddies place and was listening to some tunes (Pink Floyd, Satriani, etc) and commented that his system sounded really damned good. He proceeded to tell me that it wasn't the system so much as the source. He had a library of FLAC lossless stuff that had been transferred by audio nerds from really good vinyl sources. We switched back and forth from some of the duplicates that were on his Ipod from the iTunes store and the FLAC stuff, and jesus what a difference. Particularly notable was the crisp seperation of sounds towards the high end, and the discernible punch of the low end as well.

Came home, checked it out on my much less expensive hardware, and sure enough, a big difference.

Anyone else notice this?

Yes, I know I'm probably many years behind the cue ball on this one.

Makes me wonder when/if any industry movers and shakers will start offering a really decent digital audio player/file format. I imagine if Apple brought out iTunes HD Audio section, a lot of people would buy much of their libraries all over again just for the big difference in quality.

Back to tunes...

I am still waiting for a FLAC player for my android phone.
I am getting increasingly bothered by MP3 codecs software and hardware.
I have a fraunhofer MP3 codec at 256kbit but still the difference between MP3 compression and original CD is to easy to hear. FLAC seems to be the best compromise for compressing music.

The free media player, VLC player will almost play anything you like including FLAC.


EDIT :

I almost forgot to mention that most AAD cd's sound better then DDD cd's.
It has to do with using analog or digital mixing, recording and mastering but i am not sure. I have to look that up.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Now i am sure :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_code

Codes

The three letters of the code have the following meanings:
First letter – the type of audio recorder (usually a tape recorder) used during initial recording (analog or digital)
Second letter – the type of audio recorder used during mixing (analog or digital)
Third letter – the type of mastering used (digital only, a third letter A implies Vinyl release)

• 
  There are four types:
• AAD – Analog tape recorder used during initial recording, mixing/editing, Digital mastering.
• ADD – Analog tape recorder used during initial recording, Digital tape recorder used during mixing/editing and for mastering.
• DDD – Digital tape recorder used during initial recording, mixing/editing and for mastering.
• DAD – Digital tape recorder used during initial recording, Analog tape recorder used during mixing/editing, Digital mastering.