Topic: o/t - best audio file format? (Read 4123 times)

pipsqueak · « **on:** March 15, 2004, 02:55:43 pm »

Hi, im in the process of re-ripping all my CD's and updating the bitrate and format (from WMA). I wanted to hear peoples opinions on the 'best' format, given the following:

PC use only, dont worry about handset compatability
lossy encoder please
bitrate from 160 - 250kb ish. I currently use 192, which is about the limit of my ears/equipment.
i run mc through my hi-fi so am concerned about the following (decreasing order of priority)

quality of sound > size > format compatability

suggestions / ideas?

thx
pip

Matt · « **Reply #1 on:** March 15, 2004, 03:01:50 pm »

I know you don't want this, but I can't help myself

Lossless costs like $0.15 a CD to store now, and then you'll never have to rerip again.

pipsqueak · « **Reply #2 on:** March 15, 2004, 03:08:22 pm »

matt

assuming i go that route, which encoder do you recommend i use to rip lossless then?

i'd much prefer a simple 1 step solution to this - if available.

jleerigby · « **Reply #3 on:** March 15, 2004, 03:11:38 pm »

I agree with Matt but all of my collection is MP3.

If you really want to go lossy then I'd recommend using MC's MP3 VBR encoder set at High Quality. This gives a very good quality result for a lossy format, good compression and because it's MP3 it's compatible with just about everything.

I'm sticking with MP3 for now because re-ripping my entire collection would take about 1 year. Also I bought a high end sound card and when connected to a very good AMP and speaker system (about £3000 worth) I still couldn't tell the difference between the MP3 and the original CD. However, that's just my ears.

As I said, safest bet is to go with Matt and go lossless (if I was starting out now that's what I would do). BTW, Matt's too modest to say so but word has it that you can't go far wrong his very own Monkey's Audio (APE) format.

Matt · « **Reply #4 on:** March 15, 2004, 03:13:26 pm »

APE probably has the smoothest integration with MC.

But with lossless, it doesn't matter that much because any encoder will have perfect sound quality.

Scarpad · « **Reply #5 on:** March 15, 2004, 03:27:09 pm »

I'm still confused how a format can be lossless if it takes a 40 meg wav file and reduces it to like a 10meg APE file isn't compression still involved (Sorry if I'm a dope on this) that said I do everythng at MP3 Constant rate of 192 and it all sounds good, I find if I do 192 variable it'll often drop to around 140 more often than it would be at 192 or higher

Xstatic · « **Reply #6 on:** March 15, 2004, 03:28:59 pm »

It all depends on the ears and the equipment. I also use my digital out to my hi-fi equipment, and can easily in a blind test spot an mp3 from a mpc file.

There is a really nice program called abx, which you can use for blindtesting experiments. I recommend to use it. This way you can determine for yourself what lossy format you want to rely on (if you don't end up using ape, which clearly is transparent comparing to the original file.

http://www.pcabx.com/

I'd recommend to compare between mpc - xtreme level(my preferred format), ogg and mp3 vbr high quality.

Happy listening.
Jesper

Matt · « **Reply #7 on:** March 15, 2004, 03:31:03 pm »

Lossless audio compression is like a ZIP file -- it's smaller than the original but all the same stuff is still there.

With audio, you can often make pretty good guesses about what will come next. Then, you only need to store the difference between your guess and the real data, which often takes much less space than the real data itself.

Matt · « **Reply #8 on:** March 15, 2004, 03:34:50 pm »

Scratch my reply. Our lossy / lossless wavelengths crossed.

xen-uno · « **Reply #9 on:** March 15, 2004, 03:35:22 pm »

> ... if it takes a 40 meg wav file and reduces it to like a 10meg APE file

If such a compression ratio existed no one would ever use lossy. At best you can get near 50% compression (typically 40%). It is compressed...just losslessly (ie png, zip, LZW tif's). Throw flac into the lossless arena too.

Pipsqueak...

JLee mentioned VBR High Quality (which is good...no doubt)...but you should use MP3 VBR with the Custom option using one of the presets (ie --alt-preset standard...or slightly better...--alt-preset extreme).

edit: you did say any lossy...did I mention Ogg Vorbis? Great tagging & sound quality...try it!

10^-27

jleerigby · « **Reply #10 on:** March 15, 2004, 04:12:11 pm »

Quote from: Scarpad on March 15, 2004, 03:27:09 pm

....I find if I do 192 variable it'll often drop to around 140 more often than it would be at 192 or higher

You'll not see much of that if you choose the setting I suggested in MC. You probably won't see it at all if you follow Xen-uno's advice. The only reason I just use the High quality setting rather than the setting Xen mentioned is that it results in less compression with no percieved quality improvement to my ears. Your ears are probably better so the summary of the story in this order is:

1. Do what Matt said ...or for a smaller file...
2. Do what Xen said ...or for a smaller file still...
3. Do what I said

If you decide to stick with MP3 CBR I'd have to wonder why you asked the question in the first place.

Xstatic · « **Reply #11 on:** March 15, 2004, 05:22:35 pm »

Quote

If you decide to stick with MP3 CBR I'd have to wonder why you asked the question in the first place.

He didnt ask the q in the first place. They are to different posters.
pipsqueak asked in the first place, and you comment on Scarpad's
comment later in the thread.

pipsqueak · « **Reply #12 on:** March 15, 2004, 07:38:29 pm »

thanks all. im going to grab a few of my fave cd's and try a few different formats, then sit with excel and determine the cost of storing lossless etc.

Matt:
is the extra high quality setting on the ape plugin for mc lossless?

JLee:
Thanks for the summary. And im sure my ears are no better than yours, and my av eqpt certianly isnt!

xen-uno:
10^-27 = charge on an electron???

GRAYDOG · « **Reply #13 on:** March 15, 2004, 08:06:06 pm »

Just wanted to know why You are making the change from wma if You don't mind Me asking?

pipsqueak · « **Reply #14 on:** March 15, 2004, 08:12:11 pm »

re-ripping all my cd's is a bit of an exaggeration - but i was going to start wondering down the pile slowly.

part of the problem is that i have a bunch of low bitrate wma (64kb). that has to be upgraded first. also i feel that wma isnt the best quality per bitrate (both through own experience and checking out blind test results)

GRAYDOG · « **Reply #15 on:** March 15, 2004, 08:56:30 pm »

The reason I was asking is I just went thru the same thing and I went with 320 mp3 and for My extra favs I went with APE and am very happy with both

xen-uno · « **Reply #16 on:** March 15, 2004, 09:35:47 pm »

pips > 10^-27 = charge on an electron???

Close...only off by 7 magnitudes. Charge of a single electron is -1.6 x 10^-19 Coulombs (or 16 attocoulombs). Atomic nucleus is about 1 x 10^-15 meters (1 femtometer) in diameter (an electron is thought to be about 1 attometer in diam). Something that is 1 xennometer long (1 x 10^-27 meters) is huge compared to a Planck length...

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae281.cfm

10^-27

pipsqueak · « **Reply #17 on:** March 15, 2004, 09:52:57 pm »

yeah, planck's const. was going to be my next guess ...

other than that i was about to degenerate into a discussion on fundamental forces and the number 42.

i guess that this is something to do with your career? (i did a masters in chem about 5 years ago, but remember very little of it now...)

pip

Lakeobob · « **Reply #18 on:** March 15, 2004, 11:45:18 pm »

I failed chemestry twice in college, but I always attributed it to the fact the Professor was chinese and had a strong accent. But maybe it was just me after all.

I have what was once Pioneer's best receiver 17 or 18 years ago and playing through four Bose 301 Speakers, mp3 at 192 and wma at 160, I seem to live with it all right But then again, I drink a lot on my off time, and I am not about to start re-ripping anything. anyone who needs more than that has not been to enough live concerts and can still hear.

scott_r · « **Reply #19 on:** March 16, 2004, 07:06:00 pm »

Quote

is the extra high quality setting on the ape plugin for mc lossless?

The "quality" setting for the APE plugin is a tad misleading. The setting has nothing to do with audio quality, because no matter which option you choose, being a lossless encoder means that they will all be the same quality in the end. It actually refers to compression quality. "Fast" means low compression rate, so low CPU usage when encoding and decoding. "Extra High" means that it will compress it as much as possible without loosing any information, but that will require more CPU time to encode and decode. I'm running a 1.8Ghz P4 on 512mb ram and I use "Extra High". While playing songs encoded like this, MC only uses about 11% CPU time, while still getting pretty good compression results.

Hope this helps,

Scott.

pipsqueak · « **Reply #20 on:** March 16, 2004, 10:14:11 pm »

yeah thanks scott

kiwi · « **Reply #21 on:** March 17, 2004, 03:29:04 pm »

Quote from: Matt on March 15, 2004, 03:01:50 pm

I know you don't want this, but I can't help myself

Lossless costs like $0.15 a CD to store now, and then you'll never have to rerip again.

I completely agree.

APE for me... (though, any lossless will do, as you can convert between them.)

kiwi

INTERACT FORUM

Author Topic: o/t - best audio file format? (Read 4123 times)

jleerigby

jleerigby