Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[datatrader]

Most encoding decisions involve a trade off between file size and audio quality.
songs compressed with a lossless codec consume a lot of hard drive space .. at least twice as much as those encoded with a lossy codec.
Ape is a great 'lossless' codec but the resulting files are significantly larger than mp3's.

I use MJ as my preferred jukebox but with many more features to customize rips I use 'Audiograbber' with a 'Lame' encoder to rip cd's @ 224 to 320 kbit/s. Very high quality at a considerable savings in hard drive space compared to APE.

Here's a link to an Ape review:Monkey's Audio Lossless Compressor  

Here's a link to an interesting note about size versus quality trade offs: Best encoder for high quality archiving    

Here's a link to some codec comparisons: Comparisons of Audio Codecs

Note the comparisons of Lame size and quality versus ape size and quality.
Life is made up of compromises eh ?
I'd like to hear about other comparisons, reviews, links and your thoughts on lossy versus lossless codecs...

[Mike Noe]

Nothing scientific about my comments here.  Before encoding my 400|PLS| CDs, I did a very informal listening test with my roomate/girlfriend.  I run digital out to my "home" system which is extremely detailed and neutral.  In every case, WAV/APE came out on top, but a large margin.  Generally (on my system), lossy schemes just sound flat, have a limited soundstage and don't image well.

Playing back on my computer (or any other low-fidelity playback system), the differences were less but still notable.

Based on these results, we decided on APE as the best tradeoff, partly because disk is so cheap these days *and* we can go to any other encoding we desire from APE.

Listening to: 'Broken Hearted Woman' from 'Real Live Music' by 'The Greasy Beans' on Media Jukebox

[ChicoSelfs]

You can't compare a lossless format to a lossy format in sound quality, lossless format is equal to cd and original wav file and lossy isn't

[sekim]

Based on these results, we decided on APE as the best tradeoff, partly because disk is so cheap these days *and* we can go to any other encoding we desire from APE

This is sort of what I'm doing. Listening to APE on this thing, but also converting the same files to mp3-Insane for the portable that I use in the car. I can then burn data cds on CD-RW discs and use them there. I also set up different view schemes in the library for the different formats. Saves searching for the type I want.

Example of a scheme is something like this :

Artist/Album = Ape (Auto-name is off and renamed this)

AlbumArtist
Artist

Search Criteria: type=ape

This way I end up with nothing but Ape files in this scheme. Also have done the same for wav and mp3. So depending on what I'm doing (listening, burning, converting, whatever) the format is only a click or two away. MJ is great for this kind of stuff.

[phelt]

ChicoSelfs' point about audio quality is perfectly valid - comparing LAME to MALC based solely on audio quality is like comparing top-ramen to bananas.

IMO, the advantage of lossy compressors is simply storage space. If you have money for hard drives and don't desire portability, lossless is a logical choice. But if you want to maximize the 'amount' of music that fits within a storage limit, lossy will be an attractive option. The same might be true with regard to listening conditions - if one is listening to their music on $3 headphones and/or in a noisy environment, there doesn't seem to be a point to maintaining lossless quality.

This post modified to increase simile accuracy.

[Matt]

LAME to MALC (Monkey's Audio) based solely on audio quality is to compare bananas to oranges

You mean oranges to bananas

[datatrader]

This thread is really about the best compromise of file size, quality, and time invested to accomplish your goals.

Goal: home use only: Clearly the best option for quality is ape. This really doesn't need discussion. If your goal is to rip for home use on your stereo and hard drive space is not an issue ape is the way to go.  Hard drives are cheap making the disc space a minor point in this scenario.

Goal: home use and portability... sharing files with other machines (your laptop) friends machines, friends who use other software, portable devices etc. (We used to record compilation tapes... Reel to Reel made the "best" tapes for home use but we used cassettes for their ease of use and ability to share our music with friends and on portable devices... A compromise similar to what we are discussing here.) Now with the computer this process should be easier and less time consuming. Most of us don't want recording/sharing music to be a full time job... so time invested becomes one of the issues)...
This is where the compromises need to be made. One may have plenty of hard drive space on their home machine but perhaps more limited room on their laptop. So you are now creating ape files for home use then making mp3 files for laptop and sharing purposes. Now we're adding significantly to storage space and adding another investment in time. If you look at the postings on this board it becomes clear that the majority of users are looking for ease of use and the means to easily rip, organize, file and share music across platforms. Although you compromise quality mp3 remains the best way to accomplish this.

I'm interested to see comparisons that specify the quality of the comparisons...  For instance when Mike Noe says " lossy schemes just sound flat, have a limited soundstage and don't image well." What was the lossy scheme used ? There is a huge difference between a windows media recording at 128 kbit/s versus a recording utilizing LameEnc dll version 1.28 engine 3.92 recorded at 320 kbit/s.

Insofar as we all agree that ape is best quality for home use, it would be interesting to hear what folks think is the 'best' encoder and settings for recording mp3's for 'portable' use.

[zevele1]

On the top of what you say,there is another thing i do not understand.

We speak here about cd YOU OWN.Not cd from a friend

When APE is so big,why put it on your computer and not play the cd?

I have 4 drives,350 MB storage.Hudge? around 20 000 songs from Emusic,much more from p2p ,and more to come.Do you think i can put my 1000 cds on it in APE?
When i get a cd from a friend,i put it on APE.Like it,after listening i still have the original quality if i want to keep it and convert to another format
I rip my cds on APE when i know some friends,family want it.We share it using a p2p service.When done i delete

In my opinion,playing music from my computer on a good stereo system,some lossy formats are a fair deal

MP3 at 192 kps
MPC at 192 BY FAR the best
OGG sound quite good,but still did not fin out all the settings

As you see only one format can do for many things
-Sharing[but you can share the 2 others as well]
-making cds mp3 encoded

But i'am not sure that mp3 192 is good for players with card-to big-

There is another things to keep in mind: there is a lot of programs for MP3 for tags,repair,double,trim ect.,ect.
You do not have it for others formats.

Many programs for OGG will be out soon,even players.

But if you have a MP3 player,a DVD playing MP3,a car MP3 player,would you buy again this with OGG ,or just stay with MP3?

[gkerber]

Once those lossy bits are gone, they are gone forever.  If you ears or audio system get better, you can't get those bits back (unless you own the original source).

And you can get a 100gig Western Digital 7200 rpm hard disk at Best Buy for $99!!!  Just amazing how storage space has gotten real cheap.

And mp3 does not allow gapless playback.

So I started doing mp3 320, but I've switched to APE and regained my "audio snob" label.....

[Mike|PLS|Noe]

Well, you neglected the first word of my sentence..."Generally...".  There was just nothing interesting with the lossy schemes we auditioned.  Basically we just ripped using MJ and the encoders included with it using the highest settings we could set.  Sure, there were differences, but nothing work talking about too much.  Here are the titles we used for the demos:

John Coltrane - Coltrane Prestige 7105 - Chronic Blues
Bela Fleck - Live Art Disc 2- Intro/Amazing Grace
Jazz at the Pawnshop - Take Five
Emmylou Harris - Wreckin Ball - Wreckin Ball (HDCD)
Sonny Rollins - The Bridge - John S.
Sarah McLachlan - Freedom Sessions - Mary
1812 Overture - Wellington's Victory-Battle

I have to agree, it's apples and oranges comparing lossy to lossless, I was just surprised by the differences, that's all.

[datatrader]

Mike said:
Basically we just ripped using MJ and the encoders included with it using the highest settings we could set.
Perhaps you should give the lame encoder a try and see what you think in comparison...
BTW thats a great list of tunes you used for your demo !

[Mike Noe]

Will do.  My buddy is telling me the same thing...

[Doof]

zevele> Here's why I automatically rip every single CD I buy and play it through my computer rather than just listen to the CD.

Playlists.

Pure and simple. I don't care what kind of 500 disc CD changer you have. It can't beat a playlist of songs that can be crossfaded or played gapless, etc. A CD changer takes forever to switch discs. Maybe there's some multiple thousand dollar machine out there that has two drives that can load one disc while another is playing, but why bother? For a couple of hundred dollars I can throw in a 160GB drive and use the PC I already own.

[gkerber]

Your comments about the slow mega changers is right on.  That is exactly why I've gone to a computer based music system.  And the 400 Sony changer was the sloooooowest I've ever experienced.  It took forever to start playing, even after it had mechanically put the disk in the reader.

[Bill Ko]

Simple choice for me:

APE for archiving and home listening.  MP3 for non hi-fi applications where portability is the key.  (You won't notice any difference between MP3 and APE in a car with the windows down, for instance.)

Bill