Print

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

[spiggytopes]

Hi All,

This is FLAC conversion for the car (and yes, I can tell the difference!).

Anyway, I just read somewhere that AAC is better than MP3 ... is this true?

If so, I'll do the conversion all over again.

Cheers.

[kstuart]

Hi All,

This is FLAC conversion for the car (and yes, I can tell the difference!).

Anyway, I just read somewhere that AAC is better than MP3 ... is this true?

If so, I'll do the conversion all over again.

Cheers.

FLAC is best - it is "lossless" which means it has the exact same sound as the original CD with "no loss".

AAC and MP3 are both "lossey" which means that they have lost some of the sound in order to fit in a smaller space.

In a comparison just between AAC and MP3, AAC sounds  a little better IF the file size is exactly the same.  However, MP3 is compatible with far more music players - everything except Apple devices will play MP3 (and perhaps some Apple as well).

But if you only want the best sound quality, then use FLAC.

[Dawgincontrol]

Of course it all depends on the source, but MP3 is at the bottom.

Will your car stereo play WMA lossless?  That's what I used on a USB drive.

[spiggytopes]

Thanks for the replies.

MP3, M4A, OGG, FLAC, AAC, WAV music supported, but not WMA.

My usb card is 64 GB ..... what if I convert from FLAC to FLAC at maximum compression, I mean file size wise. (presently using MP3 at 320 cbr).

I guess I could try it, couldn't I, but any reply would be useful.

[6233638]

FLAC is lossless at any compression level. It just requires more resources/time to encode/decode at higher compression levels.
 
AAC is probably the highest quality lossy format, which will save you some space.
They are potentially smaller than MP3 for the same/better quality.
 
I feel like you are not really going to have a noticeable change when switching between 320k MP3, AAC, or FLAC in a car though. Many people have difficulty identifying one from the other under ideal conditions.

[Dawgincontrol]

If it will play FLAC (my car stereo would not), go with FLAC.  It is the best quality as it is lossless.

[glynor]

MP3 -v1 and -v0 is transparent (meaning, humans can't detect difference) for all but certain very contrived example audio clips.  The benefits of AAC are primarily for using it at low bitrates when you're trying to get lower file sizes.

Even if you don't believe the (substantial) science that has been done here, I completely agree with 6233638 that you'll NEVER be able to hear a difference in a car.  Even the most sound isolated car is going to have way more noise than you'd get from a MP3 -v0 rip.  In fact, I'd bet money that you couldn't pick out a LAME MP3 -v3 rip from a reference in a blind test using real music not specifically designed to trip up the LAME encoder.

In other words... Don't worry about it.

[kstuart]

MP3 -v1 and -v0 is transparent (meaning, humans can't detect difference) for all but certain very contrived example audio clips.  

With crappy DACs (such as 99.9% of them).

But certainly no one can tell the difference in a car !

[fitbrit]

However, MP3 is compatible with far more music players - everything except Apple devices will play MP3 (and perhaps some Apple as well).

All Apple mobile devices since the original iPod (which was released before Apple adopted AAC, iirc) are perfectly capable of playing mp3s.

[spiggytopes]

Thanks everyone - turns out that my player (GROM USB2P) won't process FLAC after all, but the latest model does.

I'll stick with mp3 for now.

[glynor]

With crappy DACs (such as 99.9% of them).

We can agree to disagree on this.  

But certainly no one can tell the difference in a car !

Yup.

So long as you are only converting for use on the portable player, then it makes no freaking difference, and you might as well save the space.  Especially if you only have 64GB of storage to play with (or even 128GB, which his player may or may not support anyway).  That's basically my method (though I use JRemote pretty much all the time when traveling now anyway):

* Use FLAC on your computer.
* Convert to LAME MP3 for use on portable devices.

In fact, I'd say for car-exclusive use go whole hog and do LAME -v5 MP3 (MC's "High Quality Portable" preset) because you won't be able to tell most of the time and you'll be able to fit more on the player.  But, if you're concerned, you have a very nice stereo in the car, and you have a VERY quiet car (an electric car with a sealed cabin, perhaps) then... Maybe, just maybe, you might need to go MP3 -v1 or MP3 -v0 (but you're probably crazy).

But I'll grant it.

Using lossless with a 64GB storage cap for use exclusively in the car?  That's just senseless.

[paul.raulerson]

My Jeep plays WMA and MP3, and I can easily tell the difference. When the engine is off and I am someplace quiet.

On I35? MP3 at 320bps sounds great. No way I could tell a difference.

[Vincent Kars]

AAC is MP3 done all over again.
The “problem” with MP3 is the demand for backwards compatibility.
One day they decided to start from scratch with all the knowledge they had obtained by developing MP3 but this time without the constrain of backwards compatibility.

In general the lower the bit rate, the better AAC performs compared with MP3
The reverse is also true, the higher the bit rate, the more they sounds the same. At 320 they are probably not distinguishable.
Another advantage of AAC is variable frame length. This allows for gapless playback by design.
 

[spiggytopes]

Many thanks for all the info.

I admit that one thing that puts me off mp3 is that I have to select the files and then convert from FLAC ...... I would do this for many files to put into 6 folders on the flash drive.

If I could use FLAC directly, then I'd only have to drag and drop ....

Cheers.

[mwillems]

MP3 -v1 and -v0 is transparent (meaning, humans can't detect difference) for all but certain very contrived example audio clips.  The benefits of AAC are primarily for using it at low bitrates when you're trying to get lower file sizes.

Glynor, can you offer some links on that?  My understanding was that there's a fair bit of actual music that shows the difference (not just test clips).  Granted it's not a particularly stark difference in the cases I've read about, or in my own experience, but I assumed it was possible on at least some musical material.  I'm interested in reading more.

Mostly I can't reliably tell the difference, but there are a handful of tracks in my collection where I think I can actually tell the difference; usually tracks that have a lot of very low bass energy and high frequency content at the same time (I'm thinking of a few specific dark ambient/industrial albums).  But I haven't done any blind testing so I may just be fooling myself (which is why I'd like to read a few studies).  

As for OP's use case, in the car I can't even hear the difference between 128kbps Mp3's and 320kbps MP3's (unless the car is stopped).  I *can* hear the difference between 64kbps MP3's and 128kbps MP3's in the car, FWIW, but the noise floor is so high in my car it doesn't matter much.

[JimH]

I admit that one thing that puts me off mp3 is that I have to select the files and then convert from FLAC ...... I would do this for many files to put into 6 folders on the flash drive.

You can add the flash drive as a Handheld, and then set MC to convert automatically when it transfers files.  Tools > Options > Handhelds.

[ken-tajalli]

here is my 2 cents.
In the olden days of limited storage spaces ( hard drives of only a few hundred megabytes) and internet speeds of 56Kbps, music file compression was a must!
However these days we can get 256GB in a flash disk, and internet speeds of few Mbps are a way of the past, there is no point in compromising the audio through compression.
Where possible FLAC and WAVE should rule the day, even DSD is not out of the question.
As the quality of recording material improves together with playback equipment, one can easily tell the difference between compressed and not.
And NO it is not just the noise of the traffic, that stops you from telling. Compressed music is lacking in (audible) resolution.

[kstuart]

Glynor, can you offer some links on that?  My understanding was that there's a fair bit of actual music that shows the difference (not just test clips).  Granted it's not a particularly stark difference in the cases I've read about, or in my own experience, but I assumed it was possible on at least some musical material.  I'm interested in reading more.

There are thousands of pages on either side of that argument.

It boils down to the fact that critical audio listening is a skill that is acquired by practice.

People who have not practiced, nevertheless emotionally think "I can hear anything that anyone else can hear".   Some months back, I became involved with a long discussion in another Forum with an audio newbie.  He had asked for headphone recommendations, and then refused to concede that he might be wasting his money buying top-of-the-line gear to start with.  He was a well-heeled upper middle class guy who enjoyed the status of expensive gear, and thus the ego gratification of "I'm an important discerning person".

Experienced professional recording engineers and symphony musicians have no problems discerning between compressed MP3, CD quaity, and 24/192 of good material, when using their own equipment in a situation that does not mask differences.

However many consumers cannot tell a difference.  Saying this seems to insult people, even though they will admit that they cannot run a 4-minute mile, but top runners can do it.

[mschneid]

Quote from: mwillems on Yesterday at 10:27:26 pm
Glynor, can you offer some links on that?  My understanding was that there's a fair bit of actual music that shows the difference (not just test clips).  Granted it's not a particularly stark difference in the cases I've read about, or in my own experience, but I assumed it was possible on at least some musical material.  I'm interested in reading more.
There are thousands of pages on either side of that argument.

Don't forget the related topic.... Analog vinyl media sound better then all of this digital mumbo jumbo about bits...


It boils down to the fact that critical audio listening is a skill that is acquired by practice.

Well said....   (great athlete analogy...   training matters!)

and equipment  matched to a listening room  are key so that you can resolve the detailed differences which  matter  ...   (aka Carnegie Hall acoustics are renowned as being truly great and the hype is founded in fact/measurements ... of course they differ from your family room)

At the end of the day... NOTHING beats a live performance of an un microphone singer in an intimate space  with a few instruments.     The physics of this experience coupled to your perception and experience  is just wonderfully human.... and you don't need much training to appreciate the art at a level that is beyond musical and truly emotional. ... The Hobby and underlying Science are about recreating this experience as best you can with the resources you have.

[ken-tajalli]

Quote from: mwillems on Yesterday at 10:27:26 pm
Don't forget the related topic.... Analog vinyl media sound better then all of this digital mumbo jumbo about bits...


It boils down to the fact that critical audio listening is a skill that is acquired by practice.

Hmmm
It depends on how high you wanna go, doesn't it?
I agree a $10K turntable/arm/cartridge/RIAA preamp, would beat, in absolute sound quality, a digital system (some may not agree)

But short of that, quality digital systems rule the day, in terms of sound quality.
We have compromised very little sound-quality to gain a massive practicality/convenience.
A big big massive!

And regarding live performance! well as a regular concert goer, I can sadly say, I have found the reverse to be true sometimes.
A good recording, is a polished product, all acoustics taken care of, microphone positioning, equalization and mostly no slipups by players themselves.
But to be there, and see the performers and share the experience with others is priceless.
Much akin to going to cinemas. I get better picture quality at home these days, but the experience of sitting in a dark quiet room with other people and watch a movie, still forces me to go - sometimes.

[mwillems]

Thanks for your answers ken, kstuart, and mschneid, but I wasn't really trying to start a metaphysical discussion, apologies to OP for the threadjack.  I was just looking for links to actual studies on the human capacity to differentiate between high bitrate MP3's and lossless using normal musical material (either disproving or proving).   I find most of the discussion on this issue frustrating because it's often anecdote-rich and data poor (and often filled with indignance, as you noted kstuart), which is why my ears perked up at glynor's mention of studies.

I've already got plenty of my own anecdotes from my own experience and from audio professionals of my acquaintance, I was looking for studies (hopefully not involving sighted listening).   Any such links are most welcome.

Ideally I'd like to see something similar to what archimago did with his bitrate test: http://archimago.blogspot.com/2014/06/24-bit-vs-16-bit-audio-test-part-ii.html

His study was particularly ingenious because it allowed people to perform a blind listening test using their own equipment in a home environment.  Even under those kind of "best case" circumstances, people in his sample couldn't reliably distinguish dithered 16 bit audio from 24 bit audio.  His findings on subpopulations were particularly neat (cost of playback equipment was statistically irrelevant as was being a musician; however sound engineers did very slightly better than others).  

Obviously, my hypothesis is that at least on some musical material FLAC is distinguishable from high bitrate MP3.  Maybe I shiould take a page from archimago's book and do my own study    Just don't want to reinvent the wheel.

[ken-tajalli]

Obviously, my hypothesis is that at least on some musical material FLAC is distinguishable from high bitrate MP3.  

Well that's a fair comment.
However, I still stick to my guns, that unless there is an incompatibility issue (i.e. your equipment is incapable of playing flac or wave) there is no real need for compression of any kind, specially when it comes to archiving.
Consider this:
My dad made some reel to reel tape recordings of live performances broadcast on radio back in the 70's.
I made Mp3 copies of those tapes back in the 90's thinking the originals were from AM radio!
with my equipment at the time, they were identical. Recently I discovered (with my better equipment today) how bad those Mp3's were. I suppose my sound card at the time played a role too.
Everytime you make a copy of a material you loose something, so if you can (which we can) make it lossless.
So in brief: both AAC and Mp3 are bad, even if with todays equipment or in your car, you can hardly tell the difference,
get out of compression game.

[mwillems]

Well that's a fair comment.
However, I still stick to my guns, that unless there is an incompatibility issue (i.e. your equipment is incapable of playing flac or wave) there is no real need for compression of any kind, specially when it comes to archiving.
Consider this:
My dad made some reel to reel tape recordings of live performances broadcast on radio back in the 70's.
I made Mp3 copies of those tapes back in the 90's thinking the originals were from AM radio!
with my equipment at the time, they were identical. Recently I discovered (with my better equipment today) how bad those Mp3's were. I suppose my sound card at the time played a role too.
Everytime you make a copy of a material you loose something, so if you can (which we can) make it lossless.
So in brief: both AAC and Mp3 are bad, even if with todays equipment or in your car, you can hardly tell the difference,
get out of compression game.

Oh absolutely! You're "preaching to the choir."

I only use FLAC for home listening and permanent retention. Storage is cheap and I get most of my music on CDs; it's just as easy to rip to FLAC.  I would never advise anyone to use lossy formats for permanent retention for several reasons (not least of which is generational loss if they ever reencode).

My interest in whether there are detectable differences between lossless and high bitrate MP3 is purely a scientific interest at this point.

[glynor]

Glynor, can you offer some links on that?

No.  I've definitely read more than one peer-reviewed article about the subject, and they largely agreed with the consensus over at hydrogen audio.  I made a half-hearted attempt to look some stuff up again tonight, but it has been a year or two since I've last looked at it.  And most scientific articles are behind paywalls anyway.

If memory serves (which doesn't really help with your question) almost all samples are transparent at around -v4 with modern versions of LAME (or those that were modern a year or two ago).  Certain types of music (generally electronica and some kinds of classical and jazz) tend to be more difficult to compress, and they don't generally become transparent to a trained ear until -v3 or -v2.  There certainly are some well known "killer samples" that aren't transparent even at -v0 or 320kbps (and where most people can be trained to successfully ABX them with greater than random chances of success).  But these are specific samples, and are exceedingly rare.  People hunt them.  Last I looked, there were lists, and you could count them on your hands and toes.

Does this eliminate the possiblity that there are "Olympic caliber" ears out there?  Certainly not.  But statistically you're much more likely to be bitten by a New Yorker who is riding on a shark while being struck by lightning than to be one of those people.  Of course, I don't play the lottery either.

For the record, I generally agree.  If ripping my own content, I rip to FLAC if it is anything I care about at all, and if not, then to -v1.  Mostly because "why not" and because there could be some killer new format in the coming years and you can't undo loss.  But when I buy stuff online and I get Amazon's nice quality -v2 MP3s, it doesn't hurt my feelings.

As I said above, though... Even if you do have an Olympic quality ear, and even if you do have a very good car stereo (both of these are very dubious), then the chances you could detect the differences between a modern LAME high-quality rip (say -v2 or better) and a FLAC of the same audio, repeatably, in an ABX test, in a moving car, approaches nil.  If you're actually driving (and so your mind is busy processing all sorts of inputs), then I'd call it absolutely zero.

If you're sitting still with the car off and listening in your car, more than occasionally, and you rip your collection specifically for these instances...? I call you weird.

[DoubtingThomas]

One thing I don't get with the saved stuff in MC.. why can I select DSP and view schemes from a list, but when it's time to save I must type in the name?  That is a sore spot for errors on my part.