CD's vs download formats

[drogulus]

The better the playback equipment, the more apparent the differences are.  On my computer speakers, everything sounds the same starting from about 192kbps MP3.  On the speakers in my living room, anyone can tell the difference between 320kbps AAC and lossless.
     

     Anyone? What kind of testing have you done?

     

     
Again, this is very dependent on the quality of the playback equipment.  The higher the quality of the playback equipment, the more apparent the differences between lossless and high bitrate compression become.
     
 
Is there such a thing as 350kbps?  The most I've ever seen is 320kpbs using Itunes.  Btw you can rip in mp3 format at the rate of 320 kbps too.  Doesn't DG sell their files in that format?

   

     Yes, higher resolution playback means you need to use more bits for transparency. That can be determined by testing for yourself so you can determine what you can hear. I don't think very many speaker-based systems are as revealing as good headphones through an iPod, though.

     I don't use iTunes for AAC. Their VBR mode isn't (or wasn't) very good and has a top rate of 320 kbps. I use Nero Digital encoding (Nero AAC Codec 1.3.3.0) which goes up to 400 kbps.

[drogulus]

    The best way to resolve this issue is by testing. What we could do is have someone link to a short file in .WAV, FLAC, or some other lossless format. Then I could make some compressed files at different rates and then transcode them back to lossless. Everyone can get an idea of how hard it really is to tell the difference when you don't know which one is playing. We did this before but maybe we could find a more suitable sample this time. If anyone wants to offer one I'll do the transcodes and provide the links to the different versions. Only I will know which is which. 

    We did this before with very interesting results. The point is not to show there is no difference, but instead to get people to understand just what that difference amounts to for themselves. That would move the discussion from the theoretical to the practical, which is the kind of knowledge you want for something like this. Is it worth it to make compressed copies to play on a portable?

    The other possibility is for everyone here to make their own compressed copies and have a friend switch back and forth between it and the original so you can see if you can tell the difference. Windows can do this for you through the media player, so why not try it and see for yourself?

[Valentino]

So far the best reason to buy cds is that none of the ripping software decodes more than the basic redbook stereo layer.  You can't rip the HD layer or the SACD layer, both of which are superior recording formats, and both of which sound much better on larger speakers.  And, although AAC supports multichannel playback, the software only rips in stereo.  2 channels is more than adequate for headphones, but I really love the way well engineered multichannel recordings sound.  You can't get that from any digital archive that you rip yourself yet.

There is a plugin for dBpoweramp that decodes HDCD, so 20 bits depth is a possibility. No multichannel though.

I hope that as time goes by we'll get hw and sw that makes it possible to rip SACD. Stupid format, SonyPhilips!

[drogulus]

     I have 2 files of the same recording. One is a rip from the CD, and it has never been subject to anything but lossless compression. The other is an mp3 turned back into a lossless file, so in quality terms it's still an mp3. To make matters worse there's an X factor thrown in : The files differ in some other unrelated way which someone is certain to pick out as obvious. This is very far from a scientific test, but interesting anyway. You need to do 2 things to play:

     1) Download the files from the links.

     Link A   Link B

     2) Play the 2 FLAC files and describe what you hear. I chose FLAC because .WAV is gigantic. Even as FLACs they total ~50 MB. So anyone who takes the trouble to decode and/or play FLAC (Winamp plays it natively these days) can just grab the files and listen. I hope I get at least a couple of takers since this took a bit of work, so help me out here.  _0:)

[Valentino]

Will do, drogulus. Give me until Tuesday, maybe wednesday. I'm travelling this weekend.

[drogulus]

   No, cancel your plans, this is more important. 

[Coopmv]

Nimbus has actually released the entire Haydn Symphonies on 8-CD in MP3 format.  I have the entire set in regular CD format.  I will not touch that MP3 stuffs with a 10-foot pole ...

[drogulus]

Nimbus has actually released the entire Haydn Symphonies on 8-CD in MP3 format.  I have the entire set in regular CD format.  I will not touch that MP3 stuffs with a 10-foot pole ...

    Not even to find out if it's really bad? Wouldn't you like to know how it differs from the 16/44.1 CDs?

    104 symphonies at 320 kbps for £20.99....it seems like a good deal. Not for you, I mean for someone who doesn't already have these works.

   

[Coopmv]

    Not even to find out if it's really bad? Wouldn't you like to know how it differs from the 16/44.1 CDs?

    104 symphonies at 320 kbps for £20.99....it seems like a good deal. Not for you, I mean for someone who doesn't already have these works.

   

The 8 or more CD-sets I own all sound sharp and crisp.  I do not particularly care to find out the SQ of these MP3 CD's. 

[drogulus]

The 8 or more CD-sets I own all sound sharp and crisp.  I do not particularly care to find out the SQ of these MP3 CD's. 

     Yes, the first part isn't really surprising. I meant the comparison. Why would finding out that they were awful disturb you? It would just confirm what you already know, right?

     Unless..........

     

[Coopmv]

     Yes, the first part isn't really surprising. I meant the comparison. Why would finding out that they were awful disturb you? It would just confirm what you already know, right?

     Unless..........

     

I don't know if there are samples available that you can listen online first before you buy.  I saw this set at MDT, a UK-based e-tailer and have not checked Amazon. 

[Gurn Blanston]

I don't know if there are samples available that you can listen online first before you buy.  I saw this set at MDT, a UK-based e-tailer and have not checked Amazon. 

Even if there are, they are likely not representative, since samples are low res for fast downloading. However, I was recently gifted with Brilliant's Dvorak set all on one DVD. They are ripped at high res VBR (average 256, range 112 to 320) and are very good quality, precisely the same bitrate used by Amazon for their downloads. And, coincidentally, the same rate that I ripped my Nimbus Haydn symphonies at before I stored the disks away...

[Coopmv]

Even if there are, they are likely not representative, since samples are low res for fast downloading. However, I was recently gifted with Brilliant's Dvorak set all on one DVD. They are ripped at high res VBR (average 256, range 112 to 320) and are very good quality, precisely the same bitrate used by Amazon for their downloads. And, coincidentally, the same rate that I ripped my Nimbus Haydn symphonies at before I stored the disks away...

I have probably ripped close to 500 CD's at 192 to the hard-drive of my 7-month old Dell desktop ...  Unfortunately, they are all WMA files.

[Andante]

The RCO recently made available 10 free down loads of symphonies at 320kbps which I transferred to CD the result was just about as good as CD when played through my set up, which is a pretty good system,  I just could not believe it could sound so good, so I have purchased a Creative Zen mp3 player and transferred about 120-150 CDs to it @ 192-256kbps and a couple @320, the ear phones supplied with it were canal type and  block out most external noise and the final result is excellent.

[Gurn Blanston]

I have probably ripped close to 500 CD's at 192 to the hard-drive of my 7-month old Dell desktop ...  Unfortunately, they are all WMA files.

Oy, WMA!   Well, you're more or less committed to it now, I suppose, unless you want to redo. I have 180 gigs of MP3's, about 98% of them ripped myself from my own CD's, the rest downloaded from eclassical and Amazon. Disks that are OOP are a natural for downloading because if you can even find them, you are going to pay a bundle, usually. The nice part about ripping your own disks is that you can replace mangled files with ease. The advice I saw here from others, rip to flac and then convert as needed for your MP3 player or MP3 CD's is, IMO, the way to go. Although if I could get flacs on my players, and if my car stereo would play flac disks, then I would redo the whole collection. But no...

[DavidW]

Oy, WMA!   Well, you're more or less committed to it now, I suppose, unless you want to redo.

Well wma is superior to mp3 (can compress more so for the same quality), and unlike aac (and for that matter sony's atrac) it has more support.

[Gurn Blanston]

Well wma is superior to mp3 (can compress more so for the same quality), and unlike aac (and for that matter sony's atrac) it has more support.

I wouldn't suggest otherwise. I'm just more comfortable with universally accepted standards, and with formats that can't be suddenly DRM'd on a whim from Microsoft beyond my control.



----------------
Listening to:
Hanover Band / Oslo Cathedral Choir / Kvam  Hirsti (S) / Watkinson (M-S) / Murgatroyd (T) / George (B) / Goodman (Violin) - Bia 776 Op123 Missa Solemnis in D part 02 - Gloria

[DavidW]

I wouldn't suggest otherwise. I'm just more comfortable with universally accepted standards, and with formats that can't be suddenly DRM'd on a whim from Microsoft beyond my control.

MS DRM is so evil!  But if you rip it yourself, you're fine.  I like universal standards too, that's why I also use mp3.

[Lethevich]

I like universal standards too, that's why I also use mp3.

Ditto - it works everywhere on every piece of software or hardware. Given the marginal differences any similarly sized formats claim to their advantage, I don't see it as in my interest to use any other compressed format.

[Coopmv]

Oy, WMA!   Well, you're more or less committed to it now, I suppose, unless you want to redo. I have 180 gigs of MP3's, about 98% of them ripped myself from my own CD's, the rest downloaded from eclassical and Amazon. Disks that are OOP are a natural for downloading because if you can even find them, you are going to pay a bundle, usually. The nice part about ripping your own disks is that you can replace mangled files with ease. The advice I saw here from others, rip to flac and then convert as needed for your MP3 player or MP3 CD's is, IMO, the way to go. Although if I could get flacs on my players, and if my car stereo would play flac disks, then I would redo the whole collection. But no...

I still listen to my music the old-fashioned way.  I still play my CD's either on my computer or on my regular CD players, though I have found myself increasing listening to the CD's I ripped to my desktop hard-drive (640 GB capacity).  I have another 1TB between 2 external hard-drives, which are cheap these days.  Digitization is slow since it is done real-time and so far I have only digitized 3 open-reel tapes.  I have not even given any thought to the couple of thousands of LP's I have.