MP3, AAC, FLAC, etc.

[Gurn Blanston]

These are the settings I use, does the trick.

I use precisely the same (including software) when making MP3's. I rip to FLAC first though, and that's what I play through my stereo. But on my MP3 player, any of the disk mp3 players that I have (a few still work), and for the car, I use just these settings. I have also traded some with friends and never got a single complaint, and I know that some of them use way better playback equipment than I do. 

[bigshot]

YOU may find this is the case for YOUR listening on YOUR equipment with YOUR music, YOUR ears, and YOUR mind. That does not make it objectively true.

I already said that I based this on a line level matched a/b switchable test that I did. Do your own test and find out for yourself. Don't automatically believe what you read in internet forums. Most people quote "common knowledge" without bothering to find out for themselves. I'm one of those guys who compares every piece of audio and video equipment I buy. Before I was going to go to the trouble of ripping 10,000 CDs, I wanted to be sure I was using the best setting. LAME 320 and AAC 256 VBR sound exactly the same as the original CD. I use AAC because the file sizes are a little smaller, but LAME is fine too. Incidentally, I once took an AAC 256 file and encoded it over and over ten times and it still sounded good. Lossless really isn't needed, especially if you own the CD.

By the way, the real secret to comparing codecs is the line level matching. Different codecs change the volume of the playback slightly. AAC is usually slightly quieter than MP3.

[mahler10th]

I rip to FLAC first though, and that's what I play through my stereo. But on my MP3 player, any of the disk mp3 players that I have (a few still work), and for the car, I use just these settings. I have also traded some with friends and never got a single complaint, and I know that some of them use way better playback equipment than I do. 

Your stereo plays FLAC or you route it through your stereo?

[Gurn Blanston]

Your stereo plays FLAC or you route it through your stereo?

I route it through my stereo. I have one of those Onkyo home theater units and run the output of my external sound card through that. Works very well. I can't tell the difference between that and just playing a CD. I can tell when I play a MP3 less than 192, but otherwise they all sound the same. I don't have any MP3's less than 256-VBR anymore anyway.

[mahler10th]

I route it through my stereo. I have one of those Onkyo home theater units and run the output of my external sound card through that. Works very well. I can't tell the difference between that and just playing a CD. I can tell when I play a MP3 less than 192, but otherwise they all sound the same. I don't have any MP3's less than 256-VBR anymore anyway.

Thanks for that.  All data will help my experiements, theoretical and practical 

[mahler10th]

I have decided not to engage in self propelled and GMG published audiophile experiements.    
***takes off white lab coat and stores away the chainsaw***
I removed the post which said I would be doing all sorts of audio tests to publish here.
There are way too many variables in setups and hardware, everywhere and at all times and for all people...  It has been suggested elsewhere that one risks damaging musical enjoyment for the sake of tweaking around all the time, which I know I would end up doing...concentrating on the quality of output rather than the quality and playing of the music.  It was a silly idea!    
In the 70's and early 80's I was quite happy to 'tape' things off the radio and listen to them in that quality (medium wave!), and thoroughly enjoy them.  Today I am also more than happy with the quality of FM classical broadcasts, and indeed much of my listening now is of live concerts from newsgroups where the music playing is in question, not the audio quality - any badly recorded ones just get dumped.
I will engage in some experiments though, as I joined the 'Hydrogen audio' forum and I've always had an interest in audio technology.
I do tend to get excitable and way over ambitious when experiments can be done, and I have the means to do them!
***gets tape recorder out***
Time to enjoy the music.   

[Gurn Blanston]

I have decided not to engage in self propelled and GMG published audiophile experiements.    
***takes off white lab coat and stores away the chainsaw***
I removed the post which said I would be doing all sorts of audio tests to publish here.
There are way too many variables in setups and hardware, everywhere and at all times and for all people...  It has been suggested elsewhere that one risks damaging musical enjoyment for the sake of tweaking around all the time, which I know I would end up doing...concentrating on the quality of output rather than the quality and playing of the music.  It was a silly idea!    
In the 70's and early 80's I was quite happy to 'tape' things off the radio and listen to them in that quality (medium wave!), and thoroughly enjoy them.  Today I am also more than happy with the quality of FM classical broadcasts, and indeed much of my listening now is of live concerts from newsgroups where the music playing is in question, not the audio quality - any badly recorded ones just get dumped.
I will engage in some experiments though, as I joined the 'Hydrogen audio' forum and I've always had an interest in audio technology.
I do tend to get excitable and way over ambitious when experiments can be done, and I have the means to do them!
***gets tape recorder out***
Time to enjoy the music.   

Ye're wise beyond your years, young John. Hard to find fault with that decision, although clearly I am already in the camp you are now in, and I have always held in highest esteem those who agree with me the most.

[DavidRoss]

I have decided not to engage in self propelled and GMG published audiophile experiements.    
***takes off white lab coat and stores away the chainsaw***
I removed the post which said I would be doing all sorts of audio tests to publish here.
There are way too many variables in setups and hardware, everywhere and at all times and for all people...  It has been suggested elsewhere that one risks damaging musical enjoyment for the sake of tweaking around all the time, which I know I would end up doing...concentrating on the quality of output rather than the quality and playing of the music.  It was a silly idea!    
In the 70's and early 80's I was quite happy to 'tape' things off the radio and listen to them in that quality (medium wave!), and thoroughly enjoy them.  Today I am also more than happy with the quality of FM classical broadcasts, and indeed much of my listening now is of live concerts from newsgroups where the music playing is in question, not the audio quality - any badly recorded ones just get dumped.
I will engage in some experiments though, as I joined the 'Hydrogen audio' forum and I've always had an interest in audio technology.
I do tend to get excitable and way over ambitious when experiments can be done, and I have the means to do them!
***gets tape recorder out***
Time to enjoy the music.   

You are growing in wisdom, grasshopper!

Hah! I see Gurn beat me to it while I was making coffee ... and with the same cheeky sort of response!

[mc ukrneal]

I have decided not to engage in self propelled and GMG published audiophile experiements.    
***takes off white lab coat and stores away the chainsaw***
I removed the post which said I would be doing all sorts of audio tests to publish here.
There are way too many variables in setups and hardware, everywhere and at all times and for all people...  It has been suggested elsewhere that one risks damaging musical enjoyment for the sake of tweaking around all the time, which I know I would end up doing...concentrating on the quality of output rather than the quality and playing of the music.  It was a silly idea!    
In the 70's and early 80's I was quite happy to 'tape' things off the radio and listen to them in that quality (medium wave!), and thoroughly enjoy them.  Today I am also more than happy with the quality of FM classical broadcasts, and indeed much of my listening now is of live concerts from newsgroups where the music playing is in question, not the audio quality - any badly recorded ones just get dumped.
I will engage in some experiments though, as I joined the 'Hydrogen audio' forum and I've always had an interest in audio technology.
I do tend to get excitable and way over ambitious when experiments can be done, and I have the means to do them!
***gets tape recorder out***
Time to enjoy the music.   

Sorry - couldn't hear you over the bolded asterisks!   That forum should give you some good idea on a host of issues. It is quite easy to second guess oneself in this area, and doubt one's own hearing. In the end, stick with your ears - they got you this far after all!

[petrarch]

Adding more fuel to the fire:

https://hacks.mozilla.org/2012/09/its-opus-it-rocks-and-now-its-an-audio-codec-standard/
http://www.xiph.org/press/2012/rfc-6716/

[liuzerus87]

Adding more fuel to the fire:

https://hacks.mozilla.org/2012/09/its-opus-it-rocks-and-now-its-an-audio-codec-standard/
http://www.xiph.org/press/2012/rfc-6716/

The obligatory response to any post about Opus:


(http://xkcd.com/927/)

[DavidW]

Now that is funny but true liuzerus87!

[bigshot]

Most codecs perform very well by the time they get up over 128. Opus appears to be better below that, which means it will be most useful for streaming video and voice. No one will probably even notice it's a different codec because it will be in a different wrapper. Opus isn't a replacement for AAC or MP3.

[petrarch]

Most codecs perform very well by the time they get up over 128. Opus appears to be better below that, which means it will be most useful for streaming video and voice. No one will probably even notice it's a different codec because it will be in a different wrapper. Opus isn't a replacement for AAC or MP3.

It's not a question of achieving better quality, even though Opus is marginally better; the whole point is to have a truly free and patent unencumbered codec that can compete with the others. Users won't care, but software and hardware makers definitely will.

[DavidRoss]

Most codecs perform very well by the time they get up over 128.

Your hearing must be even worse than mine! (And I'm old, brain-damaged, and suffering tinnitus!)

[bigshot]

You haven't checked out the quality of codecs for years, I'd bet. Hearing isn't what gives me this opinion, the recent advances in audio compression technology is. At 192, both LAME and AAC sound great. There are a few types of sounds that require a bit more bitrate to encode without artifacting, but they're rare.

[bigshot]

It's not a question of achieving better quality, even though Opus is marginally better; the whole point is to have a truly free and patent unencumbered codec that can compete with the others. Users won't care, but software and hardware makers definitely will.

What is the difference between open source and patent unencumbered?

[petrarch]

What is the difference between open source and patent unencumbered?

There are a number of degrees in how open source goes about being free--not free as in beer, but as in free speech--some of which aren't necessarily free from patent enforcement risk, i.e. lawsuits and licensing fees. Ensuring that the technology is truly patent unencumbered completely mitigates that risk.