flac or wav?

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 9201 times.

James Tanner

  • Facilitator
  • Posts: 20669
  • The Demo is Everything!
    • http://www.bryston.com
Re: flac or wav?
« Reply #40 on: 5 Dec 2008, 02:43 am »
Hi All,

I have been following this discussion and I think it is a great example of how are 'expectations' can influence our 'perceptions'.

james

miklorsmith

Re: flac or wav?
« Reply #41 on: 5 Dec 2008, 02:43 am »
I rip all my stuff as single .wav files with .cue sheets.  I keep one copy there and back it up with .flac.

Robin, while I wouldn't worry about what you have already, hard drives are so cheap there's no reason to use lossy codecs.

It's all good, no offense intended.  As Ted said, just brotherly love.

mcullinan

Re: flac or wav?
« Reply #42 on: 5 Dec 2008, 02:50 am »
MAybe some cant hear a difference between 320 and Flac. But there is no difference between FLAC, ALAC and WAV or aiff. At least thats what we are told by the man! hehe.
Mike

Crimson

Re: flac or wav?
« Reply #43 on: 5 Dec 2008, 02:59 am »
MAybe some cant hear a difference between 320 and Flac. But there is no difference between FLAC, ALAC and WAV or aiff. At least thats what we are told by the man! hehe.
Mike

Your man doesn't know what he's talking about. Don't ask me why. I don't know, either. Nor do I want to.  :lol:

James: Yes, very true. The old adage: ignorance is bliss.

mcullinan

Re: flac or wav?
« Reply #44 on: 5 Dec 2008, 03:01 am »
So Alac and FLAC is the mystery meat?? lol Are we all speaking in subtext that Im not picking up?
Mike

Crimson

Re: flac or wav?
« Reply #45 on: 5 Dec 2008, 03:06 am »
No. No hidden message. Just following a certain thought process.  :beer:

mcullinan

Re: flac or wav?
« Reply #46 on: 5 Dec 2008, 03:58 am »
So is the man hoarding music data from my lossless ALAC files? What if I have my Slimserver decoding to WAV/aiff before going to said stereo hifi...
huh punk.. u got somethin to SAY!
lol
idk.
Mike

alexone

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1981
  • Anthony Bower, Stan Rybbert, John Stoneborough
Re: flac or wav?
« Reply #47 on: 5 Dec 2008, 02:52 pm »
i had a funny discussion with a friend of mine about the differences of mp3 and losless stored music. he was totally convinced that there is absolutely no difference. i told him that if there would not be ANY noticeable resolution loss why do all the artists do not sell their brandnew CDs in mp3 ? if you buy a CD in a store they (mostly) all have 1411 kbps at 44.1.

he had no answer for that...

al.

alexone

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1981
  • Anthony Bower, Stan Rybbert, John Stoneborough
Re: flac or wav?
« Reply #48 on: 18 Dec 2008, 02:29 pm »
 hi, all!

 got a question:

i have some mp3 songs from the hdd that i play with winamp. they are 320 kbps at 44.1. winamp shows that.

 now i converted these songs back to get a 'usual' cd to play it with a regular cd-player. when i play this cd on my laptop with winamp
 
 it shows again 1411 kbps at 44.1.

1) so what's going on here? once a 1411 kbps-rate is scaled down -to let's say 320 kbps- the missing kilobits are LOST forever, correct?!

2) i assume that the cd that i get in this case can only be a 'pumped up- version' of the 320 kbps-version?!

3) why does winamp shows 1411 regarding it was a mp3-file?! and most important: what is happening technically?

i hope i am not confusing too much... :o


thanx,

al.

wilsynet

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1228
Re: flac or wav?
« Reply #49 on: 19 Dec 2008, 04:41 am »
The redbook format (audio CD) is 44.1 khz, 16 bits.  In other words:

44100 hz * 16 bits * 2 channels = 1411200 bps = 1411.2 kbps = ~1411 kbps.

So if you have a redbook format track, it is necessarily 1411 kbps.

MP3 is a lossy compression method and it loses bits, but in a really smart way.  Even so, the bits are indeed lost forever.  When you convert the MP3 to a CD track, the redbook format requires 1411 kbps, so that's what's written out.  But the lost bits are still lost, you just happen to have a 1411 kbps version of the lossy track.  It isn't as good as the original though no matter how many kbps winamp tells you it is.

It's sort of like a copier versus a fax machine.  Suppose I print something out and then I feed it through the copier.  I look at the copy and the original and I see that wow, they're pretty close.  Now suppose I take the copy and I fax it to someone else.  They take that facsimile and they copy it using a really good photocopier, a better copier than mine actually.  The photocopy of the fax, no matter how good that photocopier is will never look as good as the original or the photocopy I took of the original.
« Last Edit: 1 Jan 2009, 11:09 pm by wilsynet »

alexone

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1981
  • Anthony Bower, Stan Rybbert, John Stoneborough
Re: flac or wav?
« Reply #50 on: 19 Dec 2008, 07:59 am »

hi, Wilsynet!

thank you very much for reply.  :thumb:
then it's like what i always assumed it has to be...a mp3 file can NEVER replace the cd format of 1411 even if the mp3 tracks are converted back into a redbook 1411.

al.