[satfrat]

The Windows "file compression" function is separate from audio file (heh) treatment.  The Windows check-box refers to contents of the entire drive and how it internally handles all data thereon. 

Crimson's description is exactly correct, the two prevailing lossless, compressed file types are Apple's (ALAC) and an open-source standard called FLAC.  I don't believe either can get much below about 700 kb/sec without using massive processor power on decode.  The theory with these is they can be blown back up to full .wav files for burning or streaming.  A CD's bitrate is 1,411 kb/sec, as stated previously.  This is why an 80-minute CD comprises 700 MB of data.

To get files that are lower than 50% of the original file size, some data has to be thrown out.  The Hydrogen Audio team has given the world the LAME MP3 format which as far as I know is still considered the best lossy choice.  Other examples are out there too, of which the Microsoft proprietary WMA is one.  To get 300 kb/sec streaming rate, data is thrown out.  There is some debate as to how audible this is in the same way one might look at a bitmap photo versus a .jpeg.  The latter format is more portable and can be done very well as long as it's not overly compressed.  However, there is no doubt data has been lost which cannot be recovered.

If it doesn't bug you I wouldn't sweat it.

That last sentence I understand. When I said a CD was 192kbps, it's cuz that's what the bit rate says on my J-River Media Center bit rate listing. That's really all I know on the subject. When I convert to my format choice, the bit rate listed goes up as does my preceived music quality so that's what I relate it to. It works for me and I don't sweat it. Thanks Mike.

Cheers,
Robin

[JimJ]

I use FLAC, haven't been able to hear a difference yet with WAV...and considering WAV isn't allowed on most torrent trackers, it's an easy choice to make

[Crimson]

The Windows "file compression" function is separate from audio file (heh) treatment.  The Windows check-box refers to contents of the entire drive and how it internally handles all data thereon. 

Crimson's description is exactly correct, the two prevailing lossless, compressed file types are Apple's (ALAC) and an open-source standard called FLAC.  I don't believe either can get much below about 700 kb/sec without using massive processor power on decode.  The theory with these is they can be blown back up to full .wav files for burning or streaming.  A CD's bitrate is 1,411 kb/sec, as stated previously.  This is why an 80-minute CD comprises 700 MB of data.

To get files that are lower than 50% of the original file size, some data has to be thrown out.  The Hydrogen Audio team has given the world the LAME MP3 format which as far as I know is still considered the best lossy choice.  Other examples are out there too, of which the Microsoft proprietary WMA is one.  To get 300 kb/sec streaming rate, data is thrown out.  There is some debate as to how audible this is in the same way one might look at a bitmap photo versus a .jpeg.  The latter format is more portable and can be done very well as long as it's not overly compressed.  However, there is no doubt data has been lost which cannot be recovered.

If it doesn't bug you I wouldn't sweat it.

That last sentence I understand. When I said a CD was 192kbps, it's cuz that's what the bit rate says on my J-River Media Center bit rate listing. That's really all I know on the subject. When I convert to my format choice, the bit rate listed goes up as does my preceived music quality so that's what I relate it to. It works for me and I don't sweat it. Thanks Mike.

Cheers,
Robin

CD bitrate: 1411 kbps
Rate at which you rip: 192 kbps

You have thrown away more than 85% of the music data! I then fail to see how, even when you burn at 300 kbps, you can perceive a quality increase. It seems you have a very resolving system and it's a shame to waste it on sub-par rips. I'm not a windows user, but I can guarantee if you go in to the settings of Media Player and rip to a lossless (no loss in fidelity) format you will hear a difference.

[ted_b]

I've been using FLAC with cue sheets for about 4 years or so. The FLAC quality is perfect and the cue sheets are easy to use.

Same here.  I like cue sheets cuz it's easy to decompress back to wav to burn a cd if needed.  I store two versions of cue sheets, one pointing to the wav file (stored in a separate folder I call "decode"), one to the FLAC file (stored with the FLAC file in my Squeeze Center library).  And Squeeze Center has no issues with FLAC/cue.

[miklorsmith]

CD bitrate: 1411 kbps
Rate at which you rip: 192 kbps

You have thrown away more than 85% of the music data!

I'm no expert, there's a whole science to sound file compression.  In short though, I don't think saying "85% of the music data has been lost" is accurate.  For instance during quieter passages, less data is needed.  In a .wav file, 100% of the throughput is flowing where maybe only 15% is needed.  The compression process intends to throttle down the data stream to what is actually needed to reproduce the waveform.  This is where "variable bitrate" encoding comes in.  It's not an exact comparison but think in terms of "Class A" amplifier versus "Class AB".  Class A burns 100% all the time no matter what, Class AB tries to match consumption with need.

There's more to it as well, obviously. 

Even loud and complex passages get compressed significantly and theoretically the compression should be more audible there.  I generally think some distortions hide easier during loud passages and this may counterbalance some of that.

Robin - an interesting experiment would be to rip a lossless file, shrink it the way you usually do, blow it back up again, shrink it down, etc.  Make sure you're manipulating the same file and do this ten times then listen to the original, unmolested file and punching bag file side-by-side and try to detect a difference.  In theory, a .flac file would show no signs of wear.  It's possible the .mp3 or .wma file wouldn't care about how many times it had been tortured either, as compression may occur in the same places each time.  Or, it's possible it would magnify some artifacts that you could look for down the road.

Just thinking out loud . . .

[ted_b]

The poor OP (Al) just wanted a simple question answered (which would we choose: FLAC or WAV) and of course we've proceeded to give it the ole' AC treatment.     i guess we answered his question:   "either".  Disk space is cheap, but WAV is less flexible for tagging. Both are lossless.  Some perceive slight differences; most don't.

On Robin's issue i think it is entirely believable that he hears no artifiacts from 300k (although 192k is unlikely).  I rip to 320k for much of my iPod use and they sound great.  And there are a few others over on hydrogen that believe LAME at some compression level (don't remember which) "cleans up" their redbook.  I won't debate.  Danny Kaey mentions it in his LAME article (sorry, couldn't refuse).
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue32/lame.htm

But we've (yes, we, Robin.. ) have figured out that when Robin said "no reason to compress" he meant his hard drive, not his audio codecs.  He's clearly compressing his audio into a lossy format.   Rock on.

[zybar]

Ok, since I was mentioned earlier in the thread, I wanted to provide a little data.

I don't have the original cd's but I can provide the stats on a few of the cd's Robin brought over.

Each cd was ripped to my HD in FLAC using EAC and all of my normal settings.  When I look at the birate for these cd's, it is pretty much the same as what I see for cd's I have directly ripped to FLAC from the original media.

For example, the first two entries below were from Robin cd's, the next two are ones I directly ripped:

Kathleen Edwards - Asking for Flowers
742-997kbps VBR
44.1 kHz

Susheela Raman - Love Trap
600-860kbps VBR
44.1 kHz

Ben Harper - Diamonds on the Inside
900-1080kbps VBR
44.1 kHz

Wilco - Yankee Hotel Foxtrot
708-1015kbps VBR
44.1 kHz

If Robin was creating those cd's at a really reduced bitrate of say 300kbps, how can I get the bitrates listed above?   

Am I missing something here?

George

[Crimson]

The original rip is what matters. If they were ripped at 192, then burnt to disc, then ripped as flac, your effective resolution is still the original 192 in that the data that was discarded during the original rip is gone. Forever.

The same applies to ripping at 192, then burning to 300. Doesn't matter. The discarded content is gone.

I think the irony of listening to MP3s on highly tweaked megabuck systems is............ironic.

[satfrat]

George, I don't understand how Windows or the J. River player is determining the bit rate but what you say doesn't surrpsie me as I have conflicking bit rates on my hard drive sometimes. Say I rip an MP3 file, the player shows 192kbps. I convert it to WMA VBR (highest setting) and I get a bit rate of around 2400kbps. Yet when I play this track back, the player's bit rate shows 270-350Kbps range. Also when I rip a CD onto my computer, it's no different than anyone elses ripping capability so when my player says 192 Kbps, I don't believe for a second that I'm losing much of anything let along 85%. As George will attest to, there's nothing wrong with the quality of my recording and from what I heard i'd say they are damn good. I'm not looking for the best possible like a lot of you guys, i'm looking for as good a recording as possible using as little hard drive as possible. I've got over 4100 albums using 468G of a 750 HD (and another 750 HD backup) so I'm happy and as Mike recommended, i'm not worried about the whys & hows. I am sorry thou that I didn't(or couldn't) better explain myself when trying to post my downloading choice. I was simply trying to offer another choice to flac that I have found to work really good for me. aa


Cheers,
Robin

[zybar]

George, I don't understand how Windows or the J. River player is determining the bit rate but what you say doesn't surrpsie me as I have conflicking bit rates on my hard drive sometimes. Say I rip an MP3 file, the player shows 192kbps. I convert it to WMA VBR (highest setting) and I get a bit rate of around 2400kbps. Yet when I play this track back, the player's bit rate shows 270-350Kbps range. Also when I rip a CD onto my computer, it's no different than anyone elses ripping capability so when my player says 192 Kbps, I don't believe for a second that I'm losing much of anything let along 85%. As George will attest to, there's nothing wrong with the quality of my recording and from what I heard i'd say they are damn good. I'm not looking for the best possible like a lot of you guys, i'm looking for as good a recording as possible using as little hard drive as possible. I've got over 4100 albums using 468G of a 750 HD (and another 750 HD backup) so I'm happy and as Mike recommended, i'm not worried about the whys & hows. I am sorry thou that I didn't(or couldn't) better explain myself when trying to post my downloading choice. I was simply trying to offer another choice to flac that I have found to work really good for me. aa


Cheers,
Robin

Robin,

I don't think anybody is saying that the recording sounds bad, rather that it will sound better without losing the data that gets tossed when you rip the original in a lossy fashion.

Next time you come over, I will play you a song ripped at 192 vs. a loss less method (such as FLAC).  You can decide for yourself what the difference is.

George

[satfrat]

George, I don't understand how Windows or the J. River player is determining the bit rate but what you say doesn't surrpsie me as I have conflicking bit rates on my hard drive sometimes. Say I rip an MP3 file, the player shows 192kbps. I convert it to WMA VBR (highest setting) and I get a bit rate of around 2400kbps. Yet when I play this track back, the player's bit rate shows 270-350Kbps range. Also when I rip a CD onto my computer, it's no different than anyone elses ripping capability so when my player says 192 Kbps, I don't believe for a second that I'm losing much of anything let along 85%. As George will attest to, there's nothing wrong with the quality of my recording and from what I heard i'd say they are damn good. I'm not looking for the best possible like a lot of you guys, i'm looking for as good a recording as possible using as little hard drive as possible. I've got over 4100 albums using 468G of a 750 HD (and another 750 HD backup) so I'm happy and as Mike recommended, i'm not worried about the whys & hows. I am sorry thou that I didn't(or couldn't) better explain myself when trying to post my downloading choice. I was simply trying to offer another choice to flac that I have found to work really good for me. aa


Cheers,
Robin

Robin,

I don't think anybody is saying that the recording sounds bad, rather that it will sound better without losing the data that gets tossed when you rip the original in a lossy fashion.

Next time you come over, I will play you a song ripped at 192 vs. a loss less method (such as FLAC).  You can decide for yourself what the difference is.

George

I'll bring the Rush 2112 album in my format to comapre with your flac or maybe even bring my exterior HD and you can take it directly off that. Should be a fun comaprison


Cheers,
Robin

[Crimson]

i'm looking for as good a recording as possible using as little hard drive as possible.

doesn't jibe with

With hard drives being so cheap, I see no reason to compress anything.

'Best possible' is not a pipe dream. Simply rip to FLAC, at a minimum, and you have CD quality at half the storage requirements. Why even bother with MP3? There's no rocket science here. You already have JRiver which can rip to FLAC with a simple setting.

[satfrat]

i'm looking for as good a recording as possible using as little hard drive as possible.

doesn't jibe with

With hard drives being so cheap, I see no reason to compress anything.

'Best possible' is not a pipe dream. Simply rip to FLAC, at a minimum, and you have CD quality at half the storage requirements. Why even bother with MP3? There's no rocket science here. You already have JRiver which can rip to FLAC with a simple setting.

Well I guess I'm fortunate that I don't have to explain myself to the likes of you, heh? Jible on that!

[Crimson]

Enjoy yourself. If you feel MP3s are superior to straight PCM, more power to you. 

I'm outta here.

[zybar]

i'm looking for as good a recording as possible using as little hard drive as possible.

doesn't jibe with

With hard drives being so cheap, I see no reason to compress anything.

'Best possible' is not a pipe dream. Simply rip to FLAC, at a minimum, and you have CD quality at half the storage requirements. Why even bother with MP3? There's no rocket science here. You already have JRiver which can rip to FLAC with a simple setting.

Hard drives are getting to be very cheap indeed.  

I just paid $158 shipped for (2) 1TB drives.

My pc will now have 3.5TB of storage and I wouldn't dream of EVER using lossy compression!  

George

[ted_b]

Robin,
We are only trying to help you get to a better audio place.  That's what Audio Circle is all about, I think.   it sure has been that way for me (and cost me plenty    )  But what I don't understand is when you say things like " I guess I'm fortunate i don't have to explain myself to the likes of you...jibe on that"  it seems that you are miffed....?.....  Some of us saw your comments and quickly realized that maybe you are accidentally recording/ripping at a lossy level.  And tried to help.  That's all...really. 

[satfrat]

Robin,
We are only trying to help you get to a better audio place.  That's what Audio Circle is all about, I think.   it sure has been that way for me (and cost me plenty    )  But what I don't understand is when you say things like " I guess I'm fortunate i don't have to explain myself to the likes of you...jibe on that"  it seems that you are miffed....?.....  Some of us saw your comments and quickly realized that maybe you are accidentally recording/ripping at a lossy level.  And tried to help.  That's all...really. 

Anything you say Ted....

[mfsoa]

I thought one of the naughty things to do was to convert one lossy compressed file to another, different lossy format.

Worst of both worlds kind of thing.

Anyone hear of this issue?

-Mike

[mcullinan]

Dont piss off Robin, hes prolly bigger than u too. Ive hit my pissing off quota for today, so Im all Peace n love peace n love.

anyways I rip in Alac and have 1,197 albums in under 300mb Most (80 percent) are ALAC, some are mp3s.
Im on a Terrabyte drive and have another just incase... I get another 2000 albums really quick!
ALAC is basically the same as flac... though some say flac sounds better even though they are both lossless.
ALAC is very mac friendly since its Apple lossless audio codec
Mike

[satfrat]

Dont piss off Robin, hes prolly bigger than u too. Ive hit my pissing off quota for today, so Im all Peace n love peace n love.

anyways I rip in Alac and have 1,197 albums in under 300mb Most (80 percent) are ALAC, some are mp3s.
Im on a Terrabyte drive and have another just incase... I get another 2000 albums really quick!
Mike

There's many more informative folks in this thread than myself.  I'm not pi$$ed Mike, I'm simply not going to be dragged into a conversation that I have no answers for.

Hey Mike, we'll talk futher saturday. aa

Cheers,
Robin

Cheers,
Robin