Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 1K3 on August 12, 2007, 03:21:40 AM
-
Does anyone here use this setting when ripping cds? Does it actually retain the CD quality sound?
-
Yes, it's a bit-for-bit exact copy of the information on the CD. However it takes a lot of space because it is not compressed in any way (one CD= 650-700 MB). You'd be better off using 320 kbs MP3 compression; there's no quality loss that the human ear can notice.
-
Audiophile "But I can HEAR the bits!" superstition post in 3... 2... 1....
(Bonus points if they use 'dynamic range' in their response)
-
90% of everything I have is at 128 kbps. It sounds perfectly fine to me :)
-
viking,
Not entirely true about file size. There are lossless compression techiques that can drop file size by 50% or more, depending on the data. Remember zip file compression? That is lossless of course, and I remember getting anywhere from 20% to 40% compression ratios back when floppies were considered valid backup media.
I dunno how good apple's lossless compression is but it should yield some compression gains over the raw bitstream.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Yes, it's a bit-for-bit exact copy of the information on the CD. However it takes a lot of space because it is not compressed in any way (one CD= 650-700 MB). You'd be better off using 320 kbs MP3 compression; there's no quality loss that the human ear can notice.
This info is not correct.
-
Then correct me.
-
I just bought a Sony MDR V6 (1980s headphones) for $100. It's the best $100 gadget I ever bought. It has a response range of 5hz to 30,000hz. These headphones, I must say, are very "revealing".
With this headphone, my 128 kbps lossy mp3s collections turned into trash overnight:(
-
Minimum 192 for me since I got my Sennheisers a couple years ago.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Then correct me.
You said the data was not compressed in any way. In fact it is compressed -- with ALAC the compressed file is usually 40-60% the size of the original file.
-
They're not compressed in any way on the CD. As a file they may be compressed somewhat, but the files are still going to be very large compared to high-bitrate lossy compression, by a factor of 10 or so.
-
Anyone who compares 128-bit mp3 to a similar cd-recording and doesn't notice any difference needs nothing better than the 128-bit mp3.
In fact, this kind of a person most likely owns a $200 compact stereosystem and is happy with it.
Then there are people with $20k systems who are dreaming of $200k systems and can indeed hear the difference.
Then there are psychos with $200k systems who developed a personal problem from audio.
And finally there are rich people who could settle with the $200 system but bought the $200k system to show off.
Now what was my point? :huh
-
Originally posted by Viking
You'd be better off using 320 kbs MP3 compression; there's no quality loss that the human ear can notice.
The human ear CAN notice the difference.
-
I have found that 192 is a good compressionrate, but now that all kinds of storage is dirt cheap i usually rip my cds to harddrives without any compression at all. For use on my cellphone i use 192 tho and with a 2gig mem card in it I have room for plenty of tunes.
-
The thing with mp3's is that it's hard to hear the difference untill you can do a side-by-side comparison with the original. That's when the differences become apparent.
I have an outdoor system with an 18-inch horn subwoofer capable of 137db dynamic peaks and there's a huge difference between an mp3 and direct cd. The cd sounds tight, punchy and dynamic where the mp3 is softer and round in peaks. Both sound quite ok but with cd there's that extra tight punch to the body which lacks in mp3. With my electrostatic panels I can also hear big difference in ambience, space reproduction and punch.
They all sound equally horrible with the cheap ministereo we have downstairs.
-
I mostly listen to music on a pair of really high end headphones via a dedicated high end cd player or the computer. The difference is very audible when you compare mp3 vs cd or a full quality rip. When listening to music on the stereo in the livingroom its not a huge difference...until you switch from mp3 to cd.
-
You loose a lot more "quality" in the process of producing the analog audio signal from the digital data than you loose from good mp3 or similar compression. Lossless compression is good if you plan to do more signal processing on the data. I seriously doubt you can hear the difference - especially with an ipod quality instrument.
edit:
Nilsen, I think that what you hear is the difference between digital to analog conversion of an mp3 player and a good CD player. It also could be that the mp3 was produced with low quality to make the file really small.
-
I produce all mp3s myself at minimum 192 and find that to be good enough. I dont dl or buy tunes on the net.
Nothing beats my stand-alone cd player with my headphones. The players itself is rather old (Sony cdp XA7ES) but has excellent sound quality when paired with my rather huge Sennheizer headphones.
-
Of interest, I've read that the D/AC from the original Sony Playstation (for playing CDs) is supposed to be something really special in terms of audio quality, and that some audiophiles go out of their way to get them because of that. The idea that folks are buying a 12 year old game console for the DAC chip makes me smile, it's a neat idea.
-
If you haven't read it yet, this double blind study of how noticeable bitrate is required reading:
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/do_higher_mp3_bit_rates_pay_off