Jump to content

Highest Quality Music format


  

18 members have voted

  1. 1.

    • Mp3 (with special settings?)
      5
    • AAC (what settings?)
      7
    • AIFF (What settings?)
      0
    • Apple Lossless (how big are we talking?)
      2
    • WAV (What settings?)
      4


Recommended Posts

Just my two cents. I'm not an audiophile by any stretch of the imagination, I've dedicated all of my time to images. However, you said you had a bunch of CDs you were considering re-ripping for better quality.

Most if not all (I assume) CDs are burned at CD quality, ripping them in a bit rate beyond 128 kilobytes is redundant because it isn't going to improve the quality, saying you can tell the difference if they're 192 (in this situation, for example) you're making shit up. If you download tracks typically you'll receive them in a higher quality therefore actually making a difference if you reformat them as MP3s since that's technically a compressed format.

To put it in image terminology; "CD" tracks are saved at "jpegs" to fit on the CD, saving them at a higher bit rate isn't going to reconstruct them and make them a "png" it's only going to waste drive space and still sound exactly the same.

Link to post
Just my two cents. I'm not an audiophile by any stretch of the imagination, I've dedicated all of my time to images. However, you said you had a bunch of CDs you were considering re-ripping for better quality.

Most if not all (I assume) CDs are burned at CD quality, ripping them in a bit rate beyond 128 kilobytes is redundant because it isn't going to improve the quality, saying you can tell the difference if they're 192 (in this situation, for example) you're making shit up. If you download tracks typically you'll receive them in a higher quality therefore actually making a difference if you reformat them as MP3s since that's technically a compressed format.

To put it in image terminology; "CD" tracks are saved at "jpegs" to fit on the CD, saving them at a higher bit rate isn't going to reconstruct them and make them a "png" it's only going to waste drive space and still sound exactly the same.

Not quite right. There are a ton of lower and higher frequencies that 128 bit can not store. "CD quality" is only a label. It does not mean it is the same bit-rate that is recorded onto the CD.

To put into image terminology, it would be like having a TIFF image, then saving it as a JPEG. Even at 100% quality, there is still some compression and artifacts. Though, MP3 does not work this way, rather, how much space is used to store the information. MP3 does the same thing as JPEG, it compresses the information, thus, you always have artifacts.

Link to post

Thanks wizard, for that.... I laughed myself to piss reading his 128kpbs (CD quality) argument.

But then again, it's not actually his fault. Any regular user would mistake that label as fact.

Well, here is the fact...

Audio CD are on average contain Audio is LPCM format @ 1400-1500 Kbps

When you rip the same audio in Wav format, it's in PCM format @ almost same bitrates

Link to post
Thanks wizard, for that.... I laughed myself to piss reading his 128kpbs (CD quality) argument.

But then again, it's not actually his fault. Any regular user would mistake that label as fact.

Yep, absolutely hilarious. I stated outright I didn't know that much about it; but yet the arrogance in your reply is just absolutely radiating today. So here's an award for your devout tidbit of knowledge, I brought some polish for it too; and when you're done I've got a recommendation on where to display it.

---

I hereby admit I know little to nothing about formatting sound. In case that was so difficultly embedded within the last paragraph. If there are repercussions for this post despite my being a veteran member with a far lower unnecessary post count; and absolutely no issues for five years up until this point; so be it. It'll be well worth it.

Link to post

^ LOL... arrogance... not really. I think I was quick enough to mention that it wasn't your fault. You just believed what you read (usual label in bitrate selection dropdown : 128kbps [CD Quality]).

If I sounded rude and offended you then I'm sorry. I'm just a little more bugged/pissed/irritated than usual this week. I suppose it's due to the all the extra work and numbnut clients I got this week.

Once again, I'm truly sorry if I sounded arrogant. It wasn't my intention. :)

----

I would also clear something. I'm no Audiophile. Not a hardcore one for the least.

I was starting to become one, but luckily I soon realized that I was listening more to the devices than an actual music. This speaker, that Amp, this particular cable, such type of connections, this format, that option and so on. As soon as I realized that all those terms didn't contain any mention of actual music, I quit it. I gather technical knowledge of things as it comes handy in my regular work too (being multimedia/video professional). But now I walk the fine line between sanity and crazy audiophilia.

I thought I would mention that.

Link to post
Oh, Levi - I just remembered. Try your hands at this little test. See if you can tell the difference between the two. If you can, you should definitely encode your music at a very high bitrate. If it's difficult for you to tell the difference, then encode them at a lower rate.

i chose right, but only by a fraction... but i think thats coz the opera was boiling my brains too much for me to concerntrate.

Link to post
OGG/Vorbis. It's free, it sounds great and I never really cared what others think of it. Most CDs I own are ripped to OGG and some are FLAC.

Other formats don't matter to me.

Won't work with iTunes without some wrangling and wrestling. It's best to use AAC or MP3. I notice no difference between 320 kb/s (and even a little lower) and lossless formats. I'm a musician (and have been for over 10 years), and we have some truly excellent speakers in our house.

Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...