Audio File Formats

Petrie. · **Reply #40 on:** September 13, 2007, 05:23:45 PM

Quote from: Manny Cav,Sep 13 2007 on 04:11 PM

If one is to discount the CD (because, for listening purposes, CD owns all, except for possibly lossless WAV or WMA, but the WAVs here aren't lossless because they were either recorded or derived from lossy MP3s), then the MP3 would be the best choice for listening purposes, because it has the best quality, as well as the lowest file size. But for programs that don't accept MP3s, then the first 50 MB WAV would be the best. Same quality as the MP3, just with a larger file size. Am I also correct with my last statement?

Yes.

Quote

Petrie: I hope I don't offend you. But I'm curious. Just what is so great about FLAC? No offense, but to me it's just another media player. I don't see anything special about it that makes it stand out.

I'm not so easily offended. FLAC is lossless, meaning you can rip tracks from cds, and save all audio quality. FLAC is an audio file format, not a media player, but because FLAC does not require any royalties to be paid, many encoders and players can add support to play FLAC for free. Most lossless formats are open source code and free, meaning that they have to potential to become playable in many media players with no cost. The exceptions are WMA Lossless (need to pay Microsoft for licenses) and Apple Lossless (pay Steve Jobs' company). FLAC will sound NO BETTER than any other lossless format, but sound in not my concern...I need to be able to take those FLAC files and make mp3 files out of them. You don't need to pay money to get software that can do this because you didn't need to pay a license for FLAC support.

MP3 has the LAME development team which are on top of audio quality...you can make really good sounding mp3 files with their encoder (which is free).

action9000 · **Reply #41 on:** September 13, 2007, 05:24:50 PM

Quote

I find ripping the original WAV from the CD a tad pointless, because the program that doesn't accept MP3, only WAVs (which is 3D Movie Maker, by the way), super compresses the WAVs to a lower file size than even MP3, or at least equaling it.

Point taken.

Totally your decision. I know I can rip CD -> WAV faster than I can rip CD -> Mp3 -> WAV. Since you'll end up with the same filesize and better quality in less time, and you need the .WAV anyway, it makes sense with how I do things. If you have a way you prefer, be my guest. B)

DarkHououmon · **Reply #42 on:** September 13, 2007, 05:28:14 PM

Err... LAME? Is that their actual name?

action9000 · **Reply #43 on:** September 13, 2007, 05:30:57 PM

Yep!
LAME Mp3 encoder B)

Petrie. · **Reply #44 on:** September 13, 2007, 05:31:13 PM

Their acronym. Lame Ain't an Mp3 Encoder (but it is)

:

Manny Cav · **Reply #45 on:** September 13, 2007, 05:33:43 PM

Quote from: action9000,Sep 13 2007 on 04:24 PM

Quote
I find ripping the original WAV from the CD a tad pointless, because the program that doesn't accept MP3, only WAVs (which is 3D Movie Maker, by the way), super compresses the WAVs to a lower file size than even MP3, or at least equaling it.
Point taken.

Totally your decision. I know I can rip CD -> WAV faster than I can rip CD -> Mp3 -> WAV. Since you'll end up with the same filesize and better quality in less time, and you need the .WAV anyway, it makes sense with how I do things. If you have a way you prefer, be my guest. B)

I can find an MP3 on my computer and convert it to WAV faster than I can dig out a CD ans use WMP to rip a WAV off of it.

Petrie. · **Reply #46 on:** September 13, 2007, 05:37:13 PM

Hey manny, I'm going to do something for you....check back later. I'll show you just how much youtube compression kills audio.

Manny Cav · **Reply #47 on:** September 13, 2007, 05:47:18 PM

My poor old human ears tell me that YouTube compression kills audio quality. I took an audio file of "If We Hold On Together" extracted from an LBT video on YouTube and compared it to a 128 Kbps MP3 of it, and I could tell just from ear that the YouTube conversion was not up to standard.

Petrie. · **Reply #48 on:** September 13, 2007, 06:13:00 PM

For Manny and everyone else who wants to do this:

http://download.yousendit.com/36BFCD1B7E8A0642

This zip file contains two files from the animated musical The Pebble and the Penguin. They are both in WMA Lossless (so all you WMP users can play them with no loss in quality

). One was an original audio rip I did. The other is the wav rip of audio from the youtube video I put up using that original audio rip. This should accurately show how much youtube really hurts the quality of what you upload, largely thanks to a 22khz sampling rate.

action9000 · **Reply #49 on:** September 13, 2007, 06:27:04 PM

That says it all right there; 22kHz and 64 kbps at best on the YouTube recording.

YouTube is notorious for killing audio quality. It's useful as a last resort but there is almost always a better source of audio elsewhere. It depends how badly you need the audio. If you really need the quality and nobody is sharing a good-quality audio clip, the option of recording an official source yourself may be desirable.

Petrie. · **Reply #50 on:** September 15, 2007, 09:32:30 AM

Link expires 9/20 if anyone else is interested. I just knew Manny recorded audio off of youtube, so I felt it was necessary to show what youtube does to the audio and prove its just better to locate a better source.

Manny Cav · **Reply #51 on:** September 15, 2007, 10:50:48 AM

I already know that YouTube messes up audio just by listening to converted audio from a YouTube video and then a more "authentic" audio file.

DarkHououmon · **Reply #52 on:** September 15, 2007, 12:07:44 PM

I never notice any YouTube "killing audio" then again I'm probably just more tolerant or just don't bother playing close attention.

Petrie. · **Reply #53 on:** November 23, 2007, 06:46:02 PM

*a little bump of sorts*

I put a ton of Christmas music on my Zen recently and had to decide what I would encode it to. I figured LAME -V5 --vbr-new would be good enough (around 130kbps avg depending on the music). I'll say this with some confidence--encoders these days are really REALLY good...unless I really focus hard, I'll never hear the difference between this and the original.

(hopefully Tim is still breathing and sitting upright because I'm surprised he'd hear me say that

)

Something to think about if you're making Christmas playlists.

Tested: Lame 3.98b5
Switch: -V5 --vbr-new
Software: foobar 0.9.5b command-line encoder
Player: Creative Zen MicroPhoto, iriver ifp-795
Headphones: Sennheiser MX-400 earbuds; Sony MDR-J10 earbuds, Panasonic RPHT-45 open-air headphones
Song styles: pop (mix of old-60s and new-90s+), orchestral and brass Christmas tunes
Original Source: CD

Manny Cav · **Reply #54 on:** November 23, 2007, 08:44:53 PM

I don't do portable players. If I do any Christmas CD ripping, it will be good-old fashioned Windows Media Player ripping at 320 Kbps MP3 (it's just more flexible than WMA).

Petrie. · **Reply #55 on:** November 24, 2007, 08:49:23 AM

Quote from: Manny Cav,Nov 23 2007 on 07:44 PM

I don't do portable players. If I do any Christmas CD ripping, it will be good-old fashioned Windows Media Player ripping at 320 Kbps MP3 (it's just more flexible than WMA).

You might as well do WMA Lossless if you're going to use 320kbps mp3 CBR...not much more space taken (again depending on the music) and you lose no quality. The mp3 encoder in Windows Media Player (FHG ACM) does its job at 160kbps or 192kbps; 320 is overkill for any mp3 encoder.

Manny Cav · **Reply #56 on:** November 24, 2007, 10:18:42 AM

Well, I'll see what the file size difference is. If I could re-rip them, save them as WMA lossless, and be able to reconvert them back to MP3s with a program like Goldwave (for whatever the reason), then I might switch.

Petrie. · **Reply #57 on:** November 25, 2007, 01:12:36 PM

Mmmm...its highly unlikely that Goldwave will work with WMA lossless. If that's you're ultimate goal, your choices are probably WAV (which I don't recommend) or Mp3. If I remember Tim, he's mentioned that goldwave doesn't like variable-bit-rate mp3 files, so yeah, 320kbps might be your only option IF that is what you plan to do with the music.

When using Windows Media Player
Just for playback: WMA lossless
For editing: MP3, 320kbps CBR

Manny Cav · **Reply #58 on:** November 25, 2007, 02:46:51 PM

That could be a problem. My main concern with WMA is compatibility. If I want to use these files for projects, programs, games, applications, etc., will a specialized format like WMA still work or will it not work? I started using 320 Kbps MP3 with that in mind. It sounded like a popularly supported format with the highest audio quality.

Petrie. · **Reply #59 on:** November 25, 2007, 10:34:53 PM

Yes, there's practically nothing that won't support mp3....and for compatability, I'd say CBR only (though that's messed up because variable bit rates are part of the mp3 standard

: ). Yeah stick with mp3.