MP3 or FLAC?

[blaggard]

I couldn't care less how long you've been in the industry... I've grew up in it and was glad to get out when I could, fuckin hated it.

I was trying to get my point across as simply as possible for the benefits of everyone in the thread who may not have a clue as to how a lossless codec's compression algorithm works.

Bullshit, quote: "LMAO @ you two" and "Let me try to explain this to you simply"
THAT is talking down to Braymond and I.
What you forget is that at the start of this "Music" production a musician records his usually analogue instrument with a microphone using, microphone position, room acoustics and MANY other factors which arer largely thrown out by the digital recording process. Digital recording as opposed to analogue loses so much of (as I said) the "air" around the instrument and any "noise" not seen as music by completely non-musical system.
This discussion had moved on from a simple flac is better than ogg into a discussion about digital versus analogue or did you miss that?!
Whichever way it is recorded it is later digitised and then further degraded by people coverting and usually compressing, MUSIC is ART FFS!

Digital recording has come on in leaps and bounds since the very beginning and certainly the current compression systems have also become more natural sounding, I however am possessed of good ears, a memory and musical talent. Music is NOT maths, YOU try to understand THAT!
"I've grew up in it and was glad to get out when I could, fuckin hated it." says it all really, you won't be missed!!

[blaggard]

The argument isn't whether the source is lossless compared to the anologue source, it is whether or not it is lossless compared to the digital capture. Which can be easily proven by comparing the data before compression and decompressed data.

If you have ever zipped a word document, you'd be a bit pissed off if it started taking words out it thought you wouldn't need to make it compress better.

A word document compared to a piece of music......let me see............

[Mr.James]

The argument isn't whether the source is lossless compared to the anologue source, it is whether or not it is lossless compared to the digital capture. Which can be easily proven by comparing the data before compression and decompressed data.

Exactly! That's two of us who understand what is meant by 'lossless codec' then...

[DJ OD]

What a great thread!

For what it's worth I have been in IT for 15 years and a DJ for 20 years at least. That's right, I'm 22 years old! Ha I wish...

Anyway I know a fair bit about analog and digital sound qualities. I remember early electronic music was primarily made from samples of other songs. Essentially poor digital "recordings" of sounds. These were often in either some Raw format, or Wave format. Either one was actually a really bad reproduction of the original sound. Lossless it was not.

Any recording method or conversion will lose something, no digital format is completely lossless. Even wave, raw, aiff none of them. The reason being that analog has an infinite frequency range. Digital will always have constraints. In the most part very minor agreed, but some data cannot be captured let alone be reproduced.

I remember when I first started ammassing and ripping mp3's. I did a lot of things at 128kbps thinking that would be sufficient for my causes. After playing them at high volumes over large PA systems you soon realise that was a bad plan. Even 256kbps ripped songs sounded really bad when "mixed" and played loud. Something I wouldn't have thought about way back when. I never would have thought the digial music would have exploded they way it did.

CD DJ mixing when first introduced was also subject to the same problems, being a digital format. When played at high volume of the reletively low quality CDDJ turntables about at the time resulted in a lot of digital distorsion. Again more noticable when mixed. Modern CDDJ equipment has improved considerably and mixing desks are now also digital to combat such issues. I'm sure I read somewhere the way they got around some of the digital problems from CDs, was to convert back to analog!

Anyway, my point is really that FLAC can be a better codec than MP3, but all digital music is flawed by it's own limitations. I wouldn't say that FLAC is better than MP3 or OGG, I'd say it could be from reading its tech specs, but so many things attribute to its final quality.

Obviously it's source, it's encoder and the speed in which it was encoded. Error rates and all that jazz.

Digitally produced music, arranged and recorded on to a digital source and encoded to a digital file will be near on spot on with the original, but as we all know... A purely digital song/tune is missing that special something and warmth only analog can produce.

SO, to DJ Ad's original question, I would say, fuck it. D/L and listen to whatever you like, in the most part it's not going to matter too much. MP3 is more common and compatible with equipment, FLAC has the capabilites for being a better quality, but that's all relative. Stick to vinyl and burn your PC!


DJ OD

[stimpy]

A word document compared to a piece of music......let me see............

As far as the computer is concerned, there is no difference. It's all just strings of binary. Lossless ones at that

[blaggard]

I'm not going to participate in this thread after this but here's the thing, Music + Maths = unhappy union.
I realise that most people will not have had the chance to listen to a studio recording system whether digital or analogue, I have and analogue wins by a mile, that's straigtht from 2" tape, through through the minimum signal path on the desk and up through an UN EQ'd amp and Studio monitor system. Lots of people will have been able to listen to completely analogue recordings on record or tape, if those reproduction systems are of at least reasonable quality, analogue wins by a country mile. Completely digital instruments will be better if kept completely in the digital domain.
Most music is still played on analogue instruments and therefore better kept that way, a combination of the two will be better kept analogue.
This is largely lost on people brought up on listening to CD's and I realise that but please try to remember that all these systems are meant to reproduce MUSIC largley played and written by MUSICIANS, NOT MATHMETICIANS!!

Nuff said

[blaggard]

As far as the computer is concerned, there is no difference. It's all just strings of binary. Lossless ones at that

The thing is that music is wriiten and recorded for human cosumption!!

[Mr.James]

Bullshit, quote: "LMAO @ you two" and "Let me try to explain this to you simply"
THAT is talking down to Braymond and I.
What you forget is that at the start of this "Music" production a musician records his usually analogue instrument with a microphone using, microphone position, room acoustics and MANY other factors which arer largely thrown out by the digital recording process. Digital recording as opposed to analogue loses so much of (as I said) the "air" around the instrument and any "noise" not seen as music by completely non-musical system.

Couldn't agree with you more. But that's not the remit of this topic.

This discussion had moved on from a simple flac is better than ogg into a discussion about digital versus analogue or did you miss that?!

You're the one trying to take it off topic, give it a rest.

Whichever way it is recorded it is later digitised and then further degraded by people coverting and usually compressing,

not when they convert it to a LOSSLESS format. That's the entire point they were created!

Digital recording has come on in leaps and bounds since the very beginning and certainly the current compression systems have also become more natural sounding, I however am possessed of good ears, a memory and musical talent. Music is NOT maths, YOU try to understand THAT!

Digital music by the very way it is created will never be able to fully record an analogue system and reproduce it faithfully.

"I've grew up in it and was glad to get out when I could, fuckin hated it." says it all really, you won't be missed!!

I'm talking about the entertainment business as a whole. I spent the first 16 years of my life in music and tv recording studios. what a great childhood. 5 year old and your parents can't take you to the park without attracting strangers asking for autographs and pretending like they've know you all their life. Fuckin shite mate.

[blaggard]

What a great thread!

For what it's worth I have been in IT for 15 years and a DJ for 20 years at least. That's right, I'm 22 years old! Ha I wish...

Anyway I know a fair bit about analog and digital sound qualities. I remember early electronic music was primarily made from samples of other songs. Essentially poor digital "recordings" of sounds. These were often in either some Raw format, or Wave format. Either one was actually a really bad reproduction of the original sound. Lossless it was not.

Any recording method or conversion will lose something, no digital format is completely lossless. Even wave, raw, aiff none of them. The reason being that analog has an infinite frequency range. Digital will always have constraints. In the most part very minor agreed, but some data cannot be captured let alone be reproduced.

I remember when I first started ammassing and ripping mp3's. I did a lot of things at 128kbps thinking that would be sufficient for my causes. After playing them at high volumes over large PA systems you soon realise that was a bad plan. Even 256kbps ripped songs sounded really bad when "mixed" and played loud. Something I wouldn't have thought about way back when. I never would have thought the digial music would have exploded they way it did.

CD DJ mixing when first introduced was also subject to the same problems, being a digital format. When played at high volume of the reletively low quality CDDJ turntables about at the time resulted in a lot of digital distorsion. Again more noticable when mixed. Modern CDDJ equipment has improved considerably and mixing desks are now also digital to combat such issues. I'm sure I read somewhere the way they got around some of the digital problems from CDs, was to convert back to analog!

Anyway, my point is really that FLAC can be a better codec than MP3, but all digital music is flawed by it's own limitations. I wouldn't say that FLAC is better than MP3 or OGG, I'd say it could be from reading its tech specs, but so many things attribute to its final quality.

Obviously it's source, it's encoder and the speed in which it was encoded. Error rates and all that jazz.

Digitally produced music, arranged and recorded on to a digital source and encoded to a digital file will be near on spot on with the original, but as we all know... A purely digital song/tune is missing that special something and warmth only analog can produce.

SO, to DJ Ad's original question, I would say, fuck it. D/L and listen to whatever you like, in the most part it's not going to matter too much. MP3 is more common and compatible with equipment, FLAC has the capabilites for being a better quality, but that's all relative. Stick to vinyl and burn your PC!


DJ OD

Spot on and it's about so much more than range, listen live to an orchestra, all the noise and "air" around it so evident when they are getting ready to start is drowned out when they start but still there, this is thrown out when recorded digitally or transferred to digital.

[blaggard]

Couldn't agree with you more. But that's not the remit of this topic.



You're the one trying to take it off topic, give it a rest.



not when they convert it to a LOSSLESS format. That's the entire point they were created!



Digital music by the very way it is created will never be able to fully record an analogue system and reproduce it faithfully.



I'm talking about the entertainment business as a whole. I spent the first 16 years of my life in music and tv recording studios. what a great childhood. 5 year old and your parents can't take you to the park without attracting strangers asking for autographs and pretending like they've know you all their life. Fuckin shite mate.

I've been there and signed those autographs "mate" however the discussion moved on it wasn't taken off topic. The discussion about digital versus analogue recording is entirely apocite when talking about further processing of any kind.

[blaggard]

And really, nuff said, I'm outa here

[Mr.James]

What a great thread!

For what it's worth I have been in IT for 15 years and a DJ for 20 years at least. That's right, I'm 22 years old! Ha I wish...

Anyway I know a fair bit about analog and digital sound qualities. I remember early electronic music was primarily made from samples of other songs. Essentially poor digital "recordings" of sounds. These were often in either some Raw format, or Wave format. Either one was actually a really bad reproduction of the original sound. Lossless it was not.

Any recording method or conversion will lose something, no digital format is completely lossless. Even wave, raw, aiff none of them. The reason being that analog has an infinite frequency range. Digital will always have constraints. In the most part very minor agreed, but some data cannot be captured let alone be reproduced.

I remember when I first started ammassing and ripping mp3's. I did a lot of things at 128kbps thinking that would be sufficient for my causes. After playing them at high volumes over large PA systems you soon realise that was a bad plan. Even 256kbps ripped songs sounded really bad when "mixed" and played loud. Something I wouldn't have thought about way back when. I never would have thought the digial music would have exploded they way it did.

CD DJ mixing when first introduced was also subject to the same problems, being a digital format. When played at high volume of the reletively low quality CDDJ turntables about at the time resulted in a lot of digital distorsion. Again more noticable when mixed. Modern CDDJ equipment has improved considerably and mixing desks are now also digital to combat such issues. I'm sure I read somewhere the way they got around some of the digital problems from CDs, was to convert back to analog!

Anyway, my point is really that FLAC can be a better codec than MP3, but all digital music is flawed by it's own limitations. I wouldn't say that FLAC is better than MP3 or OGG, I'd say it could be from reading its tech specs, but so many things attribute to its final quality.

Obviously it's source, it's encoder and the speed in which it was encoded. Error rates and all that jazz.

Digitally produced music, arranged and recorded on to a digital source and encoded to a digital file will be near on spot on with the original, but as we all know... A purely digital song/tune is missing that special something and warmth only analog can produce.

SO, to DJ Ad's original question, I would say, fuck it. D/L and listen to whatever you like, in the most part it's not going to matter too much. MP3 is more common and compatible with equipment, FLAC has the capabilites for being a better quality, but that's all relative. Stick to vinyl and burn your PC!


DJ OD

I'm assuming that you do actually record your mixes digitally at some point though? Converting the wav files you record in to FLAC loses nothing from the original wav recording.

A lossy format like mp3 actually changes the file to suit it's compression methods. If you get a wav file convert it to mp3 and then back again 100 times you'll end up with an inaudible mess because the algorithm has lost something each time you have converted it to an mp3.

You can convert a wav file to a flac and back again infinitely because flac does not lose anything during the conversion process...

Flac is exactly the same quailty as wav but smaller and nothing is lost during the conversion process.

Using FLAC instead of wav can greatly reduce storage costs without altering the source recording.

[braymond]

but , unfortunately, at the end of the day, flac versions of cd's i have downloaded dont sound as good as the original disc.
and for me, that is the end of the argument. i dont have the time .

[DJ OD]

I'm assuming that you do actually record your mixes digitally at some point though? Converting the wav files you record in to FLAC loses nothing from the original wav recording.

Possibly, probably.

But if I was to mix two analog sources, we'll say those round things kids no nothing of called, records (!) and play it in a club at high volume it would sound fine. If i was to record it digitally and play it back in the same club at the same volume it would sound different, worse. The medium or file format in which it was recorded would be moot. Some may do a better job, well encoded FLAC for example.

A lossy format like mp3 actually changes the file to suit it's compression methods. If you get a wav file convert it to mp3 and then back again 100 times you'll end up with an inaudible mess because the algorithm has lost something each time you have converted it to an mp3.

Yep. A mp3 rip of a DJ's mix of mp3's sounds odd all right.

You can convert a wav file to a flac and back again infinitely because flac does not lose anything during the conversion process...

Flac is exactly the same quailty as wav but smaller and nothing is lost during the conversion process.

I understand that is the theory, but I'm not convinced that some elements don't get lost due to the encoder or speed of encoding. FLAC has built-in error checking not tolerance. Static interferance affects encoding, like your fridge clicking on. I'm not saying it's not possible, just any recording is never 100% of the original. Picky but true ;-)

Using FLAC instead of wav can greatly reduce storage costs without altering the source recording.

Most definately, but audiphiles will still keep the originals. They're nutters.


DJ OD

[Mr.James]

but , unfortunately, at the end of the day, flac versions of cd's i have downloaded dont sound as good as the original disc.
and for me, that is the end of the argument. i dont have the time .

To get a perfect bit-for-bit perfect rip of a cd you need to take into account the ripping drive's offset correlation. If set correctly this gives a perfect copy of the CD however it's something that most people don't take into account and the reason why a FLAC or WAV recording can sound different from the original CD.

[Waka]

Which brings us neatly to...
http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/

if you're going to rip your cds, you really should be using this

W.

[blaggard]

Which brings us neatly to...
http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/

if you're going to rip your cds, you really should be using this

W.

Philistine!!

[Nibb]

I couldn't care less how long you've been in the industry... I've grew up in it and was glad to get out when I could, fuckin hated it.

I was trying to get my point across as simply as possible for the benefits of everyone in the thread who may not have a clue as to how a lossless codec's compression algorithm works.

"I know who you are...who are ya?"

YouTube - Peter Kay - Phoenix Nights

[braymond]

http://www.nanophon.com/audio/index.htm

some interesting stuff on here, its a great shame the guy who wrote these papers is dead, he was a great engineer and his work helped push digital audio in the right direction. without people like him we would all be stuck with poor quality digital audio. makes me laugh how at first 44.1KHz was deemed enough for audio, now even movie soundtracks are done at 96KHz.
im contacting a collegue who designs dsp engines and the algorithms for high end audio as to his thoughts on the matter . he is foremost a mathematician, so will hopefully be able to explain why the condescedning talk about maths from mr james is in fact, a rather simplisitic take on the matter.
he is busy man so it wont be immediate.

[Waka]

Philistine!!

Oi, I thought you'd gone off to play with your reel to reel stuff

It's a shame the higher quality audio formats seem to be limited to the high-def video sector. I think the increase in audio quality on blu ray over dvd is greater than the increase in video quality. Anywho I think I've gone waaaay off topic

W.