| Blogs > Azera |
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
Use any number of many many programs. foobar can do that (right click and go to Convert), but it just calls an encoder to do the dirty work so you could just use the encoder itself. You can download a modern Vorbis (ogg container format) encoder here: http://www.rarewares.org/ogg-oggenc.php Modern (LAME) mp3 encoder here: http://www.rarewares.org/mp3-lame-bundle.php You should be able to just select "Convert" in foobar, and if it asks you where the encoder is, select one of the above. | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
On October 01 2011 12:16 Myrmidon wrote: Some people can ABX modern LAME 320 kbps mp3 or say modern Vorbis or AAC ~320 kbps from lossless, on many tracks. Personally with some tracks in some places I can ABX LAME -V0 (didn't try 320 kbps) from lossless. At about 192 kbps on many tracks I can tell the difference without much effort, and that bitrate (or -V2 or whatever) will sometimes even give noticeable compression artifacts like sizzles and pre-echos. For portable (storage-constrained) use, in any kind of noisy environment, and if not for concentrated listening, I'd definitely just go with some lossy ~256 kbps or so personally. That's like beyond good enough for most all situations. Everybody should just use whatever works for them though. Anyway, you don't need to be a shithead to prove a point. In fact, it does the opposite. Moral of the story is to just test for yourself, if you want to save storage space. Encode a lossless file to some lossy format and ABX compare. You may be surprised at "differences" you're hearing that don't actually exist in reality. It's easy to imagine changes when none exist, and that's the point that should be made. Can I tell you that anecdotes like that are really frustrating for scientifically minded, skeptical people? I don't mean to be a 'shithead,' but in order for your test to be scrutinized, much less repeatable, details about the encoder you used, your audio equipment, the specific tracks, your actual empirical results would all help immensely in making your claim convincing. As it stands it's impossible to peer review, and therefore unscientific. It would note be difficult to save the details in a text file for future reference if you cared about contributing knowledge (especially when you get involved in discussions like this), so please do so if you ever decide to test yourself again. I know that in the aggregated results where data is actually recorded on HydrogenAudio, they've gotten transparency at around 160 kb/s with most songs, so to think you need FLAC means you have incredible hearing or have mucked up the testing somehow. I'm willing to believe the former, but it's not good to give generalized advice based on your hearing, superman. | ||
|
tec27
United States3692 Posts
On October 01 2011 12:31 tube wrote: hate to burst your bubble but what you're experiencing is very very likely to be the "placebo" effect listen to a 320/v0 mp3 and then listen to a flac if you think you hear a difference either you're one of the few people who have actually trained their ears to hear the difference between the two (which is minute) or you have a transcode the point of lossy music formats to begin with is to cut off the frequencies human ears cant discern Bingo! Whether or not you'd be able to hear the difference also greatly depends on the type and complexity of the music. People should probably spend some time understanding how MP3 and other lossy audio compression works compared to lossless before they run around making blogs about how Tchaikovsky sounds so much more amazing in FLAC. | ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
On October 01 2011 12:31 tube wrote: the point of lossy music formats to begin with is to cut off the frequencies human ears cant discern Most lossy encoders will (though it's often an option) do a lowpass filtering and thus cut off some higher frequencies that most people can't hear, but that's not the only thing they're doing, by any stretch. They're overall just doing an approximation in a way that most humans can't detect. It's like lossy videos. Some super-duper high quality 1080p Bluray is going to look great, and there's already a huge amount of compression done to get down to Bluray size. There has been information thrown away. Or more accurately, you would say that the decoded bits do not match the original perfectly. But this is probably beyond the point of transparency. Somebody's 1080p SC2 stream? Maybe not quite as good, and people can tell. There's some point where most people aren't going to be able to tell that they're not getting the 100% bit-perfect version, and this will depend on the person, their playback gear, listening/seeing environment, and the source material. | ||
|
Azera
3800 Posts
| ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
On October 01 2011 12:37 Chef wrote: Can I tell you that anecdotes like that are really frustrating for scientifically minded, skeptical people? I don't mean to be a 'shithead,' but in order for your test to be scrutinized, much less repeatable, details about the encoder you used, your audio equipment, the specific tracks, your actual empirical results would all help immensely in making your claim convincing. As it stands it's impossible to peer review, and therefore unscientific. It would note be difficult to save the details in a text file for future reference if you cared about contributing knowledge (especially when you get involved in discussions like this), so please do so if you ever decide to test yourself again. I know that in the aggregated results where data is actually recorded on HydrogenAudio, they've gotten transparency at around 160 kb/s with most songs, so to think you need FLAC means you have incredible hearing or have mucked up the testing somehow. I'm willing to believe the former, but it's not good to give generalized advice based on your hearing, superman. I didn't save the logs, but I have plenty of 8/10, 13/17, etc. type results on lots of tracks for LAME -V2, -V1, etc. encoding. One 8/10 or so for -V0 on at least one track. I don't think logs are that convincing since they can be faked, unfortunately, and there are ways to cheat the process so one can never be sure about trusting others' results. Most of the tests were just using a AKG K601. I'm currently away from it right now, but maybe I can still get the -V2 ABX with my worse IEMs. brb. edit: Was away doing other stuff for a while but got back to this. Okay, being realistic, the difference is generally pretty small unless you go to very low bitrates. As I said, it's better to just ask people to test for themselves, than apply blanket statements telling them what bitrate is or is not okay. I tried a couple pieces and got like 7/8 in one part (and the artifact with the tubular bell strike was getting obvious), but only like 12/17 or just 5/8 (might be just plain guessing) in other parts. It really depends on the music. This was with LAME 3.98 -V2, and I don't claim to have the best of ears at all, especially for these kinds of details. As I mentioned before, my better gear is elsewhere atm. Used laptop onboard sound -> FiiO E5 -> Klipsch Custom 2 (kinda mediocre discontinued $70 IEMs, though they were $200 MSRP). I'm not sure if ~160 kbps recommendation for transparency is that good. To be safer, I'd go higher. No need for 320 kbps or better than that for most people, but again, test for yourself if you're interested or need to make a decision for portable use. Lossless is great for archiving though, and storage for desktops and even laptops is pretty cheap, so why not? I'd rather have like 3x or 4x more songs on my phone than very slightly better quality that would probably go unnoticed while on the go, that's for sure. | ||
|
tec27
United States3692 Posts
On October 01 2011 12:41 Myrmidon wrote: Most lossy encoders will (though it's often an option) do a lowpass filtering and thus cut off some higher frequencies that most people can't hear, but that's not the only thing they're doing, by any stretch. They're overall just doing an approximation in a way that most humans can't detect. It's like lossy videos. Some super-duper high quality 1080p Bluray is going to look great, and there's already a huge amount of compression done to get down to Bluray size. There has been information thrown away. Or more accurately, you would say that the decoded bits do not match the original perfectly. But this is probably beyond the point of transparency. Somebody's 1080p SC2 stream? Maybe not quite as good, and people can tell. There's some point where most people aren't going to be able to tell that they're not getting the 100% bit-perfect version, and this will depend on the person, their playback gear, listening/seeing environment, and the source material. Not really the same thing. MP3 operates on the fact that when two similar frequencies occur at the same time, one of them becomes inaudible. This is not really at all similar to video encoding, which operates on completely different principles (video compression deals mostly with clever ways to transfer the data with lower cost, not physical limitations). MP3 can still reach a point where it is killing too many frequencies, but the kbps required for audio encoded in MP3 to be indiscernable from the uncompressed version is MUCH lower than that required for 1080P video. For more info on that effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_masking | ||
ZeromuS
Canada13379 Posts
On October 01 2011 12:41 Myrmidon wrote: Most lossy encoders will (though it's often an option) do a lowpass filtering and thus cut off some higher frequencies that most people can't hear, but that's not the only thing they're doing, by any stretch. They're overall just doing an approximation in a way that most humans can't detect. It's like lossy videos. Some super-duper high quality 1080p Bluray is going to look great, and there's already a huge amount of compression done to get down to Bluray size. There has been information thrown away. Or more accurately, you would say that the decoded bits do not match the original perfectly. But this is probably beyond the point of transparency. Somebody's 1080p SC2 stream? Maybe not quite as good, and people can tell. There's some point where most people aren't going to be able to tell that they're not getting the 100% bit-perfect version, and this will depend on the person, their playback gear, listening/seeing environment, and the source material. Agreed the difference between 192 and 320 let alone lossless is huge on my Shure 840s I own. The headphones are quite as punchy in the base or as clear on the high end when going down in bitrate. Heck 128 sounds very hollow compared to the others. 192 is ok but I still prefer the lossless since even in my car through the digital port and my head unit the sound difference is there. Just generally clearer and more distinct when i listen to higher quality files for me the difference between 320 and lossless is lossless is generally Louder too which puts less stress on my amps since i can hear the music at lower volumes. Furthermore having a flac file gives me more options: I can compress it for use on a phone or to send via email. I can listen to it on my computer and keep it archived at full quality and i can choose to leave it at full quality in order to backup on my ipod instead of having a second hard drive. | ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
On October 01 2011 12:47 tec27 wrote: Not really the same thing. MP3 operates on the fact that when two similar frequencies occur at the same time, one of them becomes inaudible. This is not really at all similar to video encoding, which operates on completely different principles (video compression deals mostly with clever ways to transfer the data with lower cost, not physical limitations). MP3 can still reach a point where it is killing too many frequencies, but the kbps required for audio encoded in MP3 to be indiscernable from the uncompressed version is MUCH lower than that required for 1080P video. For more info on that effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_masking Thanks for the more technical details. The underlying principles are nothing at all the same and I should not have implied that. Since the OP was being confused, I thought a less technical comparison would be better, but a less accurate explanation is probably not the best one. Yes most of the space saving in video is from adjacent pictures containing so much similar information, which is not true for audio. | ||
|
Azera
3800 Posts
| ||
|
Gatsbi
United States1134 Posts
Using Meier Audio StageDAC -> Schiit Audio Lyr Headphone Amplifier -> Audeze LCD-2 Orthodynamic Headphones ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tBD4r.png) | ||
|
Sadistx
Zimbabwe5568 Posts
On October 01 2011 12:57 Gatsbi wrote: About ~90% of my music is FLAC. Using Meier Audio StageDAC -> Schiit Audio Lyr Headphone Amplifier -> Audeze LCD-2 Orthodynamic Headphones Cool brag. You're in the 0.1% willing (and able) to throw away over $1000 on an audio setup. Gratz, I guess? Does it really sound 5 times better? | ||
MasterOfChaos
Germany2896 Posts
On October 01 2011 12:54 Azera wrote: Ok so what should I do then? Do I continue wasting space with the 921 kpbs files or do I just convert them all to 192/320? Keep the FLAC files. Hard disks are cheap(perhaps 5ct per CD). The cost of storing lossless files is negligible compared to buying a CD and ripping or even just the time spent searching and downloading a file. Then use a lossy encoder when you transfer the files to a space constraint device. For example I use vorbis when transferring music to my phone since it's more efficient than mp3, but if I came across a device that doesn't support vorbis I could encode to mp3 from the original instead of transcoding. This also helps you avoid transcodes, i.e. encoding from one lossy format to another in the future. If you encode in one lossy format and throw away the original, you're pretty much forced to stay with that format, since each transcode loses additional quality. | ||
|
ymir233
United States8275 Posts
| ||
|
Azera
3800 Posts
On October 01 2011 18:15 MasterOfChaos wrote: Keep the FLAC files. Hard disks are cheap(perhaps 5ct per CD). The cost of storing lossless files is negligible compared to buying a CD and ripping or even just the time spent searching and downloading a file. Then use a lossless encoder when you transfer the files to a space constraint device. For example I use vorbis when transferring music to my phone since it's more efficient than mp3, but if I came across a device that doesn't support vorbis I could encode to mp3 from the original instead of transcoding. This also helps you avoid transcodes, i.e. encoding from one lossy format to another in the future. If you encode in one lossy format and throw away the original, you're pretty much forced to stay with that format, since each transcode loses additional quality. Thanks! | ||
|
Geovu
Estonia1344 Posts
On October 01 2011 12:33 ryan1894 wrote: + Show Spoiler + Right click, and convert to mp3 128kbps, then shift select the flac version and the mp3 version and ABX it. I've done maybe 3 songs in comparison between MP3 and FLAC, and I can only tell the difference (when I'm paying ridiculous amounts of attention) between 128kbps mp3(LAME) and FLAC. Most sane (no ocd) agree that 192kbps is probably the point of transparency (i.e. unable to hear a difference) The LAME mp3 formula is ridiculously good and if you can hear a difference, James Randi will pay you $1 million dollars. EDIT: If you have a space confined device, MP3 128 or 192 VBR or MP3 v5 should be where you should be ripping your music... BTW I run Audio Technica ATH-AD900's off onboard audio. I guess it isn't the best but I cant tell the difference between my iPhone and onboard - and I'd guess iPhone isnt very (electrically) noisy. Also I correctly answered the 128 vs 320 kbps mp3. If you listen carefully at the hi hat - its a little muffled on 128kbps. Cymbals are the easiest way to differentiate different bitrates imo - so there. No. Don't encode your music on 128 kbps plz. Ever. Even if it isn't fully obvious to you in a blind comparison test, your ears will notice your listening to slightly shittier stuff than they need to be listening to. At least do over 200. There's no point in even testing for the difference; there physically is quite the difference from the original Also OP lol your collection is small. Also, why would you get the remastered versions of the beatles? Read up on the loudness war and compare those remasters to the originals because right now you are truly a chobo audiophile. And to anyone slightly interested in FLAC music, you needn't be to be honest. Here is over 50 gigs of FLAC music: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/J2xdi.png) Note: Each of those folders have 1-10 albums on them, from 30mins to 1 hour long. I have like 100 more gigs of FLAC on my comp but I'm too lazy to spend the hours required to organize that shit into a single folder. Pretty pathetic huh? Sure, most of those are full discographies of those artists (Discography is a word Mr. OP should look up) but still, a single album takes up over twice the size of an mp3. Even if you do have 2TB of harddrive space on your computer, if you have any sort of portable audio player you will want to convert all those .FLAC files to mp3s (Or Ogg Vorbis if your a true hipster), and then you have to store that as well on your computer. In comparison, that is probably 10% of all my music and I have 200gigs of MP3s on my comp as well. The main reason I collect flac at all (Besides the hipster cred to impress chobos who don't know what bitrate is) is because if you get flac you know you are essentially getting an exact digital copy of the original digital CD, which is a lot more than you can say than about an MP3 download. Also, if a cool new super hipster format comes around (Maybe Super Saiyan Ogg Vorbis?) it is possible to simply reformat your collection and throw out those lame mp3s (See what I did there?). Also, there's quite a lot of shitty MP3 [c]torrents[/c] legitimate online audio vendors around so if you look for FLAC first you at least know that the [c]torrenter[/c] legitimate online audio vendor knows at least to an extent what the hell is actually doing. A 5 minute song will take 40 MB of space, if you are encoding 320kbps lame mp3s instead (Which, to some audiophiles is also a waste of space as it is not a variable encoding and 99.9999% of the population wouldn't be able to tell even a ~220kbps mp3 from flac) you get the same song for 11 MB. It's your choice. TL;DR FLAC sounds virtually and entirely the same as a 320 kpbs MP3 file, and takes up ~4 times the space. Literally the only advantages are 1) It's lossless, so you can convert to any other format as much as you want 2) Hipster cred ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
@OP If you have trouble finding flac music I suggest you go join a private tracker, like what.cd. You have to pass a test to get in, but its worthwhile if you enjoy listening to flac. You will be put on a waiting list and someone will ask you questions on their IRC, if you pass the test you will get an invite. Make sure you do lots of research beforehand. Happy listening  | ||
|
Thrill
2599 Posts
On October 02 2011 01:07 Geovu wrote: TL;DR FLAC sounds virtually and entirely the same as a 320 kpbs MP3 file, and takes up ~4 times the space. Literally the only advantages are 1) It's lossless, so you can convert to any other format as much as you want 2) Hipster cred ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ^ This is completely wrong. You just don't have the equipment to hear the difference. I have several 320 mp3 tracks that i eventually find in FLAC and i listen to both to make sure it's not just an upscale (so i can stop searching). | ||
|
Geovu
Estonia1344 Posts
On October 02 2011 01:25 Thrill wrote: ^ This is completely wrong. You just don't have the equipment to hear the difference. I have several 320 mp3 tracks that i eventually find in FLAC and i listen to both to make sure it's not just an upscale (so i can stop searching). Go tell that to the people in the hydrogenaudio forums. They will immediately ask you to do a blind listening test and if you don't back up your claims you will most likely be laughed away. If you can actually tell the difference and have blind tested yourself then in that case it is pretty impressive, however. (google the site, dunno if links to forums are allowed) | ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
The reason most "audiophiles" want flac is that they don't need to worry about encoding, and whatever may fuck shit up there. And they don't want to convert their 2TB library into .mp3 and later on realize one of the settings messed up. They rip their music the first time to a lossless format, and then leave it at that. Also, most don't care because hard drive space is stupid cheap compared to the equipment they're using. When you have shitty encodes like most people release, you're going to hear static, crackling or anything that might suggest 192 kbps is worse than 320 kbps. Simply changing to lossless is going to make your world magical, but so will going over to any well done encode. If done properly, you're not going to hear the difference between 192 kbps, 320 kbps, v0 VBR and lossless 99% of the time. The main reason I get flac is because then I don't have to deal with the stupidity of downloading a bunch of 320 kbps rips and finding out that it's an upscale. No one bothers to mess around with flac people. Also, there are a ridiculous amount of flac and high quality music sites around. If you're only looking on iTunes and complaining, you're just mindlessly saying stuff that you've heard people say several years ago. I'm at about 80% flac, and 20% 320 kbps, while my portable runs on v0 or 192 kbps or down to v4 depending on how many songs I want on it. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
The PondCast
OSC
Replay Cast
WardiTV Spring Champion…
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
WardiTV Spring Champion…
SC Evo Complete
Bellum Gens Elite
Hatchery Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
