View Single Post
Old 08-17-2005, 08:20 AM   #15 (permalink)
Ambient1
Tilted
 
Location: The Hammer
While I was reading throught this thread, I found a lot of the comments were innacurate.

Ratbastid got it right though. If you want the best quality and don't care about space restrictions, WAV format is the best. The fact is, it is the raw format that is digitally extracted from the cd (44,100 samples per second at 16bit).

Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
Well, hang on. If you're interested in quality and space isn't an issue AND every device you want to play the music on supports it, I say go ahead and leave your rips in WAV format. That's totally uncompressed, raw audio data. It's pretty expensive in terms of disc space, but you're not making any compromises on sound quality.
Speaking of digitally extracting music, it's important to go into HOW you get the music from your CD! I recommend using EAC in "secure mode". It's a bit slower, but well worth it when you know that the file will be an exact digital replica of the CD.

There is some debate if it is better to rip the individual tracks to separate WAV files, or the entire CD as one large file and use a CUE sheet - but that's more of a personal preference (unless it's a live cd!).

WAV format is also great when you want to have your music available in several different formats (ie: AAC for your iPod and MP3 for your car MP3 player, or WMA for your brother's PC etc...).

LOSSLESS ENCODING:

Usually, people don't have the luxury of having several hundred gigs to store their music library. This is where "lossless" encoding comes in.

As the name implies, you do not lose any quality by encoding your music in this format - you only gain space at the cost of processing power. Lossless compression works much the same as zipfiles, but are optimized to handle music. The waveform output from a lossless encoded song is IDENTICAL to the original WAVfile ripped from the CD.

There are several different lossless encodings: FLAC, APE etc... I personally like FLAC, and it seems to have a strong following.

The one gripe I have about lossless encodings, is that in order to encode it into another format (such as AAC for your iPod) you need to first convert it back to a WAV file. It doesn't take long, but it's just one more step...

LOSSY ENCODING:

As the name implies, lossy encoding DOES discard parts of the waveform in order to increase compression ratios. depending on the codec, it can range from unnoticable to sounding like total garbage.

There are a lot of formats for you to choose, but each has some disadvantages. You cannot directly compare quality based on bitrate among the different codecs. 128kbs MP3 is NOT the same as 128kbps AAC!!!

MP3 - This is the one that started it all. As an old codec, it's started to show it's age in overall quality, yet is still "good enough" for most people. Encoded properly most people CANNOT tell the difference in quality. Bitrates are the number one factor for sound quality. Most prefer at least 192kbps CBR (constant bit rate). Most of my old stuff is all 192CBR. Lately, I've upgraded to using VBR (variable bit rate), which dynamically increases the bit rate for complex waveforms. I would recommend using LAME with the --alt-preset standard switch. This is what is recommended by the guys at the Hydrogenaudio site, and they know what they are talking about!

The one benefit that MP3 has over any other format (excepting WAV) is that it is pretty much a universal format. pretty much every player out there can play the format.

MP3Pro - This brings a lot of improvements to the MP3 codec, but does not have the support that MP3 does.

MPC - Don't know enough about this one yet... glowing reviews for Hydrogenaudio though...

OGG - If there was one format that I'd love to see supported by more people, this is it. It's an open source format, meaning that anyone can support the format, or use it on their hardware without paying a dime. it's also one of the best formats IMHO. It's just not used widely enough.

WMA - I'm definitely biased against WMA.. my advice is don't use it!

AAC - A new generation format, very similar to MP3Pro but has two major forces behind it pushing it's growth: A) iPods, and B) iTunes. I had considered moving my library to AAC, but it was just too much work, and it was not supported by my car MP3 player. As I noted above, you cannot compare the bitrates for AAC to MP3. I'm not sure what the ratio is exactly, but 128kbps AAC is somewhat equivilant to the quality of 192kbps MP3.
Ambient1 is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360