Audio Format - Best Quality

[Railgun]

1 minute ago, IAmLamp said:

So is the best format possible FLAC then? That's what it sounds like from what I'm seeing. 

Yeah. Either that or .wav

 

both of those are good

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Railgun said:

Yeah. Either that or .wav

 

both of those are good

Okay, but I'm talking about the best. So, which is better than the other, or are they equal? It's pretty straightforward >.>

[spwath]

2 minutes ago, IAmLamp said:

Okay, but I'm talking about the best. So, which is better than the other, or are they equal? It's pretty straightforward >.>

you are asking the wrong questions. You should worry about other stuff first.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, spwath said:

you are asking the wrong questions. You should worry about other stuff first.

Or you could answer them or be more specific

[Guest Kloaked]

3 minutes ago, IAmLamp said:

So is the best format possible FLAC then? That's what it sounds like from what I'm seeing. 

No.

 

Like @Majestic pretty much pointed out, more or less, the original recording and mix/master quality is what matters the most.

 

There are even many music recordings today that are merely 24-bit 48 Khz (before compression) and will not sound any different between a regular DAC and a 32-bit 192 Khz one, even if you have the original WAV/FLAC files before compression. What matters is how well the music was recorded, and mixed and mastered. File format is a luxury and afterthought, in my opinion anyways.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

No.

 

Like @Majestic pretty much pointed out, more or less, the original recording and mix/master quality is what matters the most.

 

There are even many music recordings today that are merely 24-bit 48 Khz (before compression) and will not sound any different between a regular DAC and a 32-bit 192 Khz one, even if you have the original WAV/FLAC files before compression. What matters is how well the music was recorded, and mixed and mastered. File format is a luxury and afterthought, in my opinion anyways.

Right, but I'm talking about after that bottleneck. 

[Guest Kloaked]

6 minutes ago, IAmLamp said:

Right, but I'm talking about after that bottleneck. 

If you're wanting to directly compare formats, you're going to have a bad time. In my recording experience, the DAWs that I've used have recorded tracks in .wav format by default. Most people that I get my mastering tricks from also master in .wav. Bandcamp wants artists to upload their music in .wav format.

 

So on paper, .wav is probably "the best", but it's not the best. It's almost like asking which video card from Nvidia and AMD is better if they both have the same amount of stream processors - there's more to it than what the spec sheet says.

[Guest]

Jesus Christ. Two whole pages of senseless babbling about a subject that has already been done to death around here. This is EMBARRASSING.

 

Let me clear things up:

• FLAC is a LOSSLESS container for PCM audio. This means it can store a bit-perfect copy of any PCM audio stream, including Red Book CD and beyond. The compression level (and thus bitrate) is irrelevant because it is LOSSLESS. That is, it compresses the file without losing any data.
• Yes, mastering is going to make a bigger impact on sound than file format, but only if the file quality is sufficiently good to begin with. You WILL hear the loss in quality if you go with a low enough bitrate in a LOSSY format. For example, less than 192kbps MP3 or 128kbps AAC. LOSSY means that data is discarded permanently in order to ensure a smaller file size.

Bottom line:

• Go with FLAC if you have the storage space available. It is the best quality you can possibly get and it has better metadata support than WAV (e.g. you can change it after the initial rip).
• Go with AAC if storage space is at a premium. So, for phones or portable music players. AAC offers a better ratio of quality to file size than MP3.

[Guest]

Now, let's debunk inanity:

 

1 hour ago, Kloaked said:

Yes. Wherever you're getting the data from is how it'll sound no matter what you do to it if you upscale it, which is what you'd be doing if you ripped a typical CD to FLAC instead of MP3. The only difference with the file would be the file size, not actual quality since the data that was "shaved off" whenever the original was put onto the disc isn't going to be on the disc.

 

All audio CDs conform to the Red Book standard, without exception. This means that they contain PCM audio at 16bits 44.1kHz, which is by definition lossless.

 

1 hour ago, Kloaked said:

Unless you have a DAC that can output 32-bit analog and a high bitrate then you will not get that extra data to your headphones or speakers, for example.

 

I'm not sure what "32-bit analog" is supposed to be. Sure, it's possible to calculate the effective bitrate of an analog signal, but I don't think that is what you're referring to here. Most decent DACs can resolve more than 16 effective bits, in any case.

 

2 hours ago, Kloaked said:

Depends on what format and bitrate the disc has. You're not going to get an actual "high quality" FLAC file from a CD with low bitrate tracks on it, for example. I don't know of any CDs that have lossless formats but I'm not ruling it out since I just don't know 1000%. Just don't expect your CD files to sound better if you rip them to FLAC instead of MP3.

 

See my comment above. An audio CD is a lossless PCM audio stream. Unless you're talking about a homemade CD that is composed of mp3 rips, for example, it's going to have as much quality as the original master. And while master quality can vary hugely, it's rare for it to be less than Red Book.

 

2 hours ago, Majestic said:

Unless ABX tests show people being able to discern 320kbps from FLAC, it's pointless to take up so much space.

 

Storage is cheap, and conversion to a lossy format cannot be reversed. It can also introduce clipping.

 

1 hour ago, Railgun said:

Yeah. Either that or .wav

 

both of those are good

 

No, do not use WAV for storing music. It takes up too much space and makes editing metdata difficult after the initial rip.

 

1 hour ago, Majestic said:

And neither does FLAC lower the noisefloor of a recording, compared to 320kbps. Mastering and recording are infinitely more important than filesize.

 

It actually does, compared to a lossy encoding. Whether this is audible is another debate.

 

To conclude, quality of the master is indeed very important. For example, the 24/192 tracks that are often touted by audiophiles are just better masters than the more widely released 16/44 versions, and the higher bitrate has nothing to do with it. Similarly, high bitrate music is often created from a master with much lower bitrate. And of course, it is also true that most music does not take advantage of the full capabilities of the Red Book standard. However, as I pointed out above, there is no reason NOT to use a lossless container format for your music unless you are short on storage space. It's always possible to convert a lossless file to a lossy encoding, but you can't go the other way if you want better quality in the future.

[Guest Kloaked]

9 minutes ago, SSL said:

All audio CDs conform to the Red Book standard, without exception. This means that they contain PCM audio at 16bits 44.1kHz, which is by definition lossless.

I'm aware of this bit. What I'm now questioning due to what you're saying in the rest of your post is why I never notice a difference between the usual 320kbps mp3 rips and a default-setting FLAC rip from my CDs whenever I looked into this. Guess it could differ due to the type of music?

 

17 minutes ago, SSL said:

No, do not use WAV for storing music. It takes up too much space and makes editing metdata difficult after the initial rip.

Didn't even see the original comment. I have gigabytes of recording data since it's all in .wav - yeah I second this as that shit gets really large quick as I can imagine a whole music library being extremely bloated if in .wav.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Kloaked said:

I'm aware of this bit. What I'm now questioning due to what you're saying in the rest of your post is why I never notice a difference between the usual 320kbps mp3 rips and a default-setting FLAC rip from my CDs whenever I looked into this. Guess it could differ due to the type of music?

 

320 MP3 is pretty difficult to differentiate from lossless.

[Guest Kloaked]

4 minutes ago, SSL said:

 

320 MP3 is pretty difficult to differentiate from lossless.

I did a random test a while back between two formats of orchestral music - 320kbps MP3 (I think) and FLAC (forgot the exact bitrate and all that). I don't know if it was placebo, but I thought I could tell a difference in some of the reverbs with stringed instruments as the FLAC one sounded more "realistic". May go do it again since I haven't done it since I got my Vali 2 and all that.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, SSL said:

Bottom line:

• Go with FLAC if you have the storage space available. It is the best quality you can possibly get and it has better metadata support than WAV (e.g. you can change it after the initial rip).

Is that true? I keep seeing arguments over facts vs personal opinion and I'm starting to just say fuck it all. (not saying that's what you're doing, I'm just saying that's what I'm seeing a lot of) 

 

Again, I don't give a shit about space, I just care about quality. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, IAmLamp said:

Is that true? I keep seeing arguments over facts vs personal opinion and I'm starting to just say fuck it all. (not saying that's what you're doing, I'm just saying that's what I'm seeing a lot of)

 

Is what true?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, SSL said:

 

Is what true?

 

1 hour ago, SSL said:

Bottom line:

• Go with FLAC if you have the storage space available. It is the best quality you can possibly get and it has better metadata support than WAV 

Like I said, I don't care about space, I just want the highest quality. I just want to make sure what you're saying is fact rather than personal preference. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, IAmLamp said:

Like I said, I don't care about space, I just want the highest quality. I just want to make sure what you're saying is fact rather than personal preference. 

 

I'm not sure how it would be personal preference.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, SSL said:

 

I'm not sure how it would be personal preference.

k

[anothertom]

4 minutes ago, IAmLamp said:

 

Like I said, I don't care about space, I just want the highest quality. I just want to make sure what you're saying is fact rather than personal preference. 

lossless is lossless is lossless, be it compressed (ALAC/FLAC...) or uncompressed (WAV). any of these will provide an EXACT copy of the data on the CD. The difference is in the file size, where WAV will create a much larger file than ALAC or FLAC.

 

You should always rip first to a lossless format and use that for both playback from your computer and for long term library archive. If you intend to use a portable device which doesn't support ALAC or FLAC then using a high bit-rate AAC format is preferred to MP3.

[Majestic]

1 hour ago, SSL said:

It actually does, compared to a lossy encoding. Whether this is audible is another debate.

I meant to say what you already mentioned, that it only works one particular way. Having FLAC's from a recording with a low dynamic range doesn't magically increase the dynamic range or lower the noisefloor. It can only store a higher range.

 

And it's hard to verify whether it's not just upscaled jumbo. Well, unless you put it into audacity or something.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, anothertom said:

lossless is lossless is lossless, be it compressed (ALAC/FLAC...) or uncompressed (WAV). any of these will provide an EXACT copy of the data on the CD. The difference is in the file size, where WAV will create a much larger file than ALAC or FLAC.

They - the formats, "ALAC/FLAC, WAV" - provide an exact copy because they are all "lossless", right? My understanding is that the "lossless" type is what gives all of those the ability to make an *exact* copy. 

 

I apologize if the need for clarification is annoying, but it's something I need to do. 

[Railgun]

8 minutes ago, IAmLamp said:

They provide an exact copy because they are all "lossless", right? My understanding is that the "lossless" type is what gives all of those the ability to make an *exact* copy. 

 

I apologize if the need for clarification is annoying, but it's something I need to do. 

That is correct.

 

If you want the HIGHEST possible quality then all you need from a compression format is lossless. Doesn't matter if you pick FLAC, or Wave, or anything else just as long as it's lossless. Everyone here says FLAC is the best of the lossless file types so go with that one.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Railgun said:

That is correct.

 

If you want the HIGHEST possible quality then all you need from a compression format is lossless. Doesn't matter if you pick FLAC, or Wave, or anything else just as long as it's lossless. Everyone here says FLAC is the best of the lossless file types so go with that one.

Thank you for the clarification! 

[spwath]

46 minutes ago, IAmLamp said:

Thank you for the clarification! 

but again, you are asking the wrong questions. If you want best audio quality, you should focus on: Good headphones/speakers, good amplification, good dac, good masters, then finally the format.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, spwath said:

but again, you are asking the wrong questions. If you want best audio quality, you should focus on: Good headphones/speakers, good amplification, good dac, good masters, then finally the format.

Nope. You don't have to go in any particular order. 

[spwath]

15 minutes ago, IAmLamp said:

Nope. You don't have to go in any particular order. 

uh, yeah you should. Ask anyone else here.