mp3 or wav?

[untethered]

it is quite a nice simple encoding method to help explain the basics of compressing data isn't it

Indeed. You can do it in two and three dimensions, too!

 

[untethered]

On the same principle, you can compress text by assigning tokens to whole words and phrases rather than storing each character separately.

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

isn't that Lempel-Ziv-Welch

 

[audiotech]

yes... but they are crap

basically 128 is optimised for bandwidth not music quality... this is the smallest they could make it before people would actually stop using it because it sounded so pants

you can push music out at about 44 and it sounds say poor radio quality but that's not download and keep quality

seriously if you want to have real depth to you music encode mp3 at 320 .. it's not that big and it does sound better... other wise you might as well be one of those people who play music through their phone speaker

That's all fair and dandy, but like it or not most audio hosting is at 128kbps and there's no way around that reality for me.

I'm reasonably happy with the results, as are the people who listen and download the produced tracks.

 

[untethered]

isn't that Lempel-Ziv-Welch

There are around a zillion algorithms for compression, that being one of them.

LZW is used in GIF files and still under patent, IIRC. That was part of the motivation for creating the PNG standard.

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

That's all fair and dandy, but like it or not most audio hosting is at 128kbps and there's no way around that reality for me.

I'm reasonably happy with the results, as are the people who listen and download the produced tracks.

a lot picture hosting site have a 1 or 2 mb file size limit

fine for bunging stuff up but if you were a photographer you would want to invest in some webspace for your high resolution images

same with audio ... just because the free webhosting is crap doesn't mean you are trapped to it

if you look around you can find free hosting that doesn't have limits on audio sample rates..

just because lots of people are walking doesn't mean it's better than having a bicycle



and yeah ... pity there are still some issues with png .. the quality of the images tend to be supurb

 

[sherriff rosco]

I think you need to get a hearing aid mate. I can't tell the difference through most head phones but the second you put it through good speakers it stands out a mile. If you REALLY can't hear the difference you should get yourself checked out.

That IS my point?

I get to hear mp3 encoded music through large high quality PA`s regularly..... I CAN hear the difference. I`ve never encountered FLAC renedered tracks but I can guess that compared to vinyl or cd there will be a difference. I`m not arguing about what encoding can or can`t do, just what the end result I hear sounds like. I have a computer full of mp3`s because at home or on my walkman I don`t care ....but it`s my sodding job TOO care when a promoter is bitching about the PA being shite when it`s the tracks being played fault?

That is like saying if I write you a word document and then zip it up when you get it you will only have 1/3 of the words. This is plainly mad.

not really same thing ..just encoding is a clever way to squash audio which IMO will always affect it?

.p.

 

[subversplat]

not really same thing ..just encoding is a clever way to squash audio which IMO will always affect it?

You can't really have opinions on scientific facts like that!

Go and read lots and lots of things about how FLAC works - it's all open source and heavily documented, so that shouldn't be a problem - and stop being so bloody ignorant. It really is the same sound going in and coming out.

 

[Kameron]

Look I know you know your audio inside out and I know you were cutting vinyl when I was cutting teeth, or some such pithy analogy, but please can we accept that there is such a thing as Lossless digital domain audio compression. By which I mean that if it is already digital (probably in the form of a RAW or a WAV) then we can squeeze it but approximately 50% with no loss. Obviously there has been HUGE losses in the Analogue >> Digital domain conversion but with most studios digital and most vinyl cut using digital media as the input that A/D loss happened a long way back in the production process.

not really same thing ..just encoding is a clever way to squash audio which IMO will always affect it?

Sorry to labour this point but exactly the same thing. I know that you think there is some kind of crucial difference between a word document and a music file but a CD is a long stream of ones and zeros and so is a word document. If you pull the audio stream off a CD you have a stream called a RAW, this is in fact some distance from the what is written on the CD in terms of 1's & 0's because the CD hardware doesn't give up track alignment information, Block CRC's and that sort of stuff directly. If you put a header on that RAW data you get a WAV file. If you Zip that up or compress it using any other lossless compression algorithm be it RAR, ZIP or FLAC then is is possible to have a smaller version of that file which is IDENTICAL, bit for bit, to the WAV that you compressed and hence to the CD from which it came.

I get to hear mp3 encoded music through large high quality PA`s regularly..... I CAN hear the difference. I`ve never encountered FLAC renedered tracks but I can guess that compared to vinyl or cd there will be a difference.

So, in summary you will hear no difference between the WAV the FLAC and the CD, short of differences in equipment, ie you use a Pioneer CDJ which has very good D/A's to play the CD and you use a laptops in-built sound card which has crappy one, you hear the difference. Use a Hammer Sound card or what ever your pro-audio D/A of choice is and you hear no difference.

 

[Dask]

If your serious about Audio then Lossless is the only way to go.

MP3 is a toy audio format.

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

i wouldn't say that

high rate encodes in mp3 are acceptable for every day use say through computer speackers or on portable devices... i'd just want a lossless master copy

 

[Kameron]

MP3 is a toy audio format.

Worse than that MP3 isn't free and one day you may wake up to find that your collection is no longer playable for free. (I admit that it isn't going to happen like that but I just don't like the idea of it), it is the equivalent as far as I'm concerned as going round your house and writing one everything movable you own that it is the property of Multinational-Megacorp. It doesn't effect your ownership or you ability to use it, it is just stupid.

 

[sherriff rosco]

most studios digital and most vinyl cut using digital media as the input that A/D loss happened a long way back in the production process.

I think therein lies my stubborness! and my refering to encoding stems from a history of crappy a/d conversion which is then further fucked up by encoding later down the chain? I know things have moved on by a HUGE standard but as I pointed out my gripe is with what supposed PRO djs peddle out!

Sorry to labour this point but exactly the same thing. I know that you think there is some kind of crucial difference between a word document and a music file but a CD is a long stream of ones and zeros and so is a word document

Yep! ..never deny that one...but it`s still not an analogue wave

So, in summary you will hear no difference between the WAV the FLAC and the CD, short of differences in equipment, ie you use a Pioneer CDJ which has very good D/A's to play the CD and you use a laptops in-built sound card which has crappy one, you hear the difference. Use a Hammer Sound card or what ever your pro-audio D/A of choice is and you hear no difference.

Yep I regularly use / setup CDJ1000`s etc etc

Go and read lots and lots of things about how FLAC works - it's all open source and heavily documented, so that shouldn't be a problem - and stop being so bloody ignorant. It really is the same sound going in and coming out.

Well call me bloody ignorant?...not really bothered and give me a chance , I started reading a load about Flac the other day as I`d never heard of it before but funnily enuff had some boring work to do inbetween. And maybe yes it`s the same digital content going in and coming out. I`m interested in it`s ability to hande high sampling rates and seeing if it`s compatible with some other a/d - d/a convertors ....

.p.

 

[audiotech]

a lot picture hosting site have a 1 or 2 mb file size limit

fine for bunging stuff up but if you were a photographer you would want to invest in some webspace for your high resolution images

same with audio ... just because the free webhosting is crap doesn't mean you are trapped to it

if you look around you can find free hosting that doesn't have limits on audio sample rates..

just because lots of people are walking doesn't mean it's better than having a bicycle

and yeah ... pity there are still some issues with png .. the quality of the images tend to be supurb

I do pay for streaming, so I am investing when I can. Thanks for the advice though.