 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: DougR
Date: 2009-12-29 05:05
have a new iPod, which I'm starting to load with music. My question for the Board is, what music file type do you consider the optimum for keeping fidelity high and file size low on a device such as an iPod?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BrianChau
Date: 2009-12-29 05:08
MP3 files tend to lose quality due to the compression used to make the file size small.... I prefer lossless audio for classical albums. For my iPod, iTunes supports Apple Lossless, and for just regular listening, i use FLAC. But if you are not looking for audiophile-quality music, MP3 compressed to 320 kbps is decent.
Brian
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2009-12-29 13:07
Depends on the encoder. The Fraunhofer Pro does a really nice job, even at 128K. Considering the outside noise getting through the headphones, anything above 256 is probably a waste of space.
This is for CD-to-MP3 conversion only. For archiving purposes I also recommend something lossless.
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2009-12-29 14:17
It depends on how old you are. The popular chant about mp3 sound quality being poorer than .wav files comes from young people with excellent hearing AND a high degree of musical sophistication. I would propose that anyone over 50 can't tell the difference and , also, that most people under 50 cannot.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2009-12-29 14:44
BobD wrote:
> I would propose that anyone over 50 can't tell
> the difference and , also, that most people under 50 cannot.
Over 50, have mild hearing loss, and can tell - there are compression artifacts noticeable especially on music that has a large dynamic range.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2009-12-29 14:58
Mark: Yes, I've noticed that especially on old Brunswick recordings. But, seriously, I'm sure you are correct based on comparative listening tests.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ryan K
Date: 2009-12-29 15:13
As an audiophile, I can say that FLAC will defiantly be your best bet....but Itunes isn't really friendly with it. You will notice the difference between FLAC and Mp320, if you have a quality listening device. My Dad (61 and totally musically un-inclined) can notice, through my Bose Quiet Comfort 15's (Don't judge :-p).
All lossless formats have the exact same quality (the same as CD quality), assuming you rip losslessly from a CD. Itunes will, when adjusted in the preferences(mac), or options (windows) menu, rip a CD encoded in ALAC (Apple Lossless Audio Codec). This format will be imported onto Itunes. If you wish to use an Ipod, this is your best bet. The file-size is very large, but the quality is definitely worth it.
If you have any files already in FLAC, or WavPack, or APE, you can convert them between each-other, infinitely. However, once you convert it into a non lossless format (MP3 ABR, VBR, CBR, Ogg-Vorbis, AAC, etc), you loose the quality permanently.
For more reading on this, here is a simple explanation you can read: http://www.whatinterviewprep.com/preparefortheinterview.html
The purpose of that website is unrelated, but the information.
Additionally, the Itunes Store will only download in MP3 or AAC, so you will be better off buying/borrowing CD's from libraries (if you live near a city, the inter-loan system will likely have a small-ish collection, similarly a university will have something you can likely access).
I hope some of this helps you out!
Ryan Karr
Dickinson College
Carlisle, PA
Post Edited (2009-12-29 15:54)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2009-12-29 15:22
Ryan K wrote:
> As an audiophile,
...
> through my Bose Quiet Comfort 15's.
Never thought I'd see both phrases in the same paragraph
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ryan K
Date: 2009-12-29 15:37
Don't judge. :-p
I bough them for the noise canceling. I use them a lot without the audio at all, just with the noise canceling turned on. Library for studying, etc. I can't justify having two expensive pairs of headphones, I can barely justify one. :-p
Ryan Karr
Dickinson College
Carlisle, PA
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: stevensfo
Date: 2009-12-29 16:33
-- "But if you are not looking for audiophile-quality music, MP3 compressed to 320 kbps is decent." --
I can't remember the websites, but I read years ago that blind studies showed that 256K was the point at which people could not tell the difference between CDs and mp3 on average HiFi gear. On the average PC or mp3 player it was 128K.
It's probably the same argument as searching for the holy grail of mouthpieces, barrels, key plating etc. We'll spend more time on worrying about the trivialities than actually practising, playing or enjoying the music.
Steve
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ryan K
Date: 2009-12-29 17:56
---I can't remember the websites, but I read years ago that blind studies showed that 256K was the point at which people could not tell the difference between CDs and mp3 on average HiFi gear. On the average PC or mp3 player it was 128K.
It's probably the same argument as searching for the holy grail of mouthpieces, barrels, key plating etc. We'll spend more time on worrying about the trivialities than actually practising, playing or enjoying the music.
---
Mp3 320 is this point. The graphs are in the link I provided earlier, but 320 cuts off at 20 Khz, and 256 is around 19-18. Its a very slight difference, but noticeable. 20 is the cutoff for most people, as to what they can hear. CD's hold up to 22khz, which is what a lossless format will hold.
I don't know, but I'm assuming DVD audio, vinyl, etc, would hold even higher?
Ryan Karr
Dickinson College
Carlisle, PA
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2009-12-29 18:12
If I use a tiny mp3 player for sports etc. then 196k mp3 is fine IMO. I sometimes use a memory card in the car stereo with 320k mp3 on it. There is some difference, especially listening in high volume the difference is obvious (compared with the same music on the CD) but not to all people. Also depends how much you care about listening in slightly less quality. For example I don't mind the 320k mp3 if it means I can simpyl put a lot of things on one memory card as opposed to keep changing CDs. I think the only reason not to use WAV is if you need space for more files.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: stevensfo
Date: 2009-12-29 18:16
-- "I don't know, but I'm assuming DVD audio, vinyl, etc, would hold even higher?" --
Don't lets get started on the 'vinyl is best' discussion!
There are still people who claim that vinyl is best. I once shared an apartment with one of these and who paid a fortune to have his very old valve amplifier repaired, believing it to be the best.
But what speed? Are the old 78s the best?
While we're on the subject, where to sit in the auditorium? Middle centre or offset from the horns? Towards the back or at the front? If you're on the sides is it only equivalent to 128K? ;-)
Steve
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2009-12-30 02:27
Definitely VINYL.
.................Pearls Before Swine.
..............................Paul Aviles
Post Edited (2009-12-30 14:30)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-12-30 16:25
I would hardly consider myself an expert on audio codecs, but, as Ben said, the quality at a given bit rate depends on what compression method is used. What I have experienced is that for the same bit rate, AAC files (as iTunes uses) generally sound better than MP3s.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
