Slaggis Posted September 26, 2007 Share Posted September 26, 2007 I've been looking around the internet about the quality of each of these, because I didn't really think there was a huge amount of difference. I just converted some of my music to Apple Lossless and a 6mb file has become a 30mb file and so on. Is there anyway to get the quality but with a smaller increase in file size? Which type do you use? edit: (all converting done with iTunes) Might just be me being random, but some of the tracks I converted, some bits of them sound worse than they did before, i.e some kind of disstored sound on some higher notes. The tracks I converted were CD quality (Done from a CD I bought). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanchez Posted September 26, 2007 Share Posted September 26, 2007 You converted mp3's, not cd quality WAV files. Let me explain how lossy encoding works (mp3, aac, wma) When creating an mp3, the filesize is reduced a number of ways. 1. The codec removes frequencies the human ear doesn't understand 2. The codec removes information for sounds that are drowned out by other instruments that most people wouldn't hear. 3. General file compression and removal of any other useless data. MP3 removes that FOREVER. By compressing it again to any other lossy format you are losing EVEN more data, on the lossy file already. The files that you converted to apple lossless should sound exactly the same, because no data was lost. Lossless formats are best suited for archiving albums... you wouldn't be able to tell the difference with the shitty audio equipment you use. If you want to re encode some mp3's you should rip the tracks again. The best audio compression is LAME mp3 encoder with V2 settings (for filesize) or V0 (for bigger files, very good quality) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaggis Posted September 26, 2007 Author Share Posted September 26, 2007 You converted mp3's, not cd quality WAV files. Let me explain how lossy encoding works (mp3, aac, wma) When creating an mp3, the filesize is reduced a number of ways. 1. The codec removes frequencies the human ear doesn't understand 2. The codec removes information for sounds that are drowned out by other instruments that most people wouldn't hear. 3. General file compression and removal of any other useless data. MP3 removes that FOREVER. By compressing it again to any other lossy format you are losing EVEN more data, on the lossy file already. The files that you converted to apple lossless should sound exactly the same, because no data was lost. Lossless formats are best suited for archiving albums... you wouldn't be able to tell the difference with the shitty audio equipment you use. If you want to re encode some mp3's you should rip the tracks again. The best audio compression is LAME mp3 encoder with V2 settings (for filesize) or V0 (for bigger files, very good quality) Ah right ok, thanks for the info. So Lossless is pointless then? (For an iPod Classic anyway) I do use some pretty good headphones. (i.e not the shitty iPod ones) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanchez Posted September 26, 2007 Share Posted September 26, 2007 My earphones cost 125 pounds and I can't tell the difference. I can tell the difference on my Sennheiser HD650's, they cost 200 when I got them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mucky.Fingers Posted September 26, 2007 Share Posted September 26, 2007 I use 256 AAC for all my digital music, sounds great and the file size is decent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Odwin Posted September 26, 2007 Share Posted September 26, 2007 If you want to re encode some mp3's you should rip the tracks again. The best audio compression is LAME mp3 encoder with V2 settings (for filesize) or V0 (for bigger files, very good quality) The rest of your post I agree with completely but saying that something is best is a very subjective thing. For you V2 may be transparent but my ears can't tell the difference between V2/V3/V4/V5. What's best depends on your audio equipment and your own ears. I archive my CDs with FLAC then it's easy to transcode to anything else that takes my fancy without ripping the CD again. I use mono q1.0 ogg files for work (where I can only have one earphone in) and listen to lame mp3s at V4 on my comp and on the house stereo. There's an amazing audio player called foobar2000 and it lets you ABX files so you can check whether or not you can tell the difference between two files - you can use it to find a quality that you can't discern from the original. (And it has replaygain scanning which is the best thing ever.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanchez Posted September 26, 2007 Share Posted September 26, 2007 I HAVE A GRAPH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaggis Posted September 26, 2007 Author Share Posted September 26, 2007 My earphones cost 125 pounds and I can't tell the difference. I can tell the difference on my Sennheiser HD650's, they cost 200 when I got them. Ah, my pair cost £150, but that won't make a difference? Hang on, so is it actually possible to make the quality higher if the track is already an MP3? I mean, if I don't have the origonal disk? (I do for most of my music, but some of the more recent ones I don't). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanchez Posted September 26, 2007 Share Posted September 26, 2007 No, it's not possible. What earphones do you have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaggis Posted September 26, 2007 Author Share Posted September 26, 2007 These (Got them for cheap from a local shop) So your saying, if I have the CD, I should rip it again and convert the files from that too what I want. That way the quality will improve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Odwin Posted September 26, 2007 Share Posted September 26, 2007 I HAVE A GRAPH! Oooooh ... Graph>Odwin But seriously, the graph has quality and filesize being equivalent and that's just not true for my ears. Haggis you should rerip your CDs if you are trying to make them sound better, you can't improve your existing mp3s. Crap in, crap out. Follow this guide on EAC & Lame at hydrogenaudio: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=28124 EAC=Awesome, Lame=Awesome. What you could do is encode one file using lots different Lame quality settings, then see if you can tell the difference between them. Use the quality value where you can't tell the difference between it and the ones above. Or just go lossless with FLAC+EAC/Apple Lossless and forget all the above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaggis Posted September 27, 2007 Author Share Posted September 27, 2007 Right, so If I play a normal mp3 and a Apple Lossless track (made from the originol recording) on my Hifi with a couple of speakers around the room (Nice quailty, though not amazing) I should beable to tell the difference? Also, will it make a difference with normal iPod headphones? My mate wants to try it too but he can't afford to buy great quality ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Odwin Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 Depends on the quality (bitrate and method of encoding) of the mp3 as to whether you'll be able to tell the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cube Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 My earphones cost 125 pounds and I can't tell the difference. I got some £2 rubbish headphones. You can easily tell the difference between those and the Apple headphones (the £2 ones are much better). Anyway, it depends on your ears mainly. The only way to find out is to try it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts