Audio Files - best quality

H

harrybrilljr

Banned
Jan 12, 2011
204
0
0
Central Florida
I'm going through the duplicates I currently have. I'm finding it a challenge deciding which to delete. How can I tell without listening to every track which should sound the best, or maybe more importantly, which is the most accurate representation of the original record. It's actually more important to me to have the original mastered LP (or CD if the record was originally intended for CD) sound quality even if it's not the best subjective sound. I think the compression pushes the reverb and makes some tracks sound more lively or stereo than they ought to.

What is the best of the best way to rip the essential music (what I like to listen to and what I use for system checks), and what is the best compressed format to use for the rest of it, to save space on what I need to have for work.
 
Re: Audio Files - best quality

What device are you using for playback? If ipod/ipad/iphone, I keep the test tracks as full uncompressed AIFF files or WAV files, Apple Lossless for the tracks I sort of care about, and anything else (MP3, AAC, etc.) for tracks that will be nothing but background noise.

If not ipx, then I don't know.
 
Re: Audio Files - best quality

SO another perfect example of what I'm up against, but has nothing to do with the compression used. "Journey - WHo's Crying Now - Escape' vs Greatest Hits I ripped both of them using WMP 320mp3 setting. They are the same exact performace. They sound very different. One mastered originally for vinyl, and presumably remastered for CD. The other remastered for CD also, but I suppose by a totally different person/ gear. Perhaps neither is actually correct. This makes the case for the vinyl folks.

Milt it's 100% Apple. Playback on the Mac is through the Smaart i-o, the Roland Octa-Capture, the Motu 8pre, and the headphone jack. Playback through the iPod it through the headphone jack, sometimes into a PCDI, but mostly into MDR7509 HDs. Playback from the phone is either through the headphone jack or the line out into an aftermarket headphone amp.

Milt Hathaway said:
What device are you using for playback? If ipod/ipad/iphone, I keep the test tracks as full uncompressed AIFF files or WAV files, Apple Lossless for the tracks I sort of care about, and anything else (MP3, AAC, etc.) for tracks that will be nothing but background noise.

If not ipx, then I don't know.
Click to expand...

What is ipx?
 
Re: Audio Files - best quality

There is no way you can do this without listening to every individual file. I have the same issue - for example, I have every Rolling Stones album ever released, and many songs appear numerous times throughout the years. The same song sounds different on each album. Unfortunately, I want to keep my collection complete, so even though I have Jumping Jack Flash 20 times, it is required.

Then you have the problem of live performances, remasters, vinyl, CD, tape, DVD audio, etc.

Then there's the quality of encoding. You could easily have 2 mp3 files made from identical .wav originals, one at 192kbps and one at 320kbps, and the 192kbps could be significantly better sounding. The parameters of the mp3 encoder make all the difference in the final output quality, and there is no way to obtain this info from objective file data.

Essentially, I gave up. I have over 180,000 songs (1TB worth) in the collection and it's not even worth trying.

Lately, everything I care about is in lossless FLAC from an approved source (the CD, ripped by me, or purchased as FLAC).
 
Re: Audio Files - best quality

I don't guess I really understand the flac thing. I downloaded that years ago and the MP3s seemed to be no different. I honestly thought the quality I got from WMP was OK for 99%. Most of the time this stuff is played for walk in music OR as a playon for something. The stuff I like can be as Milt suggested a full AIFF. I find it odd the WMAs (I didn't rip any but I have some) can't be converted in iTunes for MAC, but can be for iTunes in Windows.
 
Re: Audio Files - best quality

harrybrilljr said:
I don't guess I really understand the flac thing. I downloaded that years ago and the MP3s seemed to be no different. I honestly thought the quality I got from WMP was OK for 99%. Most of the time this stuff is played for walk in music OR as a playon for something. The stuff I like can be as Milt suggested a full AIFF. I find it odd the WMAs (I didn't rip any but I have some) can't be converted in iTunes for MAC, but can be for iTunes in Windows.
Click to expand...

WMA is Windows Media Audio, give you three guesses why Mac can't handle it.

FLAC is Free Lossless Audio Codec, gets you an end result file about 60% of the original .wav file while still having 100% quality, and it allows metadata like ID tagging whereas .wav does not.

.AIFF is just Apple's lossless codec, proprietary to them. Works about the same as FLAC.

If you can't hear the difference, then it doesn't matter. But with good music on a good system, it's pretty easy to call when an mp3 is playing.
 
Re: Audio Files - best quality

Silas Pradetto said:
WMA is Windows Media Audio, give you three guesses why Mac can't handle it.

FLAC is Free Lossless Audio Codec, gets you an end result file about 60% of the original .wav file while still having 100% quality, and it allows metadata like ID tagging whereas .wav does not.

.AIFF is just Apple's lossless codec, proprietary to them. Works about the same as FLAC.

If you can't hear the difference, then it doesn't matter. But with good music on a good system, it's pretty easy to call when an mp3 is playing.
Click to expand...

Then what is apple lossless (ALAC)? I thought AIFF was equal to WAV so you can tell I am not really up in all of this. I only gave up carrying my CDs a few years ago.

MP3s the kids have downloaded from who knows where for free sound like crap. You don't need a good system to hear that.
 
Re: Audio Files - best quality

harrybrilljr said:
Then what is apple lossless (ALAC)? I thought AIFF was equal to WAV so you can tell I am not really up in all of this. I only gave up carrying my CDs a few years ago.

MP3s the kids have downloaded from who knows where for free sound like crap. You don't need a good system to hear that.
Click to expand...

My mistake, AIFF is the Apple equivalent of .wav. Apple lossless is something else. I don't use Apple anything so please forgive me...
 
Re: Audio Files - best quality

harrybrilljr said:
MP3s the kids have downloaded from who knows where for free sound like crap. You don't need a good system to hear that.
Click to expand...

I have been given Ipods and assorted MP3 players as well as CD's with music on them that's been downloaded, ripped, converted from who knows where. Playing them back is painful at times as I'm thinking that for the most part the music listening masses accept this for high quality!
 
Last edited:
Use the file name for organization. Such as in a folder for the artist is an album folder and inside that is the song with track number in the file name. Or you could do it all in the file name, and go "artist - album - track - song.wav"
 
Re: Audio Files - best quality

harrybrilljr said:
MP3s the kids have downloaded from who knows where for free sound like crap. You don't need a good system to hear that.
Click to expand...

Chances are even if they played the CDs of the same music it'd still sound like crap. "Loud" mastering has ruined a generation of music.

As for finding the best versions of your favorite recordings, there are whole forums devoted to that. Try Steve Hoffman Music Forums for starters.

harrybrilljr said:
SO another perfect example of what I'm up against, but has nothing to do with the compression used. "Journey - WHo's Crying Now - Escape' vs Greatest Hits I ripped both of them using WMP 320mp3 setting. They are the same exact performace. They sound very different. One mastered originally for vinyl, and presumably remastered for CD. The other remastered for CD also, but I suppose by a totally different person/ gear. Perhaps neither is actually correct. ...
Click to expand...

It gets worse. You'll probably find that there are multiple masterings of the "Escape" CD, from the 1980s, from the 1990s, and then remastered again once or twice in the 2000s, and they'll all sound different. And the most recent is not necessarily the best, often it's the worst.
 
Last edited:
Re: Audio Files - best quality

Silas Pradetto said:
I'm pretty sure that's a dead format :lol:
Click to expand...

Yea didn't SACD last about a week!

Back in the distant past there were a few high quality analog cassette based tape concepts
brought to market, all failed even though they were far better than anything else you could record
on at the time short of a true pro reel to reel machine.
Something like this The Sony Elcaset cassette tape machine


Come to think of it I would venture to say that a good cassette recording of a CD made on a really good cassette
deck with good tape probably sounds better than some of the low bit rate MP3 files I have heard. Something like a
Nakamichi Dragon deck with a metal XR tape. I think I'm showing my age to even remember when that stuff was new!
 
Re: Audio Files - best quality

Mike Caldwell said:
Yea didn't SACD last about a week!

Back in the distant past there were a few high quality analog cassette based tape concepts
brought to market, all failed even though they were far better than anything else you could record
on at the time short of a true pro reel to reel machine.
Something like this The Sony Elcaset cassette tape machine


Come to think of it I would venture to say that a good cassette recording of a CD made on a really good cassette
deck with good tape probably sounds better than some of the low bit rate MP3 files I have heard. Something like a
Nakamichi Dragon deck with a metal XR tape. I think I'm showing my age to even remember when that stuff was new!
Click to expand...

I still have hubs of Agfa CR02 somewhere, and a bunch of cassettes. "Real Chrome" is how they advertised it.
 
Re: Audio Files - best quality

Mike Caldwell said:
I would venture to say that a good cassette recording of a CD made on a really good cassette
deck with good tape probably sounds better than some of the low bit rate MP3 files I have heard. Something like a
Nakamichi Dragon deck with a metal XR tape. I think I'm showing my age to even remember when that stuff was new!
Click to expand...

It would be an interesting experiment, but I'd bet on the mp3. Even with good chrome tape, and even with the Dragon's auto azimuth adjustment, I'd be surprised if a cassette could compete with even a mediocre digital format. It might beat 64k mp3s, I think even 128s would win, and on cost of storage even wavs probably beat high quality cassettes. $4/album in media, plus the shelf space, no thanks.

Mac
 
Top Bottom