Question about rip/burn Cd's

[recoveryone]

Assuming ripped CD was the source, the rate for all the above is 16 bilt / 44.1 kHz. All are lossless formats; FLAC and ALAC are compressed but preserve all the original data. That is, they are like Zip files for non-music files only tweaked for music; also, they can include metadata tags, e.g. Artist, Title, etc.. The fact that FLAC and ALAC can include tags whereas WAV cannot, is a plus for many users.

I guess I should have been clearer in my question of Bit Rate. What is the kbps rate of the lossless formats. Now if, in the article I posted suggest states that and CD ripped at 320kps is at near CD quality, we all know that you can store more Mp3 files on a disk than lossless formats. I have done my own side by side test using 320kps Mp3, WAV and the original CD and I could not tell which was which. I may not have the highest end equipment or even the most trained ear for the smallest sound quality, but I agree with the editor, let each person make the choice.

[02audionoob]

I guess I should have been clearer in my question of Bit Rate. What is the kbps rate of the lossless formats. Now if, in the article I posted suggest states that and Mp3 ripped at 320kps is at near CD quality, we all know that you can store more Mp3 files on a disk than lossless formats. I have done my own side by side test using 320kps Mp3, WAV and the original CD and I could not tell which was which. I may not have the highest end equipment or even the most trained ear for the smallest sound quality, but I agree with the editor, let each person make the choice.

That's the question I was answering. When you're making a WAV file from a CD, it's 44,100 samples per second. Each sample is 16-bit. FLAC is a compressed version of the file, but lossless. You can't make FLAC just any bit rate you want. It's like Feanor says...like a ZIP file of the original. A WAV file could be more than 44,100/16-bit and it could be less. But usually that's what it will be. I suppose for the comparison you're looking for, multiply 44100 x 16.

Not confusing just using what the standard of "At near CD quality" I'm sure that is what lossless is.

The confusion I was trying to avoid was when you apparently referred to 320k as lossless. It's not.

Edit...I get it now. No..."lossless" is not "at near CD quality". It's the same quality out to the new file as was in the source, regardless of bit rate. When you specify 320k, you are in effect also specifying the amount of loss.

[noddin0ff]

That's the question I was answering. When you're making a WAV file from a CD, it's 44,100 samples per second. Each sample is 16-bit. FLAC is a compressed version of the file, but lossless. You can't make FLAC just any bit rate you want. It's like Feanor says...like a ZIP file of the original. A WAV file could be more than 44,100/16-bit and it could be less. But usually that's what it will be. I suppose for the comparison you're looking for, multiply 44100 x 16.
...
Edit...I get it now. No..."lossless" is not "at near CD quality". It's the same quality out to the new file as was in the source, regardless of bit rate. When you specify 320k, you are in effect also specifying the amount of loss.

The way I think about it is viewing bitrate as the speed at which the files are transferred; rate = velocity. Redbook rates are 2 channels (L/R) with 16bits transferred 44,100 times every second per channel. Multiply to get 2x16x44100= 1411200 bits per second. Rephrased as 1411 kilo bits per second or 1411kbps (or shorter, 1411k).

Thus the 'rate' of a redbook lossless file is 1411kbps. If you compress this file lossless, on average the file is about one-half the size and the bitrate needed to transmit the file is proportionately less, say 700-800kbps. The amount it compresses to in a lossless format is dictated by the complexity of the music. Music with pure tones compresses more than white noise, eg. a cello solo will compress more than distorted punk mayhem.

If you select a bitrate that is lower than the bitrate that the file would require as a lossless file, you must throw away information. All the good encoders attempt to first throw away the information you are least likely to hear. Which is why 320kbps files can sound very much like lossless (I can't hear the difference myself, but I don't think that the slightly smaller file sizes of 320 compared to lossless are worth it given that lossless is more flexible for me.)

On playback, all these files are converted back to a 16bit/44.1hz signal for the DAC to turn into an analog signal. Lossy formats, obviously differ from the original when converted back. They can also be upsampled further to higher resolutions but lossy is lossy.

Does that help?

[02audionoob]

The way I think about it is viewing bitrate as the speed at which the files are transferred; rate = velocity. Redbook rates are 2 channels (L/R) with 16bits transferred 44,100 times every second per channel. Multiply to get 2x16x44100= 1411200 bits per second. Rephrased as 1411 kilo bits per second or 1411kbps (or shorter, 1411k).

Thus the 'rate' of a redbook lossless file is 1411kbps. If you compress this file lossless, on average the file is about one-half the size and the bitrate needed to transmit the file is proportionately less, say 700-800kbps. The amount it compresses to in a lossless format is dictated by the complexity of the music. Music with pure tones compresses more than white noise, eg. a cello solo will compress more than distorted punk mayhem.

If you select a bitrate that is lower than the bitrate that the file would require as a lossless file, you must throw away information. All the good encoders attempt to first throw away the information you are least likely to hear. Which is why 320kbps files can sound very much like lossless (I can't hear the difference myself, but I don't think that the slightly smaller file sizes of 320 compared to lossless are worth it given that lossless is more flexible for me.)

On playback, all these files are converted back to a 16bit/44.1hz signal for the DAC to turn into an analog signal. Lossy formats, obviously differ from the original when converted back. They can also be upsampled further to higher resolutions but lossy is lossy.

Does that help?

Given that you quoted me, are you addressing me? Or are you addressing recoveryone?

[noddin0ff]

Given that you quoted me, are you addressing me? Or are you addressing recoveryone?

Yes.

[Feanor]

I guess I should have been clearer in my question of Bit Rate. What is the kbps rate of the lossless formats. Now if, in the article I posted suggest states that and CD ripped at 320kps is at near CD quality, we all know that you can store more Mp3 files on a disk than lossless formats. I have done my own side by side test using 320kps Mp3, WAV and the original CD and I could not tell which was which. I may not have the highest end equipment or even the most trained ear for the smallest sound quality, but I agree with the editor, let each person make the choice.

The answer is the FLAC and ALAC are similar and compress the full-size files to just a bit more the 50% of the original overall. The physical bit rates are variable depending on the complexity of the sound. The compressed size is relevant only for storage and transmission over the network. It's isn't relevant to the effective, musical bit rate which remains the original, in the case of CDs, 16 bits / 44.1 kHz.