Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 71
  1. #1
    Forum Regular blackraven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    St. Paul, Minnesota
    Posts
    5,421

    Question Question about rip/burn Cd's

    I've got a question about ripping CD's to my computer and burning copies for my CD player.

    What format and bit rate do I use for the ripping. I'm using Window's Media Player. The default bitrate is 128 and the default format is Window Media Audio. Do I want 192K and WAV lossless? And what settings for burning to the CD for best audio quality on my CD player? I don't plan on keeping the ripped files on my computer so file size is not an issue.

    Will Windows Media Player automatically transfer the music from the CD to my computer and then burn it in standard redbook CD format or do I have to choose?

    By the way, I have Real Player and I have a Nero program as well although nero is not installed.

    Thanks,

    Larry
    Pass Labs X250 amp, BAT Vk-51se Preamp,
    Thorens TD-145 TT, Bellari phono preamp, Nagaoka MP-200 Cartridge
    Magnepan QR1.6 speakers
    Luxman DA-06 DAC
    Van Alstine Ultra Plus Hybrid Tube DAC
    Dual Martin Logan Original Dynamo Subs
    Parasound A21 amp
    Vintage Luxman T-110 tuner
    Magnepan MMG's, Grant Fidelity DAC-11, Class D CDA254 amp
    Monitor Audio S1 speakers, PSB B6 speakers
    Vintage Technic's Integrated amp
    Music Hall 25.2 CDP
    Adcom GFR 700 AVR
    Cables- Cardas, Silnote, BJC
    Velodyne CHT 8 sub

  2. #2
    Retro Modernist 02audionoob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    2,908
    You would use WMA or other reduced bit rate formats only if you're making compressed files, such as for a portable player. Otherwise, you would want to simply copy the CD in Nero or you would use an uncompressed format, like WAV. Then, when you have the uncompressed audio files, use Nero's option to create an audio CD.

    By the way...the bit rate option will not be offered when you choose the "WAV (Lossless)" option from the Rip menu. And last comment for now...most people's Windows settings are probably set so a CD plays automatically, rather than rips, when inserted. You can change that if you like, or you can go to the Rip menu to start the rip.

  3. #3
    Forum Regular blackraven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    St. Paul, Minnesota
    Posts
    5,421
    Thanks Noob! So it looks like if I use Windows Media Player when ripping, I need to pick wav lossless, and when burning it do the same. Are there noticeable audible differences in rip/burn programs for CD's? Right now I could care less about mp3.
    Pass Labs X250 amp, BAT Vk-51se Preamp,
    Thorens TD-145 TT, Bellari phono preamp, Nagaoka MP-200 Cartridge
    Magnepan QR1.6 speakers
    Luxman DA-06 DAC
    Van Alstine Ultra Plus Hybrid Tube DAC
    Dual Martin Logan Original Dynamo Subs
    Parasound A21 amp
    Vintage Luxman T-110 tuner
    Magnepan MMG's, Grant Fidelity DAC-11, Class D CDA254 amp
    Monitor Audio S1 speakers, PSB B6 speakers
    Vintage Technic's Integrated amp
    Music Hall 25.2 CDP
    Adcom GFR 700 AVR
    Cables- Cardas, Silnote, BJC
    Velodyne CHT 8 sub

  4. #4
    Retro Modernist 02audionoob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    2,908
    When you go to the Rip menu in Windows Media Player, choose WAV (Lossless) for the best files.

    When you're burning a CD, you'll go to Nero's option to "make audio CD" and it will open a box and wait for you to browse to your audio files to add to the CD. It won't limit you one choice of whether you'll be using lossless files, WAV files, etc. It will just give you the chance to add any file format it recognizes as audio. There are at least 10 of them. You can slide them up or down in the order before you begin.

    To my knowledge, there isn't technically a better burning software than Nero, but I don't know that for a fact. By the way...if you want a direct copy, just go straight to Nero, rather than ripping to lossless first.

  5. #5
    Retro Modernist 02audionoob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    2,908
    I suppose I should also mention there is an option to burn an audio CD in Media Player. It's just not something I use. You go to the Burn menu and choose "audio CD". At that point you can drag music files from the library to the burn list on the sidebar.

  6. #6
    Vinyl Fundamentalist Forums Moderator poppachubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Analog Synagogue
    Posts
    4,363
    I wouldn't use WMP if you paid me to. Check out Media Monkey Raven. I agree with noob, if you simply want to copy a CD, Nero is the best option.

  7. #7
    Oldest join date recoveryone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,435
    I have one question, why do you want to rip the redbook CD in the first place if you are only going to play them right back on your CD player? Normally people rip CD to place them on a storage system (computer, portable player) to keep the same level of quality sound from the original CD. Just a hint in future ripping, 320kps is min level for lossless ripping and most programs can do this, its just what you feel comfortable using.
    HT
    Pioneer Elite SC lx502
    Pioneer Elite N50
    Pioneer Cassette CTM66R
    Pioneer Elite BDP 85FD

    Vizio P series 2160p
    Panamax 5300 EX

  8. #8
    Retro Modernist 02audionoob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    2,908
    Quote Originally Posted by recoveryone
    I have one question, why do you want to rip the redbook CD in the first place if you are only going to play them right back on your CD player? Normally people rip CD to place them on a storage system (computer, portable player) to keep the same level of quality sound from the original CD. Just a hint in future ripping, 320kps is min level for lossless ripping and most programs can do this, its just what you feel comfortable using.
    Just as a clarification, so we don't confuse terminology, 320k is not lossless. Lossless is WAV, FLAC, ALAC, etc.

  9. #9
    Oldest join date recoveryone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,435
    Quote Originally Posted by 02audionoob
    Just as a clarification, so we don't confuse terminology, 320k is not lossless. Lossless is WAV, FLAC, ALAC, etc.
    What is the bit rate of WAV, FLAC,ALAC?

    Question on Music & Play:

    I have used the MP3 format for my music ever since I could bring my music with me, and I always use at least 192kbps. Recently I read about FLAC and Apple Lossless, which should be a lot better than MP3s. If I'm listening to MP3s encoded at 320kbps, will there be any difference at all compared to a lossless format? I'm using an iPod touch and Nokia N82, plus my Audio-Technica SJ3 headphones.


    Submitted by Reader



    Answer:


    John Chan
    Asst. Editor
    I know people who swear by lossless tracks and others who can't be bothered with them. Most can't tell the difference, and essentially, enjoying the content of your music should be more important than the minute quality improvement you get with lossless formats.

    But if you must know, the solution to your query is simple. Just grab one of your favorite CDs and use iTunes to rip one track twice, one in 320kbps MP3 and the other in Apple Lossless format. Give them different names and move them both to your iPod touch. Listen to them a few times and see if you can tell the difference. If you can, and if you enjoy the lossless one more than the 320kbps track, then go ahead and listen to your music encoded in lossless formats. Take note though, if you decide to go that route, your iPod touch will be able to hold much less music because each lossless track will take up a lot more space than the same track encoded in MP3.
    HT
    Pioneer Elite SC lx502
    Pioneer Elite N50
    Pioneer Cassette CTM66R
    Pioneer Elite BDP 85FD

    Vizio P series 2160p
    Panamax 5300 EX

  10. #10
    Forum Regular blackraven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    St. Paul, Minnesota
    Posts
    5,421
    Quote Originally Posted by recoveryone
    I have one question, why do you want to rip the redbook CD in the first place if you are only going to play them right back on your CD player? Normally people rip CD to place them on a storage system (computer, portable player) to keep the same level of quality sound from the original CD. .
    There are some CD's that I want to have copies of for my second and third systems in my bedroom and basement as well as my car.

    Thanks guys. I know a lot about copmuter hardware after building some very high end custom gaming computers for my son, but not so much about the software. My son usually copies CD's for me.
    Pass Labs X250 amp, BAT Vk-51se Preamp,
    Thorens TD-145 TT, Bellari phono preamp, Nagaoka MP-200 Cartridge
    Magnepan QR1.6 speakers
    Luxman DA-06 DAC
    Van Alstine Ultra Plus Hybrid Tube DAC
    Dual Martin Logan Original Dynamo Subs
    Parasound A21 amp
    Vintage Luxman T-110 tuner
    Magnepan MMG's, Grant Fidelity DAC-11, Class D CDA254 amp
    Monitor Audio S1 speakers, PSB B6 speakers
    Vintage Technic's Integrated amp
    Music Hall 25.2 CDP
    Adcom GFR 700 AVR
    Cables- Cardas, Silnote, BJC
    Velodyne CHT 8 sub

  11. #11
    Oldest join date recoveryone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,435
    Quote Originally Posted by blackraven
    There are some CD's that I want to have copies of for my second and third systems in my bedroom and basement as well as my car.

    Thanks guys. I know a lot about computer hardware after building some very high end custom gaming computers for my son, but not so much about the software. My son usually copies CD's for me.
    Understandable
    HT
    Pioneer Elite SC lx502
    Pioneer Elite N50
    Pioneer Cassette CTM66R
    Pioneer Elite BDP 85FD

    Vizio P series 2160p
    Panamax 5300 EX

  12. #12
    Retro Modernist 02audionoob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    2,908
    Quote Originally Posted by recoveryone
    What is the bit rate of WAV, FLAC,ALAC?
    I would think the WAV files Windows Media Player makes off a CD will be 44,100 16-bit samples per second, since that's what the source would be. I haven't gotten into FLAC much, but it's proportional to the source, as opposed to being specified by user input.

  13. #13
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127
    Quote Originally Posted by recoveryone
    What is the bit rate of WAV, FLAC,ALAC?
    ...
    .
    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.

  14. #14
    Oldest join date recoveryone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,435
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    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.
    HT
    Pioneer Elite SC lx502
    Pioneer Elite N50
    Pioneer Cassette CTM66R
    Pioneer Elite BDP 85FD

    Vizio P series 2160p
    Panamax 5300 EX

  15. #15
    Oldest join date recoveryone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,435
    Quote Originally Posted by 02audionoob
    Just as a clarification, so we don't confuse terminology, 320k is not lossless. Lossless is WAV, FLAC, ALAC, etc.
    Not confusing just using what the standard of "At near CD quality" I'm sure that is what lossless is.
    HT
    Pioneer Elite SC lx502
    Pioneer Elite N50
    Pioneer Cassette CTM66R
    Pioneer Elite BDP 85FD

    Vizio P series 2160p
    Panamax 5300 EX

  16. #16
    Retro Modernist 02audionoob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    2,908
    Quote Originally Posted by recoveryone
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by recoveryone
    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.
    Last edited by 02audionoob; 10-17-2010 at 08:57 PM.

  17. #17
    Oldest join date recoveryone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,435
    I found this:

    Playing back digital audio has turned into a regular experience for most computer users thanks in part to a variety of formats that helped make audio smaller in size, allowing simple methods of digital distribution. There are many different formats that serve many different purposes. Need to know FLAC from MP3? We've broken down each format and its main purpose in this audio formats primer.

    MP3

    The most popular audio format, and the one that largely changed music as we know it, is called MP3. MP3 is a relatively old format and part of the first set of MPEG specifications governing the playback of both audio and video. MP3 actually stands for MPEG1 layer 3, and because of the name some people often confuse it with the audio/video standards MPEG-2 and MPEG-4.
    MP3 is a lossy codec, which means when files are encoded to MP3, the encoder chooses which parts of the audio are most important, and discards other less important parts. This process results in audio files that are passable, but less complete than the original file. Depending on the bitrate at which the file is encoded, more information can be kept or thrown out. This "lossy" nature, like all MPEG codecs, makes it an ideal candidate as a delivery format, meaning a format for mass consumption, rather than an archival format. MP3 doesn't have any sort of digital rights management (DRM) built-in, meaning most MP3s can be transferred to any device and be expected to play.
    AAC

    MP3's ideal successor is AAC, which stands for Advanced Audio Codec. AAC was largely designed to be the next version of MP3, and accomplishes things like better quality audio at similar bitrates. That means AAC will sound better than similarly sized MP3s. While AAC might be the successor to MP3, thanks to MP3's 10+ year lifespan as a file format, MP3 is supported with most devices whereas AAC doesn't have the breadth of support in hardware devices by comparison. However, that's not to imply that AAC doesn't have a broad install base. Most notably, iPods can play AAC files back natively, and every track purchased in the iTunes Music Store is an AAC file.
    Unlike MP3, AAC has seen some DRM implementations, again most notably in the iTunes Music Store. While not defined as part of the AAC specification, Apple has forked AAC to try to thwart music copying. The implementation, known as FairPlay, requires listeners to be using iTunes, and have a computer authorized to play the music before being able to actually listen to the files. Apple limits the computer count to five total activated iTunes accounts at a time (check out our guide to deauthorizing all those iTunes accounts at once if you ever hit your limit and find the need).
    OGG

    Another lossy audio format is the OGG format. OGG is a "free" format, meaning the format is maintained by the not-for-profit Xiph.org foundation, and doesn't charge for licensing or implementation. OGG is a file format popular with open source computer users, since there is no corporation sponsoring the format and all of the format's specifications and encoding methods are open and public. OGG is a less popular format, one not sanctioned by any store selling legal tracks, however many users transcode their music collections into OGG typically using the compression format called Vorbis. OGG files do not typically have any implementation of DRM, since the idea of DRM is counterintuitive to the nature of open source.
    WMA

    One format known most notably for its wide variety of DRM implementations is WMA, short for Windows Media Audio. WMA was created by Microsoft, likely as a response to the rise of other lossy codecs like MP3. WMA's main use is in subscription and pay-per-download music services. Microsoft created WMA to have wide copy protection measures in the files, seemingly to lure music industry labels to its side and make money off of licensing fees. Music services like Wal-Mart's online store, as well as Napster and Yahoo!'s music store all use WMA audio, with Napster utilizing a subscription model, and the other two utilizing a purchased downloads model.
    The actual WMA codec consists of four sub codecs. The original WMA codec is the lossy codec that competes with MP3. WMA Pro is an audio codec that has extended support for multi-channel audio, and also works with higher resolution audio. WMA Voice targets voice-only content and works at much lower bitrates by constraining the encoder to vocal frequencies only. Lastly, WMA Lossless is a lossless codec, meaning the complete data from the original master is maintained; however, the audio is compressed to allow ease of transfer.

    FLAC

    Another lossless audio codec is the Free Lossless Audio Codec, commonly referred to as FLAC. FLAC is popular with the audio enthusiast scene, as the files created are smaller than WAV files, though the files still maintain all the audio fidelity of a WAV file. FLAC files can also be paired with "cue sheets" that define individual tracks inside of one larger FLAC file. FLAC files cannot be played back with most portable audio hardware, requiring either modified iPod firmware or custom portable players, but several notable players support it such as several in the Cowon line (including the Cowon A3, and iAUDIO 7) as well as the iriver SPINN, the SanDisk Sansa slotMusic player, and a number of Samsung PMPs including the YP-S2. FLAC's other primary advantage is that it is free, and any device manufacturer can implement FLAC at no charge. If you're looking for components to handle your FLAC collection, an updated list of many of the devices that support FLAC is kept at Sourceforge.

    ALAC

    One lossless format implemented on the most popular portable media player, the iPod, is the Apple Lossless Audio Codec (ALAC). ALAC allows users to take audio straight from CDs, convert it in iTunes to ALAC, and play it back in full fidelity on an iPod. ALAC files can only be played in Apple's music ecosystem (iTunes, Quicktime and iPod) and therefore the format is mainly suitable for audiophiles who enjoy listening to lossless music on an iPod exclusively.
    WAV and AIFF

    Most lossless audio comes from an originating source that has a bit-by-bit file that actually maps all the points on a sound wave. The two main formats of choice for complete recording are WAV (pronounced wave) and AIFF (sometimes pronounced "Aee-ph"). Both file formats are devoid of any sort of compression, making an average pop music song three or four minutes in length a hefty 50MB. While not as large of an issue in modern computing, 50MB file sizes in the mid to late 90s made the transfer of audio files extremely difficult, which is why lossy codecs were born. WAV is typically the Windows standard for audio storage, while AIFF is the Mac standard, though in modern usage both work interchangeably on either operating system. The WAV and AIFF formats are typically seen as "master" or "archive" formats, meaning they aren't typically distributed to the public since the file sizes are large, though the audio quality is much higher than any lossy codec.
    HT
    Pioneer Elite SC lx502
    Pioneer Elite N50
    Pioneer Cassette CTM66R
    Pioneer Elite BDP 85FD

    Vizio P series 2160p
    Panamax 5300 EX

  18. #18
    Retro Modernist 02audionoob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    2,908
    The long and short of it is, when you specify a bit rate, you're making lossey files...even if it's 320k.

  19. #19
    Forum Regular audio amateur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    France
    Posts
    2,523

    ?

    Quote Originally Posted by blackraven
    I've got a question about ripping CD's to my computer and burning copies for my CD player.

    What format and bit rate do I use for the ripping. I'm using Window's Media Player. The default bitrate is 128 and the default format is Window Media Audio. Do I want 192K and WAV lossless? And what settings for burning to the CD for best audio quality on my CD player? I don't plan on keeping the ripped files on my computer so file size is not an issue.

    Will Windows Media Player automatically transfer the music from the CD to my computer and then burn it in standard redbook CD format or do I have to choose?

    By the way, I have Real Player and I have a Nero program as well although nero is not installed.

    Thanks,

    Larry
    Didn't you say you built computers?

  20. #20
    Forum Regular audio amateur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    France
    Posts
    2,523
    Quote Originally Posted by blackraven
    Thanks guys. I know a lot about copmuter hardware after building some very high end custom gaming computers for my son, but not so much about the software. My son usually copies CD's for me.
    That explains it

  21. #21
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    4,380
    Just use Nero or EAC and make an exact copy of the CD. Forget about all the other formats if your not gonna put it on a pod or are worried about space.

  22. #22
    Big science. Hallelujah. noddin0ff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    X
    Posts
    2,286
    Quote Originally Posted by 02audionoob
    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?

  23. #23
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127
    Quote Originally Posted by recoveryone
    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.

  24. #24
    Retro Modernist 02audionoob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    2,908
    Quote Originally Posted by noddin0ff
    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?

  25. #25
    Big science. Hallelujah. noddin0ff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    X
    Posts
    2,286
    Quote Originally Posted by 02audionoob
    Given that you quoted me, are you addressing me? Or are you addressing recoveryone?
    Yes.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •