|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.3.91.159
I'm storing my music iTunes as Applelossless and in WinAmp as FLAC. Everything I have is at least wav quality. I've got a variety of playback options for this stuff and have recorded more than 1350 vinyl LPs to digital and have almost 300 CDs and almost 30 live downloads included in the libraries. There's album artwork where there was album artwork and for the rest I've found appropriate images. I've also create a CD for every vinyl LP I own.
iTune stats
1685 albums (doubles, box sets and comps count only as on album)
503.47 GB
23395 songs
761 album artists (98 comps/soundtracks,etc count as one artist)
from winamp - 2542 artists are referenced in my library. I made sure all vinyl comps/soundtracks contained the name of the artists performing the songs.
Follow Ups:
nt
... MY FAVES: Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Dvorak, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Janachek, Bartok, Shostakovich, Carter
OK. An increasing percentage consists of .bwf rips of vinyl at 24/192.
I forsee a storage shortage coming, but I have a plan for that. I'm not in a hurry, though.
My wife says enough music for a lifetime :-). Started ripping my collection in 2004 and been adding with digital downloads since, recently adding my SACD digital rips.
So far, taking > 4TB for the whole library.
tagged as I want them to be. My rate of purchases has slowed down in the last month.
34,000 tracks, 684 GB of mostly Flac files. 115 days worth of music.
Bill
my blog: http://carsmusicandnature.blogspot.com/
492GB, 36,933 tracks
And, as you know, the LP's are certainly a chore. The more labor intensive was the old 40's and 50's 10 and 12 inch jazz LP's.There's no information online, so all tracks are entered by hand. Cover art has to be done with a digital image and Photoshop to clean up some of them.
That's likely why I did them all first. After that, modern day LP's with track times and information lookup sure makes things easier. I think I record about 20 to 30 albums a month.
Data storage is considerable, as I keep the original Korg 1-bit DSD files, as well as the converted and extracted 24/96 files.
The Korg totals 935 GB, the converted at around 395 GB. I have a triple redundant backup system with external USB drives, and a fourth in offsite storage.
Edits: 11/29/12
Over 3600 albums in AIFF. 2,225GB
Not as good as I would like.
Back in the day when I was just starting to build an Audio system I was buying more music and less gear. Now-a-days I buy more gear and less music. This trend must change.
I could blame it on a lot of things [lack of brick and mortar stores, lack of good new music, lack of good radio stations etc.] but ultimately I must blame myself for being distracted with gear.
With that said, I just purchased 10 CD's via Amazon.
Funny thing is, most of the good music never gets air time and is rarely a house-hold-name.
Dynobots Audio
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
Over 1 Million albums streamed at CD quality for $5 a month. I'll never need to buy music again.
Cut-Throat
I thought MOG streams at 320kps. That is hardly CD quality. One notch above MP3, actually.
Neal
You are correct that the specs favor a CD....But.....
Except the sound is indistinguishable from my CDs.....I had over 3 other audiophiles and none could hear a difference.
Cut-Throat
I'm wondering what you're listening to. It's not solo vocals, by any chance?
For me, about 10 seconds into a track that has plentiful HF content, cymbals and the like, is more than sufficient to tell the two apart reliably.
"For me, about 10 seconds into a track that has plentiful HF content, cymbals and the like, is more than sufficient to tell the two apart reliably."Ok carcass, bear, Tony, J.Mac, Dynobot...
Lets make a simple test out of this. If you guys can identify a song segment that has HF content or anything you think MP3 sucks at encoding, I'll happily create a couple WAV files to see if people can A-B a well encoded MP3.
This could be educational and enjoyable! I'd love to see if there is a correlation with equipment quality as well.
Edits: 12/02/12
No suggestions as to what music I should use to test out MP3?
So nobody wants to test out their belief that MP3 sucks and can be discerned in 10 seconds???
What exactly are you suggesting the procedure should be?
Hi carcass...How about this - very simple procedure:
1. Folks who think MP3 can easily be discerned give me suggestions of song(s) and which portion they feel MP3 cannot encode properly - eg. HF content, microdynamics, unrealistic timbres...2. With the suggestions, assuming a few folks agree this part is difficult to encode, I will splice out ~1.5 minutes (EAC or dBPowerAmp secure CD rip) and produce 2 files:
a. Uncompressed WAV/FLAC from CD.
b. File a. above --> Encoded with LAME MP3 ~320kbps (might be -V0, and whatever the newest LAME version is) --> Decoded with foobar2000 back to WAV/FLAC.3. I'll put the 2 files up somewhere as a ZIP and for anyone to download and sample for say 1 month before erased.
4. We start a new thread to collect impressions and who thinks which is MP3, which is the original CD rip. Collate the data, would be great if folks also reveal equipment used. Lets see how accurate everyone is as to whether FILE 1 or FILE 2 is the MP3.
Note that I KNOW it's not hard to differentiate an MP3 from the originating WAV if one has an audio editor. Therefore I will be using my own tricks to hide the identity as best I can - there are ways :-)... Rest assured, the lossy WAV file will have been "molested" by psychoacoustic algorithms.
Any critiques / suggestions welcome.
Addendum: Yes, I am aware of the copyright issues. However, I appeal to any lawyers out there to chime in here from experience. I'm proposing we borrow a "small amount" of music to test, there is no intent or opportunity for anyone testing to benefit financially, and doing this is all in the interest of 'research' and personal education. In fact, one could argue doing a test may allow some people to sample a track they would enjoy and purchase. As just an average music lover who is also curious about my hobby, I would imagine a simple test like this would constitute "fair use" of copyrighted material with really no issue IMO of exploitation.
Edits: 12/03/12 12/03/12
Also, most likely nobody here besides myself has them either, or would enjoy listening to a track even for a short time.
Having said that, below are 3 tracks that I personally tried to listen to recently in 320 Kbps MP3 (LAME 3.97, 3.98, 3.99) versus WAV, and found differences easily identifiable. They are selected so fragment you're interested in is in the very beginning of the track.
1.
Artist - Saturnus
Album - Veronica Decides to Die
Track - #6, "Embraced by Darkness"
2.
Artist - Eisregen
Album - Rostrot
Track - #2, "Schakal: Ode an die Streubombe"
3.
Artist - Megaherz
Album - Götterdämmerung
Track - #3, "Keine Zeit"
Also, most likely nobody here besides myself has them either, or would enjoy listening to a track even for a short time.Having said that, below are 3 tracks that I personally tried to listen to recently in 320 Kbps MP3 (LAME 3.97, 3.98, 3.99) versus WAV, and found differences easily identifiable. They are selected so fragment you're interested in is in the very beginning of the track.
1.
Artist - Saturnus
Album - Veronica Decides to Die
Track - #6, "Embraced by Darkness"2.
Artist - Eisregen
Album - Rostrot
Track - #2, "Schakal: Ode an die Streubombe"3.
Artist - Megaherz
Album - Götterdämmerung
Track - #3, "Keine Zeit"--------------
Hey carcass: I managed to locate title 3, the Megaherz one. The local metalhead at the music store had a copy.
Gads. Dynamic range DR6 (not bad for metal I guess, better than 'Raw Power')! I like many styles of music but you're right, this ain't my cup of tea :-)
I do agree with you on one point though - this track would pose quite a challenge for high quality MP3. Easy to detect MP3 you say? Will have to give it a try - what do you listen for?
Edits: 12/09/12
----
Also, most likely nobody here besides myself has them either, or would enjoy listening to a track even for a short time.
Having said that, below are 3 tracks that I personally tried to listen to recently in 320 Kbps MP3 (LAME 3.97, 3.98, 3.99) versus WAV, and found differences easily identifiable. They are selected so fragment you're interested in is in the very beginning of the track.
1.
Artist - Saturnus
Album - Veronica Decides to Die
Track - #6, "Embraced by Darkness"
2.
Artist - Eisregen
Album - Rostrot
Track - #2, "Schakal: Ode an die Streubombe"
3.
Artist - Megaherz
Album - Götterdämmerung
Track - #3, "Keine Zeit"
----
OK carcass, will go out to my local used CD store to ask about these titles...
"Note that I KNOW it's not hard to differentiate an MP3 from the originating WAV if one has an audio editor. Therefore I will be using my own tricks to hide the identity as best I can - there are ways :-)."
Some of us choose not to participate because of an adversarial atmosphere that has nothing to do with either (1) scientific research, (2) enhancement of audio technology, or (3) enjoyment of recorded music.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
What adversarial position? I'm just trying to move the discussion beyond the "obvious" poor quality of MP3 as many insist and repeat over and over again here and throughout the audio press! If MP3's are as poor as some insist, it would be dead simple to differentiate. I'm even soliciting ideas of an example from those who hold this position.The "tricks" I speak of are just ways to encode the music without extreme reduction of certain frequencies visible on standard wave editors which LAME supports. In fact, doing this SHOULD degrade the quality of music than straight encoding since more of the bit bucket will be pushed into these frequencies and away from the ear's sweet spot. I've done tests like these for myself so I'm not doing anything here I did not subject myself to when trying to understand the lossy encoding process.
I really hope the most vocal critics would try the test because you guys could be right, which means I need to upgrade my equipment with good reason or have my ears checked. However, it the opposite could also be correct and hopefully we don't get snide remarks like the "10 second" comment or "my equipment gets turned off" when Cut Throat talked about MOG.
How about this Tony - what if I set up a poll on a blog where people can vote ANONYMOUSLY? Would you participate then? We'll just look at the results afterward and discuss.
Edits: 12/04/12 12/04/12
If you have special settings that make the LAME encoder work better than the default ones, then please post these so that everyone can try them on their own, if they are so interested.
I am not interested in participating in any "test" to to help "prove" or "disprove" any agenda. I've been there and done that.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"If you have special settings that make the LAME encoder work better than the default ones, then please post these so that everyone can try them on their own, if they are so interested.I am not interested in participating in any "test" to to help "prove" or "disprove" any agenda. I've been there and done that."
Tony, this is not about special settings making MP3 "work" better. It's settings so that the "Audacity Cowboys" - the folks who listen with their eyes via a sound editor - will not spot the lossy file as easily. From a sound perspective, this should not really lead to a difference.
The bottom line is whether the general "audiophile" population (presumably with much-better-than-average ears & equipment claiming that they can easily discriminate out MP3) can differentiate 1.4Mbps CD audio from a lossy file about 1/4 the size.
BTW: I would like to know what other agenda you think I have.
Edits: 12/07/12
MP3 compression at 320 kbps has a marginal benefit, even if it were audibly transparent. There is not a 4 to 1 reduction. It's much closer to a 2 to 1 reduction, considering that the original could have been compressed nearly 50% using lossless compression (e.g. FLAC).
IMO, it's not worthwhile arguing about such a small benefit or even taking the time to conduct experiments. The time and effort spent on these would be better spent purchasing additional storage capacity. Or, better, doing additional research in lossless compression. There are some new algorithms that get to beyond 50% compression losslessly on most material. I forgot the name, but there is discussion on HA.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"MP3 compression at 320 kbps has a marginal benefit, even if it were audibly transparent. There is not a 4 to 1 reduction. It's much closer to a 2 to 1 reduction, considering that the original could have been compressed nearly 50% using lossless compression (e.g. FLAC)."Actually, I'm achieving only about 30-40% most of the time with the highest FLAC compression. The only time I achieve 50% or more is either mono music or quieter classical music. Therefore, I'd say it's closer to 3:1 compression with 320kbps MP3.
"IMO, it's not worthwhile arguing about such a small benefit or even taking the time to conduct experiments. The time and effort spent on these would be better spent purchasing additional storage capacity. Or, better, doing additional research in lossless compression. There are some new algorithms that get to beyond 50% compression losslessly on most material. I forgot the name, but there is discussion on HA."
I'd love to hear about a consistent lossless > 50% compression system. Sounds like quite a breakthru if possible!
I don't think this is a "small benefit" because we started discussing this over MOG and online music streaming. If there is no difference between hi-bit MP3 and the CD, that's significant for many audiophiles who are considering this route with the peace of mind that they're really not missing out anything with such a service and have access to a million records (and no point others criticizing it including the audiophile press). Beyond the practical storage limits as "Old Listener" mentioned, I feel that all too often MP3 is being used as the scapegoat for the state of poor music sound quality these days. Witness Neil Young and his tirades, grandiose plans of "saving music" with his PONO service. I suspect high-bit MP3 is totally adequate.
Theoretically, if we stay with the argument that all that matters is how it sounds, then who cares if the music was MP3, FLAC, APE, WV, AAC, etc... (At least when it could to sound quality. Obviously the tangible benefits of an album cover is different from downloaded JPG album art.)
Finally, Tony, as much as I appreciate your messages and contributions here (obviously you are very knowledgeable and have good gear) you did say:
"Every time I try to listen to 320 kbps MP3 seriously, after a few seconds I can't tell the difference,
because I've switched off my system in disgust. :-)"Aren't you curious to give it a spin and see if these feelings (presumably about sound quality) are warranted, even as an exercise in examining the limits of one's own perceptions?
Edits: 12/07/12
I've worked with computer communications since the 1960's. Data rates have gone from 110 bits per second to Terrabites per second in this interval. A factor of two or three in compression is irrelevant, amounting to no more than a few years technological progress.
The pricing and economic viability of MOG or other services has nothing to do with the economics of communications and audio technology. It has all to do with the politics of copyright law and the exploitative structure of the music "industry".
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
> IMO, it's not worthwhile arguing about such a small benefit or even taking the time to conduct experiments. [320 KBS vs. lossless files.]
Such a comparison would be of use to me:
- I use a 80GB iPod and a 32 GB USB flash drive for music in our cars. That capacity goes a lot farther with MP3 files than with Flac or WAV. So how much difference is there in that environment?
- Some music is only available or only available at a reasonable price as MP3 or AAC downloads now. My willingness to settle for a lossy compressed download instead of a CD depends on my sense of the differences.
I can do my own comparisons but I'd be happy to hear the results of some blind tests.
Bill
my blog: http://carsmusicandnature.blogspot.com/
My take on portable devices is that I don't listen to them, as I prefer to pay attention to what I am doing when I am out and about. Their popularity is bad, IMO, because these devices have lowered the expectations of recorded sound quality.
I will not purchase music available only in MP3 or AAC format. To do so is nothing but traitorous to the cause of good sound.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
If you have special settings that make the LAME encoder work better than the default ones, then please post these so that everyone can try them on their own, if they are so interested.
As I noted above, a friend of mine gets surpsisingly good results from mp3-format data. Since I posted, I've checked notes he sent me a while back - he's adamant that it's the version number that's critical, that Lame v 3.90.3 is the one to go for and that later versions give poorer-quality sound.
I'm not in a position to test his claim properly but I can say that such of his mp3-format rips of old LPs as I've listened to sound remarkably good though I'm normally reaching for the off button within a minute or two of starting to play mp3s.
Whatever, can I say that I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask if lossy compression is as bad as the gurus claim. My take is that, yes, generally it is but I don't feel the need to be arrogant about saying so.
Thanks Ryelands for the tip...
I'll look into it. I suspect if I put up a test, I probably won't even care about this and just try the latest 3.99.5 version. No need to invite criticism of going out of my way to make lossy sound good...
dBpoweramp came with LAME 3.98r. I wouldn't have a clue how to install an older "audiophile approved" version, nor would I care, since my assumption is that anyone who cares the slightest about sound quality has no business using MP3 compression in the first place.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
It becomes then available in the menu of available encoders.
Not sure about dbPoweramp though.
. . . nor would I care, since my assumption is that anyone who cares the slightest about sound quality has no business using MP3 compression in the first place.
Thank you - your remarks neatly illustrate what I meant about arrogance.
Trust me, though he is an informed music lover, my friend is no "audiophile" and, not least because you haven't a clue who he is, would reject your attempt to label him.
But my points were directed at those with a more open mind; I was suggesting that those who have a dfferent take on mp3 to mine might have a point in so far as the software used to create mp3 files may have a bearing on the quality of the resulting data. It's a variable that, though it seems rarely to be considered, might matter.
Every time I try to listen to 320 kbps MP3 seriously, after a few seconds I can't tell the difference,
because I've switched off my system in disgust. :-)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Tell me how you compared 320 or V0 mp3 to CDs?
From what I've heard one of the 2 higher res MP3 doesn't convert properly on many systems and sometimes the conversions will actually break a system because they are demanding on the system hardware - don't know if there's any truth to this. But I'm hearing favorable comparisons between wav and higher res mp3 done properly (v0?).
Anyway tell me how you made the comparisons.
One doesn't pay attention to the individual sounds. One listens for two other things: whether the music sounds "real" and whether the music is emotionally satisfying.
If one focuses on minute details of sonorities, one is likely to miss the big picture unless the music has been selected and the listener trained to hear the CODEC artifacts.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
All I wanted to know is how you compared CD to 320 MP3. What was your test methodology and why should we/you trust your results?
Pretty simple question for someone technically savvy like yourself.
I don't want to do the comparisons and for nwo I can live with the limitations imposed with larger file sizes. That said I am interested, on a professional engineering level as well as a serious audiophile level, on hearing you discuss how you went about doing a listening comparisons of these formats.
I told you. There were no "tests". The process was quite simple. I listened to MP3s and did not like what I heard. I did not find the experienced positive. I preferred listening to silence. That's the extent of the "methodology". I could care less whether you or anyone else "trusts" these results.
There is no longer any rational reason for MP3 compression. Technology has reduced the cost of transmitting or storing CD quality audio to where it is a few pennies an album.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Have you listened to the MOG 320 kbps streams?.....If not get a free trial subscription for a couple weeks and then report back here.
Cut-Throat
I haven't heard the MOG stuff. I've listened to some Internet radio stations that stream at 320 kbps, but found them unlistenable. The only Internet radio that I regularly listen to is Czech Radio D-Dur, streamed at 48/16 using FLAC encoding, with an average bandwidth of about 600 Kbps.I am the webmaster of a music website. I upload music to a web site in various formats, including 192 kbps VBR MP3. Customers buy access to an album at one price and can download in whatever format or formats of their choice (WMAlossless, ALAC, FLAC of MP3). dBpoweramp creates the different versions and includes the LAME MP3 encoder, said to be one of the best (or should I say least bad).
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Edits: 11/30/12
With FLAC files from Czech Radio D-Dur.
http://amp.cesnet.cz:8000/cro-d-dur.flac.m3u
Plugged it into VLC Media Player (MAC version) which claims to play FLAC files but no joy. :-(
No joy here, either. Seems to be down. I used the same foobar2000 setup that has worked in the past.
Hopefully, it is just down for maintenance.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
The CEO of MOG is an Audiophile and one of his goals was to stream high quality music.... I'm sold!
Try it out! It's Free to Try.
Cut-Throat
MOG's CEO is an audiophile and one of their goals is to provide the highest quality audio. I think their MP3 recordings are much better than others.If you are comparing another MP3 recording, I can hear that also. Also, I have no problem distinguishing Pandora from CDs.
Cut-Throat
Edits: 11/29/12
I tried several versions of LAME, I believe from 3.97 to 3.99. They do not sound BAD, by any means - but that's not the question I was trying to answer.
The other encoder I tried (Fraunhofer?) was audibly inferior.
nt
Cut-Throat
Your gear is so good that even sub-par material sounds great.
Honestly, how can SET's and Horns sound bad? Your gear surely adds some even-order harmonics that would be pleasing to the ear.
Dynobots Audio
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
Ah yes the mantra of sales people getting people to buy crummy sounding audio equipment and how it's become a basic philosophical concept for bad stereo owners around the world. I knew there had to be a reason for the existence of so many crummy sounding expensive audio systems....
nt
Cut-Throat
I think anyways.
I was was extending and expanding upon the compliment he gave your gear. As to the comment in my previous post - maybe the sarcasm is not coming through as it should. Re: gear is often considered good because it makes some music/recordings sound bad - it makes not sense to me. Some might say that your gear, like they've said about mine, isn't good enough to sound bad?
Otherwise maybe I did misread his post.
..
Dynobots Audio
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
Thanks!.....It does sound good...
Although Pandora was noticeably not as good.
Cut-Throat
I found them essentially the same but I didn't go to any great lengths to try and ID one from the other because what I was doing was trying to decide what format to use on a memory limited laptop. It turned out that FLAC wasn't much larger than 320 so I just used that as it has the get-out-of-regret-free feature.
Rick
FLAC wasn't much larger than 320 so I just used that as it has the get-out-of-regret-free
I'm no expert on mp3 (nor, partly for the reasons you give, do I want to be) but I've been struck in the past by how much the quality of mp3-format recordings varies.
I know of a chap who runs a web site that makes available long-deleted and otherwise lost recordings of English folk music. As it happens, lost and long-deleted is pretty much how I like most folk music but I did spend a fair old while a couple of years ago downloading digitised versions of many 40-year-old LPs for a friend.
Though the recordings were all in mp3 format, I was struck by how good they generally sounded, lacking as they did that unpleasant, edgy quality that others here have mentioned as characterising the format.
Intrigued, I asked the site owner how he got the results he did. He claimed that much of it was to do with the version of LAME encoder used to create the mp3 files, with later encoders being of very poor quality.
If I'd known (or, come to that, cared) what a LAME encoder was, I dare say I could have tested his hypothesis but the quality of the data was certainly there to be heard.
I suppose the lesson is that not all mp3s are alike and that, if results are to be meaningful, it is necessary to ensure that the material used for comparisions with uncompressed data is as good as it can be.
Mind you, I'm not convinced that audiophiles always want meaningful results - they're so much less fun.
"As it happens, lost and long-deleted is pretty much how I like most folk music"
What a great line, generalizing the concept I can see a lot of future for it... Consider it plagerized!
I've been listening to a lot of "internet radio" of late and it's goodness seems far more determined by the station's engineering practices (and the source) than by the limits of the compressed audio. I don't doubt that Carcass can hear differences at the limits even with 320KB/s MP3 but I find that well done, even 128K can convey the, well, "soul" and excitement of the music but that 320 does it with a greater sense of ease which continues onward with uncompressed formats and higher bit rate streams. They seem more open and dynamic. On the other hand I've never heard a 96K MP3 stream that was suited for anything beyond paging so I suspect that 128K is right on the cusp where it can satisfy but only if all the stars are in rather good alignment.
Rick
Redbook CDs’ two channels of audio data (not including overhead) are pulled off the disc at a rate of just over 1400 Kbps. Just keeping it simple, a 320Kbps MP3 preserves less than one-quarter of the music, the rest is thrown away. The differences in sound between CODECs are due to the tastes of the designers in choosing what gets thrown away, nevertheless, it must be thrown away.
Spectral analyses by John Atkinson of complex test tones recorded and played back at various MP3 bitrates show they are reproduced correctly, but the noise floor at higher frequencies is around -85dB, improving at lower frequencies to better than -90dB. A lot of spurious “sidebands” are introduced in the test signals. He concludes that both MP3 and AAC introduce fairly large changes in the measured spectra, even at the highest bitrate of 320 Kbps used in his tests. He basically set out to find why MP#s sound bad to his ear, so consider his prejudice.
There has been an industry conspiracy, IMO, backed by some flawed testing, "proving" that high-bitrate MP3 and slightly lower bitrate AAC are “transparent,” i.e. that they are indistinguishable from the WAV file of the same material (presumably 16/44.1 LPCM). “CD Quality” is the phrase bandied about all the time. I think it's very misleading.
My experience suggests the audibility of artifacts on high bitrate MP3s can be heard reliably provided you have 1.) good listening conditions 2.) sufficient quality speakers such that they do not introduce order-of-magnitude-higher nonlinearities, effectively swamping the MP3 garbage and 3.) reasonably trained ears. We unfortunately get what the generic consumer asked for. Deutsche-Grammophon for its classical downloads uses MP3 at 320 Kbps, apparently feeling this is “good enough.” I think they sold out. Dr. Dre agrees- must be right.
If music is played back from 20 hz. to 20K hz.........I can only hear up to about 12,500 hz. (My wife can hear past 13,000 hz.) I have tried this with test tones.
My only point is that there are a lot of bits, that I can't hear anyway....And that is true of most males over 55 which dominate this hobby.
. Another item of note is that MOG has lots of re-mastered recordings and these often sound better than the poorer recordings that I have on CD...More bits but sounds worse!
Just do a listening test yourself with MOG streamed and CDs
Cut-Throat
;-)
It is 320kbps MP3.
Personally I find 320kbps MP3 virtually indistinguishable from uncompressed 16/44.1k CD. As in I have never heard any reliable difference---perhaps if somebody had some particular musical segments with very broad-band high frequencies (cymbals, e.g.) which are very hard to compress, one could hear it. But once the butt goes on the couch, I wouldn't ever notice for normal music if I didn't know the difference.
The perceptual difference between 128kpbs and 320kpbs MP3 is, to me, substantially bigger than 320kbps to 1440kbps (uncompressed).
The technical problems with MOG is not in the perceptual coding, but the buffering and problems with network outages. Pandora has a better download-then-play buffering scheme. With MOG when listening to an album there is a 2-3 second gap between each track, which is maddening for opera (which often has track boundaries entirely in the middle of continuous music---Pandora gets this right but for classical has a much smaller catalog).
Still, I think MOG is great for the cost.
n
About 30,000 files on J River's "Main Library" Another 10,000 on J River's "Grateful Library". All FLAC. 1.2TB used on a WD 2TB drive. It's growing daily.
Doing 10 more today, hopefully 10 every work day. Just started. :)
I'm doing it at work as I simply don't have time at home.
I've got roughly 1 TB of music (several thousand albums) on a 1.5 TB drive & I still have a long way to go. (Need a bigger one.)
FLACs for audiophile titles, 320 kbps MP3s for everything else. I'd say 70% are MP3.
In the case of CD rips, I scan the artwork. For cassette rips, I find a the best available cover online, and for vinyl rips, I photograph the cover & sometimes the labels with a DSLR and copy stand rig.
I use Winamp for my primary player through a Edirol/Roland USB DAC.
It blows me away that you can get literally a room full of music on a thing the size of a small book.
Cheers,
Bobbo :-)
Nice collection - congrats! I'm sticking with the lossless formats. My son stores everything in FLAC and puts it on his devices as 320kps - claims he doesn't notice any difference. I haven't compared 320kps to wav or any of the lossless formats but I would not be surprised if I could not hear a difference even on my higher quality stereos. But "policy" says I'm going to stick with the lossless formats.
Edits: 11/28/12
the first place I go is here, I think you have to register but there are no hassles once you are registered. They almost always have art work ranging from 600X600 to 1000X1000, sometimes more that that!
I've been looking at the images full computer screen or on a big screen HD TV via my OPPO-95 and replacing images for quality as needed. Like recording/release dates image quality is something I didn't pay enough attention to when I started out.
Thanks for the link...
Do people actually use large 1000x1000 artwork? Most of mine are rather small at around 500x500 +/- and iTunes pulls them in automagically with an internet connection. I sometimes use TuneUp to get better artwork or fix any metadata issues.
I didn't have to register to get artwork.
the resolution (clarity) is what is better. I couldn't recall if I registered or not way back when I found the place.
Yes, the pics are all resized for consistency when displayed in iTunes. I find anything around ~ 500x500 or so to be sufficient for my needs on my display. And the files are reasonable in size to not consume unnecessary disk space. My largest ones are no more than ~800x800. Others might desire higher resolution art. Thanks for the link.
with a back up of the same size. Apple Lossless, 133,839 songs, 10112 albums, 3492 artists/groups. This will change tomorrow and the day after and the day after.....
All metadata is present and correct, Artwork for all, either official or in the case of downloads, boots etc, whatever I scrounged up....
Edits: 11/27/12
Is this a contest?
Just added a 3TB drive of mostly Classical flac files to another TB of wav files. Storage is so cheap these days.
-Rod
I can store backups of my wav, flac and alac files on a single 2.0 TB disk. Then there's a disk for each - c:,d:, and e;.
In addition to the redundant hard disk storage everything has been burned to CD (or was originally a CD).
I can't imagine having 2TB of music - that's a crazy amount of music and an unbelievable amount of effort. Good job!
3.5 TB on a 4TB HD. and an identical back up.
The classical stuff is on a separate 1.5TB drive.
I barely got started in 2007 and it took a while
but now I await 5 or 6 SINGLE DISK HDs..
The torture never stops.
All of my files are in AIFF format. There is about 750 artists and a little over 1600 albums taking up over 830 GB of storage. I have no compilations or soundtracks. Every album has the correct album artwork embedded with the file.
I'm using substitute artwork for 5 or 6 records - all of it old stuff or boots that I haven't been able to find the correct pics for. The live downloads rarely come with artwork so I find something appropriate for that.
My 1695 albums take up 503 GB in ALAC and about the same in FLAC. Of those 1392 are vinyl recordings that take up 623 GB in wav.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: