|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
99.151.38.41
In Reply to: RE: Who plays CDs nowadays? posted by John Elison on September 11, 2020 at 16:19:56
I don't play them, but I buy them to rip them to FLAC format for computer-based playback. Having the discs is a sort of last resort in the very unlikely event that my file server and two backups of it all go south at once. Plus I'm picky about getting a bit-perfect copy of the CD. I don't know how careful the record companies are about doing that. But I'm an oddball special case. I don't know anyone who plays them in their home or car.
Follow Ups:
Totally agree, I don't do flac or any lossless formats as now a days you can purchase a 2TB drive for $70 on sale, $80, full retail (that is for the mechanical HDD), $100-$150 for the SSD versions of the same capacity drives.Even with MP3 Vs WAV files at 16/44.1, the difference is subtle at best when you use 320 kbps rips and that is the slight dynamic range compression with the file, but otherwise, they both sound close sonically speaking, even in the car, I can if I listen intently enough, can tell when I'm listening to one or the other, and once I knew what to listen for, I can still tell while driving sometimes.
Again, it's subtle but there once you are cognizant of it. I began doing MP3 but in a folder where I just dumped without rhyme or reason some music files, I didn't even bother with converting to MP3, just 16/44.1 WAV and from that point on, pretty much stopped using MP3's. My head unit is only good for WAV 16/44 and MP3 formats as it's an older unit but can do BT and USB drives.
Edits: 09/15/20
.
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Ripping Redbook CDs doesn't require FLAC format. Might as well use high bit rate MP3s.
Opus 33 1/3
The highest bit rate MP3 I know of is 320 Kbps. Redbook CDs are typically 1411 Kbps, which can be ripped bit-perfect in FLAC/ALAC or WAV/AIFF.
Why do you think that would not make a difference in SQ?
. . . in theory, practice and theory are the same; in practice, they are different . . .
and take up half the space. When i want to do serious listening, I have about 100 GB of 24/96 and 24/192 FLAC files.
Opus 33 1/3
... is what matters.
In my room, on my system, through my ears, MP3s are not "perfectly satisfactory", they give me a headache.
Like you, I prefer vinyl and hi-res digital. But I consider Redbook CD quality adequate for "serious listening", as you put it. Not so for MP3, and I think you agree.
I don't understand why anyone would go to the effort to rip a CD to a resolution that is lower than the source.
. . . in theory, practice and theory are the same; in practice, they are different . . .
unless you are listening to a very complex piece of classical music with full orchestra, really nicely engineered, very few people can hear the difference, regardless of the system.
Lossless is all very well, but the limitations of 16 BiT and its brick wall filtering make FLAC quite unnecessary in most cases.
I have heard some 320 kbps files not sound great. The software used for making them wasn't listed, but I have never had any issues myself. No background noise, no loss of fidelity.
Naim amps, Tannoy Prestige speakers.
Cambridge CXN, Fiio M11 sources.
Room acoustic treatment. WASP speaker dialing-in.
That hasn't been my experience listening to music on my stereo. In the car or through a portable music player, where there is a fair amount of ambient noise, the 320 kpbs is quite good. But if I want to sit and hear the full measure and subtle nuances of music playback I think lossless files are necessary, even with the limitations of 16bit - 44.1kHz sampling.
Tom
"...very few people can hear the difference, regardless of the system..."
Then I suppose I must be one of the very few.
. . . in theory, practice and theory are the same; in practice, they are different . . .
. . . or higher than the source for that natter.
Opus 33 1/3
> I don't understand why anyone would go to the effort to rip a CD to a resolution that is lower than the source.
I did that once several years ago for my 2012 Toyota Camry, which was limited to MP3 through its USB audio system input. I now own a 2018 Camry and it converts up through 24/192 so I agree with you wholeheartedly. I no longer rip anything to a digital format below 16/44.
Best regards,
John Elison
as the price of digital storage comes down while capacity goes up who could disagree? however, if you're using 'on the go' gear [outside, car, boat] there's nothing wrong with lower rez stuff when quantity of tunes wins over quality as the playback system and milieu will render good as good enough
for myself anyway
be well,
Well FLAC is lossless but it's still a compression scheme.
The file size is only a bit smaller than just leaving it a wav.
A wav file is not compressed.
I don't see the point of FLAC but I might be missing something.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
. . . seem to have standardized around FLAC. Also, I think there are various degrees of FLAC file compression (all of which play back losslessly) - IIRC, you can actually create uncompressed FLAC files, although you hardly ever see this. (Somebody jump in here if I'm misstating things.)But, to your point, storage and bandwidth are cheap these days, so there's no reason not to deal in WAV or AIFF files directly that I can see - except that things have become somewhat standardized on FLAC. Not really a big deal IMHO.
Edits: 09/13/20
I've created zillions of FLAC files from PCM dubs: the % depends on the modulation levels ~55% + reduction may be an average (16bit)...using Audacity level 8 ('best').
If you put WAV files into a ZIP folder there is a ~15% + reduction in total size.
Jim Lesurf carried-out some FLAC testing in 2015:-
see...
.
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
I may not know you well Tre`, but well enough to know that you had your answer before asking the question
regards,
Can you give us the bottom line regarding FLAC? Is it lossless relative to WAV or is there some loss occurring with FLAC?
Thanks!
John
Years back I'd offer files (CD-RW derived: Pioneer/TEAC) as WAV+FLAC as was 'convinced' I could hear a slight difference (albeit on Sony desktop active sqeekers (SRS-58) from Dell Inspiron 6400 Headphone-out: hi-definition as it bypassed the usual circuitry): but did comment that, mathematically, one could, apparently, reconstruct the original data from FLAC.
So I sort of put it down to possible real-time FLAC-to-WAV conversion audio anomalies and didn't really pursue it as people can appear quite happy with what I'd find unacceptable - and also, apparently, couldn't discern a difference between 16 and 24bit - which, from LP, I consider preserves more dynamic freedom as a 24bit FLAC - 16bit sounds 'truncated'..
Irrespective of the above 'mathematically perfect' conversion, Jim's data does shown some slight variation.
I'd personally be happier if WAV was the default - but file sizes get pretty big for (ie) stereo 24/96 - and I save as a 32bit float.
What about 5.1 DSD256 or 5.1 DXD? ;-)
FLAC is lossless but compressed in terms of how much space it takes up on the hard drive.
Wav is to audio files what Raw is to image files. Wav is the whole stream without trying to make it take up less space on the hard drive.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
I just looked at a few files that I got from someone else and the compression was 27% to 37% for FLAC. A 4TB drive is only about $100 these days.
-Rod
I play hi-rez digital in my home and in my car. My car has a USB DAC that's compatible with 24/192 PCM. However, I use the 3.5-mm analog plug-in to connect my hi-rez portable DSD player to my car stereo.
Best regards,
John Elison
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: