This review extends over 5 screen pages, and there are a lot of submitted comments. Best way to print it for reference seems to be the good old copy and paste procedure into a text editor.
Very interesting. I would hesitate to apply it to "our kind" of listening too hastily for two reasons. First, the music used in the test was restricted to studio popular music. A wider range of musical genres may have produced different results. A single fiddle or grand piano on its own might have been a different story. Second, a lot of us here are used to hearing real instruments close up. Not just hearing but (if we're any good) listening as well. I'm only guessing but I suspect that our ears may be better trained to pick up the small but critical differences in timbre, tone and resonance that the more passive recipients in the test may have been missing. As you say, food for thought though.
Yeah, I agree, it's the old story - you get what you pay for. But the point is, if you genuinely can't tell the difference between 320kbps mp3, as provided by Amazon for example, and the original CD also provided by Amazon (I know I can't, for age-related reasons), then why spend that extra when you could spend it on buying further mp3 tracks, to the benefit of all concerned?
Have to say, Lazyhound, my family have discovered itunes quite recently and as we're moving house we have started digitizing all our CDs onto it. While there will be losses to the audio the convenience far outweighs that - even things like the ABRSM aural test CDs I was able to put on my daughter's ipods so they have no excuse not to practice them! I think it's just brilliant for organising your music (and then we can hopefully sell about 23 yards of CDs!).
Just a shame with some of the opera / classical stuff I have, that I will lose the sleeve notes - so they will probably stay in box form even if only so I can keep the libretti.
Even CD encoding means loss of audio quality. Nothing beats the full, audio experience of Vinyl on a decent deck and set of speakers. The masses can have their cheap, vapid, soulless pop in tinny MP3 headphones. We die-hards will stick to live performance and analogue sound captured on old 12inch format.
In the past year, I've digitized my CD collection (also about 23 yards!) using iTunes, but at full CD quality (44.1 MHz, 16 bit wav or aiff). It uses about 75% of a 1.5 TB hard drive that cost about $160 a year ago (probably around $130 now). I'm keeping the CDs for liner notes, backup, and occasional use, but mostly listen via computer through the stereo. It did take about 3 months of work to rip them all (about 3 long days a week feeding CDs into the computer every 10 minutes or so.)
I've backed up a number of my CDs, LPs and audio tapes with FLAC format for archival storage. FLAC reduces the size to anything between 30% of the original size (low frequency range/monaural) and 70% (large frequency range/stereo). Conversion from WAV to FLAC is quick, and retrieving the original WAV file is even quicker. FLAC files play on a number of audio platforms, and can be edited by the more recent audio editors (Nero's Wave Editor 4 and Magix Audio, for example).
FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec) can be downloaded from Sourceforge.
You've got me excited now - time to get out my Thorens deck and sme arm and see if it all still works. I guess that's all what would be described as vintage gear now, of couse. A bit like me!
What you could with liner notes, if you have a printer that has a scan function, is to scan them into a pdf file that you could store with the audio backup.
Interesting, but as with the science-vs-Strad discussion, there’s not enough real science there to conclude anything at all. Maybe the best we can say is that the differences are not immediately and overwhelmingly obvious to everybody. To do this sort of comparison correctly would be expensive and time-consuming, though not as much as the Strad-vs-fiddle comparison.
I’m a sucker for these articles about the woeful inadequacy of lossy audio formats or The Secret of the Strad. I’ll read and discuss every one I see, but is there really any value in them, beyond provoking discussion? When the experiment is not scientifically valid, neither are the conclusions. But bring on the next one.
Back before the age of digital audio, a friend of mine had a question for the audiophiles who spent thousands of dollars on boutique equipment: “Do you listen to the music or the equipment?”
Is it largely a matter of "how much will you/we give up for the sake of convenience" ? Or is it a natural reluctance to lose something that can't be got back ?
The 1.5 TB drive is one copy of all my CDs. I'll get another one soon to use as a backup, so I don't have to rip them all again if it fails. But I'll keep the CDs, just in case.
This winter (like last winter) I hope to get all the vinyl onto the computer. That I will store in a lossless format because the options for cleaning it up will probably improve in the future. I think I can borrow a decent deck...
I have a decent deck and a decent phono amp, but I'm beginning to look seriously at those all-in-one products, just for the simplicity of operation. Old age confers an entitlement to laziness.
Many studio CD sources have already been significantly compressed. Frank Zappa's Ryko discs, for instance, are disasters and hardly recognizable as the albums they are purported to be.. Many are now out of print, and thank goodness for that, Chunga's Revenge is the travesty which comes to mind first. I have some Columbia jazz CDs which were remastered in the early 90s and have artifacts all over them, in addition to showing signs of compression Who needs stuff like that and who cares if it's MP3 or lossless? Presumably you wouldn't want to compress it more, say below 320 kb/s but a lot of CD tracks are a problem right off the disc.
mp3 or lossless?
mp3 or lossless?
Came across this review which gives food for thought:
http://www.trustedreviews.com/mp3/review/2009/11/18/Sounds-Good-To-Me/p1
This review extends over 5 screen pages, and there are a lot of submitted comments. Best way to print it for reference seems to be the good old copy and paste procedure into a text editor.
# Posted on November 19th 2009 by Trevor Jennings
Re: mp3 or lossless?
Very interesting. I would hesitate to apply it to "our kind" of listening too hastily for two reasons. First, the music used in the test was restricted to studio popular music. A wider range of musical genres may have produced different results. A single fiddle or grand piano on its own might have been a different story. Second, a lot of us here are used to hearing real instruments close up. Not just hearing but (if we're any good) listening as well.
I'm only guessing but I suspect that our ears may be better trained to pick up the small but critical differences in timbre, tone and resonance that the more passive recipients in the test may have been missing. As you say, food for thought though.
# Posted on November 19th 2009 by Steve Shaw
Re: mp3 or lossless?
The real problem is that people who download albums, say 12 songs at 99p each, should be given a warning.
"If you want to hear the music as the artist intended, go buy the CD for £10".
# Posted on November 19th 2009 by bigdee
Re: mp3 or lossless?
...or even "go and see it live"!
# Posted on November 19th 2009 by Mark Harmer
Re: mp3 or lossless?
Yeah, I agree, it's the old story - you get what you pay for. But the point is, if you genuinely can't tell the difference between 320kbps mp3, as provided by Amazon for example, and the original CD also provided by Amazon (I know I can't, for age-related reasons), then why spend that extra when you could spend it on buying further mp3 tracks, to the benefit of all concerned?
# Posted on November 19th 2009 by Trevor Jennings
Re: mp3 or lossless?
Have to say, Lazyhound, my family have discovered itunes quite recently and as we're moving house we have started digitizing all our CDs onto it. While there will be losses to the audio the convenience far outweighs that - even things like the ABRSM aural test CDs I was able to put on my daughter's ipods so they have no excuse not to practice them! I think it's just brilliant for organising your music (and then we can hopefully sell about 23 yards of CDs!).
Just a shame with some of the opera / classical stuff I have, that I will lose the sleeve notes - so they will probably stay in box form even if only so I can keep the libretti.
# Posted on November 19th 2009 by Mark Harmer
Re: mp3 or lossless?
Even CD encoding means loss of audio quality. Nothing beats the full, audio experience of Vinyl on a decent deck and set of speakers. The masses can have their cheap, vapid, soulless pop in tinny MP3 headphones. We die-hards will stick to live performance and analogue sound captured on old 12inch format.
# Posted on November 19th 2009 by stripthewillow
Re: mp3 or lossless?
In the past year, I've digitized my CD collection (also about 23 yards!) using iTunes, but at full CD quality (44.1 MHz, 16 bit wav or aiff). It uses about 75% of a 1.5 TB hard drive that cost about $160 a year ago (probably around $130 now). I'm keeping the CDs for liner notes, backup, and occasional use, but mostly listen via computer through the stereo. It did take about 3 months of work to rip them all (about 3 long days a week feeding CDs into the computer every 10 minutes or so.)
# Posted on November 19th 2009 by GaryAMartin
Re: mp3 or lossless?
Wow - I had no idea it would take that long - but sounds well worth it. I'm looking forward to recovering some shelf space.
# Posted on November 19th 2009 by Mark Harmer
Re: mp3 or lossless?
I've backed up a number of my CDs, LPs and audio tapes with FLAC format for archival storage. FLAC reduces the size to anything between 30% of the original size (low frequency range/monaural) and 70% (large frequency range/stereo). Conversion from WAV to FLAC is quick, and retrieving the original WAV file is even quicker. FLAC files play on a number of audio platforms, and can be edited by the more recent audio editors (Nero's Wave Editor 4 and Magix Audio, for example).
FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec) can be downloaded from Sourceforge.
# Posted on November 19th 2009 by Trevor Jennings
Re: mp3 or lossless?
You've got me excited now - time to get out my Thorens deck and sme arm and see if it all still works. I guess that's all what would be described as vintage gear now, of couse. A bit like me!
# Posted on November 19th 2009 by Mark Harmer
Re: mp3 or lossless?
Is that a 1.5 TB drive plus a second one for backup Gary ?
# Posted on November 19th 2009 by David50
Re: mp3 or lossless?
What you could with liner notes, if you have a printer that has a scan function, is to scan them into a pdf file that you could store with the audio backup.
# Posted on November 19th 2009 by Trevor Jennings
Re: mp3 or lossless?
Or for a 'production line' rig something up with digital camera pointing downwards at a board with 'stops' glued on to register the liner against.
# Posted on November 19th 2009 by David50
Re: mp3 or lossless?
Interesting, but as with the science-vs-Strad discussion, there’s not enough real science there to conclude anything at all. Maybe the best we can say is that the differences are not immediately and overwhelmingly obvious to everybody. To do this sort of comparison correctly would be expensive and time-consuming, though not as much as the Strad-vs-fiddle comparison.
I’m a sucker for these articles about the woeful inadequacy of lossy audio formats or The Secret of the Strad. I’ll read and discuss every one I see, but is there really any value in them, beyond provoking discussion? When the experiment is not scientifically valid, neither are the conclusions. But bring on the next one.
Back before the age of digital audio, a friend of mine had a question for the audiophiles who spent thousands of dollars on boutique equipment: “Do you listen to the music or the equipment?”
# Posted on November 19th 2009 by Bob himself
Re: mp3 or lossless?
Is it largely a matter of "how much will you/we give up for the sake of convenience" ? Or is it a natural reluctance to lose something that can't be got back ?
# Posted on November 19th 2009 by David50
Re: mp3 or lossless?
The 1.5 TB drive is one copy of all my CDs. I'll get another one soon to use as a backup, so I don't have to rip them all again if it fails. But I'll keep the CDs, just in case.
# Posted on November 19th 2009 by GaryAMartin
Re: mp3 or lossless?
Gary, I admire your industry. I've started several digitization projects, but always got frustrated after a single weekend.
# Posted on November 19th 2009 by Bob himself
Re: mp3 or lossless?
This winter (like last winter) I hope to get all the vinyl onto the computer. That I will store in a lossless format because the options for cleaning it up will probably improve in the future. I think I can borrow a decent deck...
# Posted on November 19th 2009 by David50
Re: mp3 or lossless?
I have a decent deck and a decent phono amp, but I'm beginning to look seriously at those all-in-one products, just for the simplicity of operation. Old age confers an entitlement to laziness.
# Posted on November 19th 2009 by Bob himself
Re: mp3 or lossless?
Many studio CD sources have already been significantly compressed. Frank Zappa's Ryko discs, for instance, are disasters and hardly recognizable as the albums they are purported to be.. Many are now out of print, and thank goodness for that, Chunga's Revenge is the travesty which comes to mind first. I have some Columbia jazz CDs which were remastered in the early 90s and have artifacts all over them, in addition to showing signs of compression Who needs stuff like that and who cares if it's MP3 or lossless? Presumably you wouldn't want to compress it more, say below 320 kb/s but a lot of CD tracks are a problem right off the disc.
# Posted on November 19th 2009 by gravelwalks