Audio Format Transcoding for Compatibility? 64
brandorf asks: "With the multitude of compressed audio formats that are available today, (MP3, Ogg, AAC, and FLAC to name very few) our music libraries start to spread across quite a few different formats. While this isn't a problem for desktop/media PC use, as programs like Winamp or iTunes have plugins available for almost every format. However, when it's time to start using a portable unit, it's unavoidable that some files will get transcoded. Have there been any studies or experiments as to how similar the codecs really are? Will transcoding from Format A to B sound worse than going from A to C? What's your experience with this?"
Hydrogen Audio have tested this (Score:5, Informative)
The site insists on proper ABX tests too, not some thirteen olds insisting they can tell the difference between FLAC and Monkey's Audio codecs.
Re:Hydrogen Audio have tested this (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm twenty-one, and I can tell the difference: FLAC is GPLed, Monkey's Audio is not.
Re:Hydrogen Audio have tested this (Score:2, Insightful)
Myabe when you're thirty-one, you'll *really* be able to tell the difference.
Re:Hydrogen Audio have tested this (Score:4, Insightful)
WavPack [wavpack.com] is another nice lossless BSD-licensed codec, which is more advanced in some respects, if not as well supported.
Re:Hydrogen Audio have tested this (Score:1)
Re:Hydrogen Audio have tested this (Score:1)
I kind of liked Lisa's rendition of "Jazz Man" (which she did with "Bleeding Gums" Murphy shortly before and after his death), and although the only sound that Maggie makes is thumb-sucking, I don't consider that to be either "good" or "bad".
If you're that concerned... (Score:4, Insightful)
lossy != bad (Score:1)
Re:lossy != bad (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:lossy != bad (Score:2, Insightful)
That statement makes no sense whatsoever. Just digitally adjusting the volume down a little on your recording is "lossy" coding, since you can't recover the original signal from the reduced volume signal. Does that sound worse? I don't think so.
The point is: if you set the bitrate for a lossy codec high enough, you won't hear a difference. If you set it even higher, you won't he
Re:lossy != bad (Score:2)
I'm sorry, I use LAME and the reference vorbis libraries for encoding. There is NO influence on the part of the sound card of the output signal; that's all software.
Do you even know how MP3's work? They look at a wave, and try and identify series of waves that "mask" other series of waves when pr
Re:lossy != bad (Score:1)
It can work arbitrarily well, depending on the bitrate. A good codec doesn't throw out coefficients if it doesn't need to. So, if you set the bitrate high enough, then it will code all the coefficients and you shouldn't hear any difference (even though the output may still not be bit-identic
Re:lossy != bad (Score:2)
It's not that I'm not affected by masking -- it's that everyone is affected by masking slightly differently. Also, particularly in lower frequencies, there are often frequencies that you may not hear, but you will feel. For instance, the range I have the most trouble with is the male human vocal range; if there are two people speaking in my vicinity simultaneously, even if they are at different le
Re:lossy != bad (Score:2)
With Harddrives so cheap I would be tempted to rip everything to FLAC and then convert to ogg or MP3 for my portable player.
Re:lossy != bad (Score:2, Informative)
Re:lossy != bad (Score:2)
But if you set the bitrate sufficiently high that you don't have to worry about distortion, you're getting close to the file size you would get with lossless compression. With the huge amounts of cheap storage and high network bandwidth we now have, for most purposes I see no point in messing around with lossy audio compression.
Quality Loss (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Quality Loss (Score:1)
Re:Quality Loss (Score:5, Insightful)
Run a green, felt-tipped pen around the outside of the wax cylinder. It will restore the low frequencies lost from vinyl. I would describe the restored sound as quite earthy, rather than airy though. If airy is what you're going for, I suggest making make two light applications of green felt-tipped marker, rather than one heavy one. This however, could result in very cinnamon flavored mids and highs though, so be careful. In a pinch, you could use a black felt-tipped pen, but don't just use any old Sharpie. Use something really expensive, preferably immediately after writing a page of taoist scriptures on parchment paper. Northern taoist is fine, but southern taoist would be better, especially if you listen to a lot of jazz. Unless it's smooth jazz. Oh, and insulate yourself with 24K gold arch supports before trying any of this, otherwise the earth's own vibrations could mellow your high frequencies, resulting in distinctly cedar-flavored vocals.
Re:Quality Loss (Score:2)
Transcode? Junk in, junk out (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Transcode? Junk in, junk out (Score:1, Informative)
As long as your original is in a lossless format, then you can transcode to a lossy format (like MP3, AAC, or OGG) for portable players without excessive degradation.
Re:Hasn't this been asked a thousand times already (Score:3, Informative)
No, RTFA. I'll give you a little clue: read the bit about A to B and A to C.
Just an FYI (Score:5, Insightful)
Simply put, each format has different criteria on what information is thrown away and what is not. Thus, for example, something that MP3 may keep but AAC throws away will not be present if you transcode from AAC to MP3, IN ADDITION to losing anything that AAC keeps but MP3 throws away. The same holds true in reverse.
Better answers please... (Score:2)
But still, on a theoretical level, the question IS interesting. The hydrogenaudio link above only compares very few codecs, and I'd especially like to hear more about codecs I am forced to use (like WMA or RA), since all OGG etc. files I've got are encoded by myself, and I would have had the chance to encode to the desired target format right away.
On a somewhat related note,
FLAC, ALE, etc. are the way to go (Score:5, Funny)
Also, it will get you laid.
Love, your hard drive manufacturer.
easy.. (Score:3)
Since I don't own a few terabytes.... (Score:1)
Re:Since I don't own a few terabytes.... (Score:1)
Aim high (Score:2)
Re:Aim high (Score:2)
Why not just keep lossless copies? (Score:4, Interesting)
Hard drive space is plentiful. Just rip everything to a lossless format, such as FLAC, or even .wav or .aiff if you can't be bothered with the hassle, then make a convenient shell script to convert everything into another format as and when required. That way, you get the best sounding MP3s or Ogg Vorbis files with none of the bad side effects of transcoding, and as soon as any given codec is improved or replaced by a better one, you won't have to worry about not taking advantage of the shiny new algorithms.
Re:Why not just keep lossless copies? (Score:1, Insightful)
A WAV file is about 10 times bigger than your average mp3, and lossless encoding can get down to about 5 times bigger. So taking a purely hypothetical Music directory of say 32.4 GB (no really, i've listened to
Hard drive space suddenly doesn't look quite so plentiful, even for music collections of a saner size.
Some Rigor... (Score:2)
I assume that most of your recordings are music (vs. spoken words or whale songs.). Where are you getting the files from? If you are encoding them yourself, then pick FLAC if you've got the space. Lossless will guarantee that you don't get artifacts, at the expense of storage space. If are ripping from CD, you'll want to have as high a quality as possible - unless you have a small collection, you won't want to go through the ripping process several times. I
Whats the unix equivalent of a green felt tip pen? (Score:2)
I have a load of AAC from iTunes (ok, pymusique, thanks chaps) and I'm havinga hard time getting mencoder or something to convert them to mp3.
I know its a doddle and I'm looking in the wrong place, so it would be nice to see what command line tools (and spells of tools) folk are using to transcode?
Sam
videophile-friendly transcoders? (Score:2)
Re:videophile-friendly transcoders? (Score:2)
Audiophiles.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Audiophiles.. (Score:2)
That is fine for you. I would save lots of money, time, and effort if I was content with listening to low quality MP3s on crappy PC speakers.
I however, do not use crappy PC speakers, and I can and have been able to tell the difference between a late 90s or newer studio recording that was encoded to MP3 on my stereo that a friend brought over, and my friend and roommate asked "How can you tell it
Re:Audiophiles.. (Score:1)
Re:Audiophiles.. (Score:2)
This is probably because I've damaged my hearing already. The way I carry on I'll be deaf by 40 ;-)
Dictionary/Cookbook of command-line encoding tools (Score:2)
Doing the shorter clips was the hardest part, though I know it applies to very few people, hopefully you'll find it useful.
Highly-compressed non-lossy (Score:2)