Skip to main content
Topic: Data on 320CBR vs LOSSLESS (Read 2420 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Data on 320CBR vs LOSSLESS

Hi,

I have been looking around on the forum, but not really found any conclusive answer.

What are the blind test results for 320CBR lossy vs FLAC?

Has there been anybody who has been able to tell the difference?


Data on 320CBR vs LOSSLESS

Reply #2
What are the blind test results for 320CBR lossy vs FLAC?


Probably not dramatically different than at lower bitrates given that most formats are transparent well before then.

Has there been anybody who has been able to tell the difference?


On some samples, sure.


Thanks for the response.

I am just trying to standardise bitrates for my music library. It's all mixed ranging from 192 to 320 to FLAC. Is 320kbps CBR a good choice?

Data on 320CBR vs LOSSLESS

Reply #3
I am just trying to standardise bitrates for my music library.


Don't.

There is no reward to doing so other than itching at a compulsive urge which is best left alone.

By all means replace any audio rips with audible flaws with better ones, but address objective problems such as that, not meaningless numbers which tell one very very little of the quality of the file.
Creature of habit.

Data on 320CBR vs LOSSLESS

Reply #4
Quote
Thanks for the response.

I am just trying to standardise bitrates for my music library. It's all mixed ranging from 192 to 320 to FLAC. Is 320kbps CBR a good choice?

If you're looking to standardize, keep everything you can in FLAC and transcode to a target device. Anything you have in lossy format, leave it that way.

 

Data on 320CBR vs LOSSLESS

Reply #5
Quote
Thanks for the response.

I am just trying to standardise bitrates for my music library. It's all mixed ranging from 192 to 320 to FLAC. Is 320kbps CBR a good choice?

If you're looking to standardize, keep everything you can in FLAC and transcode to a target device. Anything you have in lossy format, leave it that way.


Gotta agree here.  Keep it in FLAC to give you the freedom to transcode to anything in the future.

Data on 320CBR vs LOSSLESS

Reply #6
Quote
Thanks for the response.

I am just trying to standardise bitrates for my music library. It's all mixed ranging from 192 to 320 to FLAC. Is 320kbps CBR a good choice?

If you're looking to standardize, keep everything you can in FLAC and transcode to a target device. Anything you have in lossy format, leave it that way.


Gotta agree here.  Keep it in FLAC to give you the freedom to transcode to anything in the future.


Problem is I use itunes and it doesn't have native support for FLAC. And ALAC is annoying, I guess I will stick to 320cbr

thanks!

Data on 320CBR vs LOSSLESS

Reply #7
Problem is I use itunes and it doesn't have native support for FLAC. And ALAC is annoying, I guess I will stick to 320cbr

Out of curiosity, what is annoying about ALAC?


Data on 320CBR vs LOSSLESS

Reply #9
If you insist on ripping with iTunes you can always, in an automated and unattended manner, batch-convert ALAC to FLAC if "universal" is your goal.  Obviously that breaks iTunes playback, but if that is desired ALAC should be welcomed.
Creature of habit.

Data on 320CBR vs LOSSLESS

Reply #10
Quote
Thanks for the response.

I am just trying to standardise bitrates for my music library. It's all mixed ranging from 192 to 320 to FLAC. Is 320kbps CBR a good choice?

If you're looking to standardize, keep everything you can in FLAC and transcode to a target device. Anything you have in lossy format, leave it that way.


Gotta agree here.  Keep it in FLAC to give you the freedom to transcode to anything in the future.


Problem is I use itunes and it doesn't have native support for FLAC. And ALAC is annoying, I guess I will stick to 320cbr

thanks!

Are you using Windows or Mac? If using Windows, stick with FLAC for an archive, transcode to something lossy for usage in iTunes. Done. Heck, same thing on Mac.

I know iTunes is a fairly nice player, and manages moving music to iDevices smoothly as well; keep it that way. For the love of all that is holy in music, keep your sources lossless. Seriously. I started on this quest back when Dibrom created this site years ago after a falling out at r3mix and made mistakes along the way with ripping/archiving/etc. Above all else, I learned to keep it lossless.

Backing up a bit, are you embarking on a ripping project?

Data on 320CBR vs LOSSLESS

Reply #11
Hi,

I have been looking around on the forum, but not really found any conclusive answer.

What are the blind test results for 320CBR lossy vs FLAC?

Has there been anybody who has been able to tell the difference?


Yes, on very limited source material, and it's still not easy.  Unless you listen to complex orchestral music, I wouldn't worry about it.  Archiving in lossless is still probably a good idea.

Data on 320CBR vs LOSSLESS

Reply #12
Hi,

I have been looking around on the forum, but not really found any conclusive answer.

What are the blind test results for 320CBR lossy vs FLAC?

Has there been anybody who has been able to tell the difference?


Yes, on very limited source material, and it's still not easy.  Unless you listen to complex orchestral music, I would t worry about it.  Archiving in lossless is still probably a good idea.



I don't think 'complex orchestral music' is typically what breaks 320 kbps mp3


Data on 320CBR vs LOSSLESS

Reply #13
Hi,

I have been looking around on the forum, but not really found any conclusive answer.

What are the blind test results for 320CBR lossy vs FLAC?

Has there been anybody who has been able to tell the difference?


Yes, on very limited source material, and it's still not easy.  Unless you listen to complex orchestral music, I would t worry about it.  Archiving in lossless is still probably a good idea.



I don't think 'complex orchestral music' is typically what breaks 320 kbps mp3


What does?  This author was able to distinguish MP3 from FLAC on Shostakovich's Symphony No. 1:

http://www.head-fi.org/t/431522/abx-test-o...vs-flac-results

It might be interesting to see this test repeated with newer/different encoders, but storage and processing for transcoding to mobile has gotten so cheap that it really doesn't matter.

Data on 320CBR vs LOSSLESS

Reply #14
Hi,

I have been looking around on the forum, but not really found any conclusive answer.

What are the blind test results for 320CBR lossy vs FLAC?

Has there been anybody who has been able to tell the difference?


Yes, on very limited source material, and it's still not easy.  Unless you listen to complex orchestral music, I would t worry about it.  Archiving in lossless is still probably a good idea.



I don't think 'complex orchestral music' is typically what breaks 320 kbps mp3


What does?  This author was able to distinguish MP3 from FLAC on Shostakovich's Symphony No. 1:

http://www.head-fi.org/t/431522/abx-test-o...vs-flac-results


It might be interesting to see this test repeated with newer/different encoders, but storage and processing for transcoding to mobile has gotten so cheap that it really doesn't matter.


 

If you look at the 'killer samples' that have been used by coded developers to tune lossy codecs because they produced audible artifacts, 'complex orchestral music' is not at all a general theme.   

Solo harpsichord and solo castanets are two examples that spring to mind.


See discussion before and after this post, too

https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...st&p=800625

Data on 320CBR vs LOSSLESS

Reply #15
As a genre, metal is fairly well represented on this forum, though maybe it's simply due to the personal tastes of the critical listeners submitting ABX logs.  "Complex orchestral music," not so much.  There are quite a few posts indicating that people tend to believe (that is to say in a predominantly religious sense) that classical music is somehow too good for lossy compression, though.  To me it seems similar to the idea that high-end equipment is required and have a feeling that there is a huge overlap in the camps espousing these two.

Guruboolez has posted quite a few logs of classical pieces, though.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019