Hello, as you can see I'm a new user and I was just hoping to get a quick response or answer to my question at hand. I've been trying to find the best way to import cd's size/quality and I find that due to the low amount of cd's in my collection, I chose to use WAV lossless. For any other digitial acquirements in my music collection I chose 192kb/s LAME MP3 to be the best size/quality.
At the note of importing cd's as WAV, I'm on a Mac and I thought the best way to go about it was to import the AIFF files from a CD to Audacity and then export them as WAV. 8bit PCM seems to be the best in little size shrinkage but maintaining quality, but I have a problem.
When I export as WAV 8bit PCM in Audacity (v1.3.5), I get this background fuzzy noise like static in a way. It's pretty quiet, but can be heard during the quiet parts of the song when the song itself doesn't drown it out. Does anyone know of this problem and how to fix it? Any response or commentary is appreciated.
Thanks again for reading my post!
8bit PCM seems to be the best in little size shrinkage but maintaining quality
You mean you reduce from 16 bit to 8 to save space?
If this is the case I wouldn't be surprised at all if converting the 16 bit WAV to MP3 gives both a better sound quality and more compression.
Hello, as you can see I'm a new user and I was just hoping to get a quick response or answer to my question at hand. I've been trying to find the best way to import cd's size/quality and I find that due to the low amount of cd's in my collection, I chose to use WAV lossless. For any other digitial acquirements in my music collection I chose 192kb/s LAME MP3 to be the best size/quality.
At the note of importing cd's as WAV, I'm on a Mac and I thought the best way to go about it was to import the AIFF files from a CD to Audacity and then export them as WAV. 8bit PCM seems to be the best in little size shrinkage but maintaining quality, but I have a problem.
When I export as WAV 8bit PCM in Audacity (v1.3.5), I get this background fuzzy noise like static in a way. It's pretty quiet, but can be heard during the quiet parts of the song when the song itself doesn't drown it out. Does anyone know of this problem and how to fix it? Any response or commentary is appreciated.
Thanks again for reading my post!
You should be exporting as 16bit PCM (the same as CD audio).
Yes use EAC and rip the CD direct to WAV uncompressed.
maybe you have misunderstood which codec is wavpack?
Do you mean the PCM WAVE codec or WavPack?
When you want to go lossless, then use an efficient codec like wavpack, flac, tak or someone else (flac is mostly used, but wavpack and tak are also a good lossless codecs). This would save more space than PCM Wav 16 bit 1411 kbps (= CD Quality), and keep in mind that there's no loss in quality.
When you want to make your files smaller but keep lossless you won't get another solution. Note that your 16 bit to 8 bit reduction is lossy and not very efficient (large filesize and bad quality). A good alternative would be to go transparent lossy (for example wavpack lossy or lossy wav)
EDIT: I think Audacity shouldn't have problems with FLAC & wavpack when you use a direct show filter.
Thanks all of you for replying so quickly It really does help me with the project I wanted to get done today.
I am a new user and interested in the lossless quality, but some of you forget that I'm on a Mac and there is no EAC for Mac users (that I'm aware of).
Audacity does have a FLAC export, but the thing about FLAC is that it's not compatible with the things I need it to be (iTunes [there's probably a plug-in but...], iPod [no RockBox], and the PS3). That's why I resorted to WAV as it is compatible with all of those things (as far as I'm aware of, but if there are other means of getting lossless with compatibility then I am very open to those alternatives).
But some of you forget about the background noise I'm getting. What is that caused from (it plays in iTunes but not in Audacity) and how can I get rid of it?
Thank you again for helping me
Thanks all of you for replying so quickly It really does help me with the project I wanted to get done today.
I am a new user and interested in the lossless quality, but some of you forget that I'm on a Mac and there is no EAC for Mac users (that I'm aware of).
Audacity does have a FLAC export, but the thing about FLAC is that it's not compatible with the things I need it to be (iTunes [there's probably a plug-in but...], iPod [no RockBox], and the PS3). That's why I resorted to WAV as it is compatible with all of those things (as far as I'm aware of, but if there are other means of getting lossless with compatibility then I am very open to those alternatives).
But some of you forget about the background noise I'm getting. What is that caused from (it plays in iTunes but not in Audacity) and how can I get rid of it?
Thank you again for helping me
The background noise is caused by requantization from 16bit (i.e. what came off the CD) and 8bit. Therefore, output to 16bit WAV and then encode to FLAC if you want to keep the diskspace down while retaining lossless.
By doing that though defeats the purpose of compatibility but still retains the lossless. I can't have a FLAC file, as stated, due to it not being able to be played by iTunes, my iPod, and the PS3.
EDIT: Is there a way to evade that noise from requantization or is there no way to get a WAV file from CD without the noise?
Just in case it isn’t clear enough by now, 8 bit is inherently very noisy. You can not get rid of the noise. 8 bit is never a realistic consideration for quality audio.
Rip to Apple lossless
Rip to Apple lossless
Is that worse than WAV 16bit PCM in terms of quality/bit? And what format is that in? AIFF?
Again, the help this forum has delivered in the amount of time I've been a part of it have been absolutely overwhelming. For everyone that has posted to this topic, thank you. I find this to be one of the most helpful forums I've ever encountered.
There are 2 types of compression, lossless (like WinZip) and lossy like MP3.
AIFF= uncompressed 16 bit PCM
ALAC is like FLAC, lossless compression
Maybe this link is of use: http://thewelltemperedcomputer.com/SW/audio_formats.htmlml (http://thewelltemperedcomputer.com/SW/audio_formats.html)
Rip to Apple lossless
Is that worse than WAV 16bit PCM in terms of quality/bit? And what format is that in? AIFF?
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lossless (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lossless)
Loss less = No Loss = Same Quality
C.
@ Roseval [to quick for me!]
MP3 would be much better then 8 bit WAV or AIFF. Sounds like you should just be using MP3 if you're so concerned about space.
Both of you are quick. Thank you very much. I'm guessing that ALAC is the Apple Lossless file format, but I assume that that won't be compatible on the PS3.
ALAC is not compatible with the PS3, so denying the fact that WAV won't get me lossless quality, how can I get somewhat better quality than MP3 from WAV without the background noise? Will the 16bit have no noise at all?
EDIT: At that point, is it even worth it to convert to WAV to retain more quality than MP3? Here are the compatible music formats:
MP3
AAC
WAV
WMA
ALAC is not compatible with the PS3, so denying the fact that WAV won't get me lossless quality, how can I get somewhat better quality than MP3 from WAV without the background noise? Will the 16bit have no noise at all?
WAV is lossless as long as you don't do lossy things to it, like convert to 8 bit.
That's great, I'll test it and see if it has that background noise now.
EDIT: Using the iTunes WAV Importer I obviously wouldn't get noise so I'm asking this now before I attempt at importing an entire CD through Audacity
Is Audacity's WAV encoder better or worse than iTunes'? If there's a plug-in for iTunes than I would gladly accept any help on the matter
how can I get somewhat better quality than MP3 from WAV without the background noise?
What makes you think MP3 is worse in terms of perceptible audio quality?
C.
That's great, I'll test it and see if it has that background noise now.
EDIT: Using the iTunes WAV Importer I obviously wouldn't get noise so I'm asking this now before I attempt at importing an entire CD through Audacity
Is Audacity's WAV encoder better or worse than iTunes'? If there's a plug-in for iTunes than I would gladly accept any help on the matter
As I said before, WAV is lossless, so there is no "better or worse".
I apologize, my better or worse was referring to the amount of quality that was lost compared to MP3 which I know is regarded as a lossy format so I guess that answers my question.
Do any of you know about the WAV importer for iTunes and if it's regarded as the best or worst WAV encoder? If there are better, how can I (a Mac user) get my hands on it?
Thank you everyone again for your contribution.
I apologize, my better or worse was referring to the amount of quality that was lost compared to MP3 which I know is regarded as a lossy format so I guess that answers my question.
Do any of you know about the WAV importer for iTunes and if it's regarded as the best or worst WAV encoder? If there are better, how can I (a Mac user) get my hands on it?
Thank you everyone again for your contribution.
WAV created from CD does not require encoding. WAV of this type is signed 16bit, 44.1kHz, 2 channel audio (bitrate = 1411.2kbps).
You would be best using an ALAC encoder inside iTunes (I assume such a thing exists, I never use iTunes) and then transcode to whichever lossy format takes you fancy (or is compatible with your chosen player).
WAV straight from CD
does not lose quality, it is exactly the same as the CD. MP3 and other lossy codecs achieve compression using complex algorithms and characteristics of human hearing to reduce the amount of data to be stored.
Why do you suggest that I use the Apple Lossless and then convert to something else? What does that accomplish over just importing straight from the CD to that format? And if I do convert from CD to WAV, would that be the same as converting from CD to ALAC?
While I don’t know Macs, I do know that the general high interest in music has to mean there are quite a few DAE programs for that system. Digital Audio Extraction is the process of reading audio CD data onto a computer hard drive (the slang term ripping, or to rip, is frequently used for this process).
EAC is one of the favorite PC programs for this purpose. It can extract, which produces a WAV file, or it can extract, encode into various compressed formats, and automatically delete the WAV data it extracted. There are dozens of other PC programs, most freeware, that do the same extraction. There have to be many such programs for the Macintosh.
All these programs give identical results if the audio CD is in good condition. Programs such as EAC are only particularly more useful if the CD is in poor condition (aside from EACs great flexibility for on-the-fly encoding and other additional options not directly related to your particular interests).
Once you understand that you can transfer the contents of an audio CD to your hard drive, and that playback from the hard drive will be identical to playback from the CD (aside from the question of which hardware path the audio signal takes on its way to the speakers), you should be ready to make progress. Once the audio CD is on your hard drive, you can do anything you want in terms of encoding to compressed formats (lossy or lossless) or making changes to the audio, should that be your interest.
Why do you suggest that I use the Apple Lossless and then convert to something else?
To save space on your MAC;
What does that accomplish over just importing straight from the CD to that format?
I would assume that you would wish to keep a lossless copy of your CD rather than have to rip it again at a later date;
And if I do convert from CD to WAV, would that be the same as converting from CD to ALAC?
No - the ALAC file will be an ALAC file, however it will contain all of the information required to reconstruct your original WAV file. CD to WAV is half of the process. WAV's are generally considered to be too big for serious use as a music format. You need to encode your WAV file into another format (smaller), either lossless (ALAC, FLAC, Tak, Wavpack, etc) or lossy (MP3, AAC, OGG Vorbis, etc) for use in your player. Having a lossless copy means that you can, at a later date, transcode your "CD" into another lossy format.
Ah, I see. So you're saying the process of having lossless (ALAC) files stored for the fact of having the CD itself with no alterations on your hard drive and then convert that to MP3 for the common use of a music file.
Is it that the consensus of a WAV file is that it's too big and doesn't hold all the information that a ALAC file would? Because what I'm looking for isn't a storage of a CD on my hard drive, but a higher quality lossless file that isn't as big as the file on the CD which I've discovered isn't possible due to the fact that it's lossless. I will use WAV files to store my music as a common format of lossless because they seem to be the most compatible for the equipment I want to use.
Andy: Thank you for your suggestion. I have heard of EAC and I know it is emulated only on the Windows operating system, but I do have BootCamp and I can use Windows. The thing is, what reason is there to use EAC to convert to WAV if iTunes will do that as well? Does it hold a better compression rate or ratio or contain something that iTunes doesn't?
Just to confirm that you should probably rip your CDs with iTunes, set to Apple Lossless if you need to save space. Be sure to check "Use error correction when reading Audio CDs" in the Advanced/Importing preferences.
If you need to convert the files afterwards, I highly recommend XLD (http://tmkk.hp.infoseek.co.jp/xld/index_e.html). It's a simple drag and drop converting utility that features numerous output formats: AIFF, Wave, ALAC, FLAC, MP3, etc. The developer is about to release a new version that adds WavPack and Wave64.
XLD is optimized for multi-processors/cores, so be sure to specify the number of processors/cores your computer has in XLD's "Maximum #Threads" preference.
- Kewl
I think you mean number of cores, but regardless, thank you very much for the tip and I look forward to using this tool. Now, what is WavPack and Wave64? Are they better encoders of the WAV audio file format?
I think you mean number of cores, but regardless, thank you very much for the tip and I look forward to using this tool. Now, what is WavPack and Wave64? Are they better encoders of the WAV audio file format?
Once again, I'd like you to understand that it is not possible to have a "better encoder" for WAV. WAV isn't even encoded, its just a bit by bit copy of the data stream stored on the CD stuck behind a header that identifies how the stream is stored. Thats why its so gigantic. The reason people use FLAC, ALAC, or whatever is because they actually compress the file to save space.
Thank you for the elaboration and patience you've shown, I now understand the difference between WAV and ALAC.
I've stated the reason why I can't use ALAC and have resorted to WAV for my lossless music, however you've now told me that ALAC will actually save space (by how much I don't know). What alternative do I have for a compatible (iTunes, iPod, PS3) lossless file then? Is WAV the only one?
Now, what is WavPack and Wave64? Are they better encoders of the WAV audio file format?
A quick search will answer many of your questions:
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=WavPack (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=WavPack)
http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/nbbw.cgi?Gw=Wave64 (http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/nbbw.cgi?Gw=Wave64)
C.
Thank you very much. I've been in the slew of asking on this forum as replies have been very quick and helpful. In the future though I'll start looking for my own answers, I just have a few more questions.
Is WAV the only compatible lossless file I can use with the equipment I so desire?
Here are the compatible music formats:
MP3
AAC
WAV
WMA
Looks that way.
Just to reiterate what Mike Giacomelli said, AFAIK the term lossless is used to refer to encodings, and since WAV "isn't even encoded, its just a bit by bit copy of the data stream" it isn't normally referred to as lossless.
I still don't understand why you can't encode to ALAC (which is lossless) and then transcode to MP3 or AAC (which are compatible with your equipment) because at decent bitrates it's very unlikely that you'll perceive the difference between the lossy encoding and the original WAV.
C.
EDIT:
1) 1 min 16 bit WAV file = 10MB
2) Encoded to Lossless (like ALAC) = 4.85MB *
3) Encoded to MP3 LAME 3.98 -V2 (Lossy) = 1.43 MB *
a) I can't hear the difference between 1, 2 and 3
b) Having both a lossless and lossy version (2 + 3) is still using a 2/3 the disk space of the WAV file.
* Note: filesizes will vary depending on the music, but the point is still the same.
I think you mean number of cores, but regardless, thank you very much for the tip and I look forward to using this tool.
Actually, both are right. There are computers with multi-processors (like my eight years old PowerMac G4) and there are computers with single processor that features multi-cores, like the ones found on recent iMacs, Mac Books and Mac Book Pros.
- Kewl
Just to reiterate what Mike Giacomelli said, AFAIK the term lossless is used to refer to encodings, and since WAV "isn't even encoded, its just a bit by bit copy of the data stream" it isn't normally referred to as lossless.
I still don't understand why you can't encode to ALAC (which is lossless) and then transcode to MP3 or AAC (which are compatible with your equipment) because at decent bitrates it's very unlikely that you'll perceive the difference between the lossy encoding and the original WAV.
C.
EDIT:
1) 1 min 16 bit WAV file = 10MB
2) Encoded to Lossless (like ALAC) = 4.85MB *
3) Encoded to MP3 LAME 3.98 -V2 (Lossy) = 1.43 MB *
a) I can't hear the difference between 1, 2 and 3
b) Having both a lossless and lossy version (2 + 3) is still using a 2/3 the disk space of the WAV file.
* Note: filesizes will vary depending on the music, but the point is still the same.
This helps an enormous amount. Now, your reason in encoding to ALAC is so that it's a backup of the CD itself but in a version of data on my computer, so that if I want to listen to the exact music of the cd I can at any given time I assume? And that WAV itself is a spacewaster and is very close in detail (no difference perceivable) to LAME MP3?
I hope I'm understanding what you have stated because from what I see, if I have the CD and I want a digital copy of it that's compatible with virtually everything, MP3 Lame is the way to go?
Yeah, precisely.
In addition if you backup to ALAC, and say sometime in the future you find you want to use a device that doesn't support MP3 (that's going to take a long time!) but instead does support AAC; you can just transcode once more from the lossless ALAC to AAC. Easy. Whereas if you only encoded to MP3 then you'd have to re-rip your CDs again to avoid transcoding from lossy (MP3) to lossy (AAC), which is NOT good, as this process degrades audio quality.
Hope that helps.
C.
So WAV is the only compatible format across all spectrums for lossless if that's what I want to play, but due to the fact that there's not much perceivable difference between WAV and highly encoded MP3 (I'm set at 190, but I'm guessing an audiophile's standard is around 210 or so?) then there's no point in having a lossless file for playback, but only for backup?
The only reason for using lossy would be that "not much perceivable" difference for a smaller file. With such large hard drives available today you could save your CD to WAV no problem. You could also use WAV on your portable digital music player with NO loss of quality. Depending on how many songs you want to carry around on the portable you may find you don't need compressed files.
If you do want compressed for the portable I would recommend mp3 at it's highest bit rate 320 or that Apple AAC at highest bit rate.
cheers
I'd say a properly compressed lossless archive plus a lossy one for hardware compatibility (let's say WavPack plus AAC or MP3) can still beat the size of an uncompressed WAV equivalent.
Also, lossless files, like WavPack encoded ones, can be properly tagged with ReplayGain values and album art to boot.
Give lossless a try, dude ;-) !
The only reason for using lossless would be that "not much perceivable" difference for a smaller file. With such large hard drives available today you could save your CD to WAV no problem. You could also use WAV on your portable digital music player with NO loss of quality. Depending on how many songs you want to carry around on the portable you may find you don't need compressed files.
If you do want compressed for the portable I would recommend mp3 at it's highest bit rate 320 or that Apple AAC at highest bit rate.
cheers
What kind of advice are you giving? Do you need to read *this precise thread* again? or you wrote "lossless" when you wanted to write "lossy"?
Anyway, using .wav is not that much advisable, especially if you only want to listen to it, or have a backup. It simply doesn't have advantages in those scenarios.
' date='May 26 2008, 12:22' post='567348']
Anyway, using .wav is not that much advisable, especially if you only want to listen to it, or have a backup. It simply doesn't have advantages in those scenarios.
Well, the thing is, again, the only lossless file that's compatible with the PS3 seems to be WAV and those are my restrictions. Why are so many people against WAV if it's lossless? I don't mind the fact that's it's not compressed because my CD collection isn't all that admirable either. Granted I do want to increase the size of it, I don't have any alternatives to get lossless files on my PS3. I guess I could just convert those to MP3 as needed.
If that's the case, I'll probably go with Apple Lossless (ALAC?) for my backup from CD then. What other lossless files are compatible with iTunes/iPod? (without Rockbox/Plug-ins, I don't feel like modding today).
ALAC + MP3 sounds sensible.
The reason people choose Lossless encodes over WAV is:
a) because they are approx. half the size
b) they are identical in terms of sound quality
c) you can reconstruct (decode them and produce) a WAV file that is bit for bit identical to the source WAV file
d) they can be tagged - and this is a big deal, because if you properly tag your lossless archive you only ever have to tag your files once, since when you transcode from lossless to a lossy format like MP3 the tags should be transferred from the tagged lossless to the lossy (e.g. MP3) output (that's certainly the case with foobar2000, don't know about MAC alternatives, sorry).
That saves a lot of extra tagging. WAV files can't hold ID3 or APE tags or Vorbis Comments (the 3 main tagging formats).
[EDIT]
I should add that I don't agree with skizman that "mp3 at it's highest bit rate 320 or that Apple AAC at highest bit rate" is a good solution.
1) 320 kbps is unnecessary, overkill and wasteful.
2) At moderate to high bitrates AAC loses its advantage (AAC is better < 128 kbps).
3) MP3 is the most compatible audio format.
4) I'd recommend VBR LAME 3.98b8 MP3 at anywhere between -V4 and -V0 (highest). If you can hear any difference between these settings and the WAV I'd be surprised. Best thing to do is try it out.
[/EDIT]
C.
I actually do have my LAME 3.97 settings @ -q2 VBR Target 245kbps (those are the highest settings in XLD). I know that I won't be able to tell a difference between ALAC and that LAME MP3, so I don't see any reason to bother storing lossless files other than to tell myself that I'm a starting audiophile. *begin rant*
The reason people have said to store them are so that I have a digital copy of a CD that's exact in quality, and that when I do need a lossy file to be compatible with all my media I should just create an MP3 from that. The thing is, I need that lossy file to be compatible with all my media. I have no reason for an ALAC file other than storage, and that storage is costly.
I have a Laptop with an external backup, so I have all the room in the world to store my music. I do only have a 4GB iPod however and thoroughly enjoy having a small size iPod, reason being it's much easier to search through what music I want to listen to on-the-go rather than search for ages of what I'd like to listen to in my own music. I will probably upgrade to an 8GB after another year's use (it's 1year old), but until that time my iPod is cramped as is. Why have a lossless file for storage when the difference is excruciatingly small? I have my CD's, and when I have a media player with the storage I may change - but my ears aren't trained enough yet.
Personally, it's a lot of work to tell myself that I have a exact copy of a song and another copy of that song with a minuscule amount of difference. I know that as I type this, I'm offending hoards of people on this board but I thought I might as well get my opinion out as it is.
On that note, how many of you think there's a extreme difference between 246kbps VBR LAME MP3 and an ALAC file? My headphones that I thoroughly enjoy are the Sony MDR-V6.
In Constant Bit Rate mode (CBR), XLD can go as high as 320 kbps.
- Kewl
In Constant Bit Rate mode (CBR), XLD can go as high as 320 kbps.
- Kewl
Isn't that potential overkill? And why CBR @ 320 over VBR? I know CBR may not have enough bits for the intensive parts or have too many for the quiet parts while VBR uses the appropriate amount for both.
...and that storage is costly.
If you go with the suggestion of ripping your CD's to both ALAC and MP3 I'm pretty sure it'll actually take up less space than ripping to WAV files.
I may be wrong but VBR probably doesn't go over 320 at intensive parts of music.