Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Ripping Mono Beatles CDs (Read 16688 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ripping Mono Beatles CDs

Reply #25 –
Quote from: ntm on
Would it make more sense to end up with a 24 bit file to salvage the extra information we get from combining the channels?

I'll just take one channel and discard the other one completely. Going through the trouble of combining the two and dithering and upsampling and whatnot would be borderline insane

Ripping Mono Beatles CDs

Reply #26 –
Y'all are forgetting about lossyWAV which makes for a pretty potent tool when combined with downmix to mono

Code: [Select]
2009_mono.flac:                              543kbps
2009_mono_mono.flac 24 bit:                  516kbps
2009_mono_mono.lossy.flac 24 bit --standard: 270kbps

Ripping Mono Beatles CDs

Reply #27 –
Quote from: skamp on
Quote from: ntm on
Would it make more sense to end up with a 24 bit file to salvage the extra information we get from combining the channels?

I'll just take one channel and discard the other one completely. Going through the trouble of combining the two and dithering and upsampling and whatnot would be borderline insane
I'd agree, but since you can set all of that as DSPs in dBpoweramp, I don't mind if it's possible to capture extra information. It's no harder to add a couple extra stages of processing.

I'm just loving this program. Forget EAC...IMO this is essential for codec management and being able to easily rip and transcode lossless files. Well worth the price (and the multiple CPU support is SWEET!

Ripping Mono Beatles CDs

Reply #28 –
Quote from: ntm on
Would it make more sense to end up with a 24 bit file to salvage the extra information we get from combining the channels?

Doesn't that pretty much negate the already slim space savings you wanted to get, by not ripping to 2-ch "mono" (lossless copies from the original)?

Ripping Mono Beatles CDs

Reply #29 –
Quote from: andy o on
Quote from: ntm on
Would it make more sense to end up with a 24 bit file to salvage the extra information we get from combining the channels?

Doesn't that pretty much negate the already slim space savings you wanted to get, by not ripping to 2-ch "mono" (lossless copies from the original)?
You'd only have 17 real bits - flac should encode the remaining 7 zeros efficiently.

It's annoying how inefficient lossless coding of 24-bits is - because most of the extra bits are noise and hence unpredictable.

Cheers,
David.

Ripping Mono Beatles CDs

Reply #30 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
You'd only have 17 real bits - flac should encode the remaining 7 zeros efficiently.

It's annoying how inefficient lossless coding of 24-bits is - because most of the extra bits are noise and hence unpredictable.

Cheers,
David.
I'm not getting what you mean here; you said "flac should encode the remaining 7 zeros efficiently" but then said 24-bit lossless encoding is inefficient. 

I guess I could experiment for myself to see what size difference there is.  What process would be best for getting the 17 bits?  Convert to 24 bit, combine the two channels in a 50/50 mix and keep it at 24 bit?  Or would more extensive editing be necessary?

Ripping Mono Beatles CDs

Reply #31 –
I think he meant that encoding of true 24 bit files, where those extra bits are real, non-zero data (mostly or entirely noise), that the lossless encoder wastes a lot of space encoding them. Pre-processing with lossywav would solve that problem. 
 

Ripping Mono Beatles CDs

Reply #32 –
well my point was that, is it worth to go through all that process and get a 17-bit file, and will that file still be sufficiently smaller that it warrants such process for space-saving, over the identical-to-original two-channel mono 16-bit files?