Quality vs format, lossless vs lossy

[soulsurvivor5555]

I developed a rule....FLAC or SHN for everything except if you really want the recording and its only available in MP3 well then you take the mp3 and then begins the extensive search for the FLAC version.

CHARLIE

[univoxxer]

Originally Posted by rocdoc

now THIS ^ is the kind of information i was hoping this thread would bring to light...someone who knows wtf they're talking about explaining out the layers and sublayers of how these formats fit together.

i totally admit there's no doubt someone like aikowolf knows this stuff better than i do, and i am saying so while i post.
i am not trying to misinform....i WANT to be set straight on these things bottom line.

thank you univoxxer!



my pleasure, i think theres a fair bit of mis-info floating about in here, and i'd like to help straighten things out where i can

so flac is equivalent to wav and they are BOTH at the top of the heap.


for all intents and purposes, yes -- a FLAC is just a shipping container for a WAV, the FLAC contains the exact same audio as the WAV, just in squished form.


as far as top of the heap goes, theres higher/better ways of audio transfer, but AFAIK, theres no way to burn these to audio cd, only dvd.

would EAC also be equivalent to flac and wav?

unless theres something i've missed, EAC (Exact Audio Copy) is just a software for audio copy/transfer/etc. its capable of all sorts of stuff to show fidelity/exactness compared to original, so in some ways, a copy made with EAC is better in that one can punch out a lil pedigree for one's disc. however, if one is copying disc to WAV, i dont think that EAC offers any specific benefit, as a WAV created by Nero -- in theory -- should be the same thing punched out by EAC.


and where do wma files fit into this 'quality' picture?

i've gotten several things in wma, and some sure seem to be amazing-sounding especially when i know the rar or zip packages i dl'ed were pretty effing small compared to some huge-ass multiple-part flac'ed show.


i've only d'loaded a few WMA things, so i've not ever had the reason/motivation to chase down details --- sorry.



and wait, i've also seen flac's bitrate listed at what 410-420 kbps...IS that comparable in direct proportion to a lame vbr mp3 @ 320 => like 33% better sound with flac?

i know it doesnt work quite like that, but i'll pass this one on to a1ko in hopes that he can explain whats going on there.

[rocdoc]

a-ha, that's what eac does, puts those strings of codes together accompanying some flacs.

interesting that the flacheads (no offense) love that sort of verification of quality in black & white.
maybe because their ears have deteriorated (like mine definitely have!) over the years of listening to rock and roll?

you might not 'hear' perfectly, but 'by dingety, here's my eac files!'

the wma questions interests me because, for instance i've heard 40 kbps mp3s (like telesugarmegs does) which really sounded like shit, but several 40kbps wma shows that (to me) were like i'd recorded the cassette from FM myself.
there's a maria mckee show from hamburg (thanks kayaker!) at 96kbps wma that was incredibly sharp, but again i know i've got limitations given my tinnitus.

i'm guessing wma's got different qualities/algorithms than mp3.

since this so far has been sort of a flac-question clearing house, one more:

do so many flac-centered site use rapidshare (doing all those 6 to 12 part splits that drive me nuts) because they've shelled out for the 'premium' membership or is there a sort of 'scratch my back i'll scratch yours' they recieve for generating a greater usage for their services/circulation #s?

i've read people from different countires saying megaupload works badly for them...but, boy, in chicago, pulling down a 500 M show in one shot just takes maybe 20-25 minutes.

no 15 minute waits for steps 2 through 12 or anything.
if that's SO convenient, why aren't more sites going that route?

is it there's no 'reciprocation'? or not enough?
it does sound like politics dealing with 'circulation' by my best guess...and yeah, i understand it takes 'help' of all sorts to make something like this work.
s'all cool by me!

thanks for your help univoxxer!

[a1kow0lf]

EAC is a program, (Exact Audio Copy not exact File copy the audio is identical although the format is different), it originally ripped CD-A ( store bought Audio CD) files to WAV, the newest verion of EAC I am told will rip to FLAC also,
people include the eac log files to show no errors and that the copy is as the name implies, EXACT.

WMA is garbage. again back to any compressed format, when you go to burn that audio to CD the errors will be many, if you can even manage to burn it it a disk.
WMA does have a similiar frequency analysis as MP3's depending ion the bitrate of course, but when MP3 first came out ~10 years ago it did have a better sound overall than any WMA.
Sugarmegs WMA's were / are? not worth the small space it takes up.. very thinh and tiny sound, they were the pioneers in the industry of streaming/ dling boots, but technology has left them behind.

as far as RS vs Mega, well LB101 have no standars as to which to use, I personally use Mega for the convenience of larger files too, have had very few folks on that board in EU or elsewhere complain about ti..

[rocdoc]

i do have near-constant tinnitus from decades of over-voluming myself, so no, i cannot hear what i used to hear with serious clarity, but my firm belief is that a good to superior source material used for casual listening purposes (and mine are ALL 'casual') can surmount nearly the most dismal sampling bitrates.

and i'll generally pay no attention to even wanting to know the original bitrate, unless it totally sounds like shit, aside from it's age or an out of balance mix.

the 161 kbps wma's i burned to disc using nero, of several al dimeola shows i dl'd yesterday from the jazzfusion.tv site, sounded f*cking great in my office and then in my car.
yeah, my guess is that a lot at that site are from sugarmegs cos many are at 40 kbps.
those i nearly always pass on.
well, except for dimeola's calderone show which is 40 everywhere i've seen it.
but yesterday's shows honestly are not in any way thin or tinny at all.

nearly all of them were honkin' sbd shows, so that's a good start for hearing this sort of hyperkinetic fusionoid at the quality i received.

dimeola's percussive and alternately shrieking guitars and the crackling cymbal work, shit, i am a happy camper especially cos i ain't going to find minimum 50% of that guy's stuff anywhere else.

for most rock and roll, a music put together out of relatively harsh sounds anyway, i'm not so sure for my casual listenership, if it's truly gotta be 100% exact transfer.

and in many cases some crappy source, some crappy mix is being uploaded 100% exactly as crappy as it was.

there's got to be a sliding scale for what your ear accepts based on how it went on at the source OR, with a bad mix/source, if someone re-mixed the show after the fact like the great rv2 re-mix of the 1977 pink floyd oakland show.

i'm not looking to antagonize anyone, but i'm not looking to rule out any source as unlistenable until i actually hear it.
with what's left of my hearing, yeah.

i've gotten some wonderful mp3s and wma's but there've also been some horrible flac creations...along with the sweet ones.

[BegLooter]

Just stumbled on this thread and forum, and please excuse my rather long first post.

The original source recording: in this case it refers to the particular show being bootlegged, and this is where 'quality' really matters. The source has so many variables which can affect the sound recording - it's hard to cover everything within a few lines, but the quality will vary greatly due to some of the following examples: recording equipment used, recording media, soundboard setup, audience (venue/position/crowd).
The original recording (master) usually stays with person that made it, a direct copy/conversion to a more user friendly format then becomes the work source, and finally the 'distributable source'.
Take note that any audio conversion and/or compression format becomes irrelevant if the source material is poor, it doesn't matter if the best software, a 'lossless' format, or the best compression methods are used - if the source is poor, the bootleg will be poor. Of course if a poor recording is all that's available for a particular show, then it's take it or leave it, personally, if it's an artist that I like - I'll check out the show anyway (and be grateful for at least getting the chance to hear it).

WAV: The common distributable source format, this is mainly where the distributed bootleg originates. Due to the large sizes of WAV files some sort of compression is normally used to aid distribution on the net.

CD-DA: Basically a hard copy of the WAV source (generally on CDR), useful for your CD player and can be easily ripped as RAW or WAV if needed. Not an archive as such, but a backup nonetheless, and when cased with artwork can make a nice addition to any music library. If you are going to make CD-DA versions of a show, I'd recommend tracking down the best quality sources possible, especially if you go to the effort of labels and artwork.

FLAC: A revolutionary form of audio compression, perhaps not quite as revolutionary as MP3, but a fantastic way of archiving audio. If you really want a bootlegged show then FLAC is recommended because it'll be the download that is as close to the source as possible, it's compression also means it's going to be quicker to download than RAW data or WAV, but when decompressed the audio quality will be identical (or at least should be).

There are many formats out there, perhaps the other most common is SHN - which is an earlier form of lossless audio compression, and one I still use. Lossless audio in any format will always be defended by any serious bootleg collector, it's truer to the source material, it's normally the best quality that's generally available, but remember the original source defines the original 'quality'. Due to limitations with some players, lack of storage space, convenience, or whatever, a more generic form of compressed audio is required by some (perhaps even the majority of) end users, these compressed formats are commonly known as 'Lossy'.
The choice of lossy format really is down to personal preference, each have their own merits, each have their own flaws, but the end result of any lossy compressed audio is normally down to two things: 1 - Quality of source material, 2 - Encoding software and settings used. Here's some of the more common lossy formats:

MP3: What can I say?. Being the mainstream format - the choice and versatility of MP3 software is virtually limitless, but the glut of poorly encoded MP3 available on the net is turning more people towards other (including lossless) formats.

OGG: An Open source audio compression format, produces superior sound when compared to MP3 of similar small file size and low bitrates, quite often overlooked by the mainstream.

AAC: Mainly Apple's preferred choice for selling compressed audio online, being heavily commercially based the format can be quite restrictive when it comes to software versatility, but produces great sound quality for a lossy format.

WMA: Quite simply MicroSoft's attempt at bandwagon jumping, another lossy audio compression format that can yield results comparable to MP3, but nowhere near as versatile in terms of software availability and manipulation. What you get out of the box with your OS doesn't really cut it, with some freeware audio encoding software out there blowing the WMA format away quite easily.


So after all the rambling above what is best, Lossless or Lossy?. Again, it's all down to personal preference, what's better for one person doesn't make it better overall. if someone wants the recording to be as close to the source as possible they'll grab the FLAC (or similar lossless) version, if someone wants the recording and has limited resources they'll grab the MP3 (or similar lossy) version.
Personally I use quite a few formats, the bootlegs with superior quality are burnt to CD-DA (regardless of original format), all original files are archived (regardless of format), lossy format files also go to my portable player, decompressed lossless files are re-encoded to MP3 for my portable player.

I'm sure there'll be a few that will scrutinize what I've written above, agree with me, disagree with me, but please note this isn't meant to be the definitive rundown or anything like that, it's just my general overview and opinion about the topic.

[soulsurvivor5555]

Yes once you compress the FLAC or Wve to MP3 you have changes the physical structure of the file...It can not be then converted back. You can physically make your computer increase the size of the file by turning it back to a wave..but it won t matter..In short once you change wave to MP3 format you have permanently changed the file forever

CHARLIE

[irish]

That was a very interesting discussion,
I'm happy with the mp3 format though.
112 kbs joint stereo.

[David Kresge]

I wish someone could write an app that would allow flac files on an ipod.
I recently downloaded 90% of the original Woodstock show:
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/3425...tleg_Woodstock

It took 26 hours to download with fast DSL. I don't have time to convert the whole show.
It's great on the computer and has really high bit rates.

[Ziggz]

Originally Posted by David Kresge

I wish someone could write an app that would allow flac files on an ipod.

Depending on what model you have:

http://www.rockbox.org/

Apple: 1st through 5.5th generation iPod, iPod Mini and 1st generation iPod Nano
(not the Shuffle, 2nd/3rd/4th gen Nano, Classic or Touch)

[SENZA]

Wow I Wonder Who Gets All The Cash?????????????????

The Ads On The Blog Are Pathetic And Only Surpassed By The Rediculous Time Outs And Sams To Get A Subscription Fee Out You By Rapidshare And Megaupload.

I'll Never Share My Rare Bootlegs On This Pathetic Site..

What A Waste............

[Mlotek]

Originally Posted by SENZA

Wow I Wonder Who Gets All The Cash?????????????????

The Ads On The Blog Are Pathetic And Only Surpassed By The Rediculous Time Outs And Sams To Get A Subscription Fee Out You By Rapidshare And Megaupload.

I'll Never Share My Rare Bootlegs On This Pathetic Site..

What A Waste............

Does that mean you do not download from here also, since you will not share?