PDA

View Full Version : mp3/lossless question for audiophiles...


Forgot
2007-06-05, 12:00 PM
Can anyone actually HEAR any quality difference between a shn original file and high bitrate mp3 convert?

i don't mean "loss of data within human hearing range"... i know data are lost... what i'm asking is whether the lost IN QUALITY is perceivable....

i just converted a bunch of shn files to mp3, and on my 5 bucks speaker, i can just barely hear enough difference to know that they're not the same, but that's only if i put the speaker right on my ear and play it with very low volume...

if i have to say,short of living in a sound proof chamber, the humming from an average computer probably spoils the sound more than than the conversion from shn to mp3... either that or i happen to be deaf in those frequencies lost during the conversion.

AAR.oner
2007-06-05, 12:19 PM
yes

of course, you are asking "audiophiles", who i guarantee aren't listening on 5 dollar speakers, nor on the computer

Five
2007-06-05, 01:06 PM
about every month there's a thread about mp3 saying "I can't hear the diff!!", well most average ppl can't and that's why this is a rare site.

there's another issue with encoding where if any small change needs to be made to the mp3 audio including simply retracking it you have to double-compress it, then it gets burned to a disc and extracted while playing cpu-intense video games adding some crackes, then re-encoded to mp3 by another guy (triple-compressed) and so on and so on.

go find some of the other threads with "mp3" in the title and you'll see endless discussions on this, or just repeat to yourself "no mp3 at ttd" and you'll sleep better at night.

Five
2007-06-05, 01:10 PM
(484.06 MB/0.00 KB/0.00) that can't be correct, can it? :hmm:

U2Lynne
2007-06-05, 01:30 PM
or just repeat to yourself "no mp3 at ttd" and you'll sleep better at night.
:roflol:

I can definitely hear the difference in my car when I play a lossless CDR vs a CDR made from high bitrate mp3s. I can't tell much of a difference on my computer though.
(484.06 MB/0.00 KB/0.00) that can't be correct, can it? :hmm:
Sure it could be. He probably hopped on a torrent where there was a seeder or two but no other leechers, so he only downloaded. Hopefully he stays connected so if another leecher comes along, he can payback the favor by seeding it for the new guy.

Forgot
2007-06-05, 04:03 PM
(484.06 MB/0.00 KB/0.00)

yeah that's right, it's my first download on this site and there was one seeder, and i am the only one downloading...

Five
2007-06-05, 04:16 PM
oh, I see

you should open it up again that or else make up the diff on another torrent

no obligation its just a nice thing to do... probably nobody's gonna jump on if they don't see that you're ready to seed to them.

KoolKat
2007-06-05, 05:30 PM
I still know people who can't tell the difference from vinyl and CD :lol
Even playing the same track on respective players & flicking 1 to other for comparison
True

K_K

CosmicCharlie
2007-06-05, 08:20 PM
I am not that bad off lol But I am going deaf in my left ear so I can't hear the difference. But just incase I magicaly get my hearing back (haven't in 20 years lol) I leave them the way I download them when I listen on my PC . But I do understand why NOT to trade the mp3's .. That is just common sense :p lol But wanted to actually make a post now that I seem to have more free time now lol

spiritinaphoto
2007-06-05, 09:14 PM
I am not that bad off lol But I am going deaf in my left ear so I can't hear the difference. But just incase I magicaly get my hearing back (haven't in 20 years lol) I leave them the way I download them when I listen on my PC . But I do understand why NOT to trade the mp3's .. That is just common sense :p lol But wanted to actually make a post now that I seem to have more free time now lol
Post whoring in Technobabble...love it! :D

Anyway, back to the person who started this thread, one more voice to say keep your mp3s to yourself--never pollute the trading pool by distributing them...those who can tell the difference won't be pleased if you do!

(Can we have a sticky in here on the lossy/lossless debate so this crap doesn't recur every month or so?)

Five
2007-06-06, 12:55 AM
great idea

AAR.oner
2007-06-06, 06:12 AM
or just repeat to yourself "no mp3 at ttd" and you'll sleep better at night.

all last night, there were these swishy, muddied little voices in my head repeating "no mp3 at ttd"

damn you mp3!!!!!!!!!!


;) :lol

paddington
2007-06-06, 07:25 AM
what is an "mp3"? Is that like an 8 track cartridge? Or one of those wax cylinders? Wax cylinders are VERY lossy, you know... :nono:

Audioarchivist
2007-06-06, 09:59 AM
What is an mp3? I think it's really spelled eMPty3. Everyone gets it wrong. :D



Before they invented magnetic tape to record on, they recorded onto spools of wire. No joke.

Wire recorders are kinda lossy, too... ;)


78 rpm records that were recorded through a horn?

Ya ever seen how they used to get those recordings, arranging musicians in front of a horn hooked up physically to a diaphragm that physically was connected to the needle that scratched the recording into a master disc. Amazing. That's some true organic old-school recording techniques. Pro-Tools ain't got nothin' on that stuff!

Wax cylinders rock!

Forgot
2007-06-07, 08:30 AM
ok i am gonna download something i don't want just to get my seed ratio up, 2 days of seeding a torrent and no one is downloading :wtf:

U2Lynne
2007-06-07, 10:46 AM
ok i am gonna download something i don't want just to get my seed ratio up
I've never understood this. Why not just wait until something comes up that you really want and hop on it early so you can seed then?

spiritinaphoto
2007-06-07, 07:20 PM
I've never understood this. Why not just wait until something comes up that you really want and hop on it early so you can seed then?
Better yet...he could start his own seed. ;)

beeerlover
2007-09-19, 11:52 PM
Sennheiser!

KarVictor
2007-10-30, 07:11 AM
Nah,

http://www.stax.co.jp/Export/ExportProducts.html

:hmm:

chriscor75
2007-10-30, 09:43 AM
Interesting...let's talk about physics!!
To create a mp3 file, some frequencies are cutted, for high bitrate mp3 (at least 256kbps) the frequency is around 18kHz.
Now let's talk about human earing: we are able to ear sound from 20Hz (low frequency) to 20kHz (high one), but with the age our band of frequency is getting smaller, so about 30yo, we can't ear more than 16-17kHz, which is under the 18kHz cut frequency of mp3...so as far as music is concerned, how can you ear a difference?maybe you have bionic ears?
But!! there's a difference on dynamic of music, it depends on the bitrate too, so you can ear a difference of some musical attack, so changes in level...but to be sure it's mp3 high bitrate or lossless, i don't know how you can say that just earing??some old analogic recording have poor quality compared to mp3 high bitrate (cut frequency and dynamic!!) :hmm:
The only thing that is very annoying for me in mp3 is the "click" between each tracks, for the other things maybe my ears are too old??

paddington
2007-10-30, 10:08 AM
^^ you are assuming the only thing that happens with MP3 (or any other lossy compression) is that the high freqs are rolled off above 16kHz.. that is incorrect. There are MANY chunks of audio data discarded over the ENTIRE spectrum, which is easily heard (and confrimed in a spectrum analysis).

but - even if it WAS just the high end (which it certainly is not), the fact that it rolls off the high freqs IN the audible range for humans means we get to hear the atrifacts of the ugly digital LPF that is used.. and it makes the complicated high frequencies sound 'shimmery' or 'glassy' or 'watery'. What you are hearing there is "aliasing" - course stairstepping at the roll-off shelf created by the lossy encoder's LPF (low-pass filter).

U2Lynne
2007-10-30, 10:44 AM
To get rid of the clicks between tracks when you burn your mp3s to a CD, just open the wav files up in an editor, like audacity, and get rid of the 'silence' and then save the new wav and burn that.

I have a bunch of mp3s and wav files on my iPod. I've got a nice set of speakers in my kitchen that I hook the iPod up to and I can definitely tell when the mp3s play. However, I can't tell at all when I am just going for a walk with the earbuds in.

Audioarchivist
2007-10-30, 05:06 PM
...snip...
Now let's talk about human earing: we are able to ear sound from 20Hz (low frequency) to 20kHz (high one), but with the age our band of frequency is getting smaller, so about 30yo, we can't ear more than 16-17kHz, which is under the 18kHz cut frequency of mp3...so as far as music is concerned, how can you ear a difference?maybe you have bionic ears?
...snip...
for the other things maybe my ears are too old??
I can't remember exactly where the link was, but there was a hearing test site someone put up a while back. It gave test tones for you to calibrate your ears.
I'm almost 40. I definitely heard frequencies at 19000. At 20000 I could still sense something. At 21000 it was nil.
I suppose what I'm saying is that it shouldn't be assumed that age=deaf.

Splinterr
2007-11-27, 02:33 AM
i noticed that whenever i download a show the taper almost always includes a bit about not converting the show to mp3 format but for some of us thats simply impractible. if i post downloads of shows in mp3 format on this site are people gonna be pissed off and crucify me as some kind of blasphemous evil does in the middle ages? do people want to download mp3 formatted shows?

Audioarchivist
2007-11-27, 02:48 AM
This is a lossless only trading site.
We have all realized that eMPty3 files cut out sound, and generally sound like crud.
I wouldn't say you'd be crucified, but surely you will be wasting your time - the posts will be pulled.
We ask most times that lossless files not be transcoded to lossy so that those lossy files don't get traded further, as bloated mp3>wav. Everytime eMpty3 files are reconverted to wav, they take up way too much space, and don't sound any better. Then, someone takes that fake wav file and re-eMPty3 encodes it, further reducing any hope of fidelity.

IMHO, eMPty3 files ARE from the dark middle ages. They were cool when we all had dial-up and we all thought a 20 gig drive in our pentium 1's were huge! We've outgrown those artificial limitations. There's plenty of other lossy fish in the sea. Post your lossy crud somewhere else. If you want to play with the big boys, stick around, learn some facts, and have fun!

Splinterr
2007-11-27, 03:24 AM
This is exactly what I was referring to. I sensed a definite hostility in your message. Maybe I'm wrong. I was just asking a legitimate question. I’ve been to a lot of shows all over the country and I understand why you want to preserve the quality but other people have different needs and different reasons. I will gladly respect your wishes and not post any “eMPty3s” here.

Audioarchivist
2007-11-27, 06:09 AM
There's no intended hostility, I'm just stating the facts of the rules of the board, and some reasons why 'eMPty3' files are (IMHO) bad, antequated, outdated, and should be left to the mid 90's...
There's a difference between how I'm a little cheeky when I've said not to "pervert" to "eMPty3" files, even for your own personal use (I thought that was funny and tongue in cheek) as once you grab any files that are gray-area as far as copyright (ie: not commercially available) they are really yours to do with what you want. They are fair game to transcode to wax cylinder for all the taper/sharer has any right to say what you do with them.
From what I've seen at TTD, this is the cream of the crop, as far as known lineages of shows, and that there's no lossy files at all permitted (and people check - it's easy to tell). Like I say, there's plenty of places to share those lossy files you so crave. Just not here.
It's not a legitimate question if you had read the FAQ about this site. It's pretty clear when you read up about TTD, that it's "NO LOSSY" policy is in the mission statement.
No offences meant at all, and I hope you stick around to grab some good pure music here. If you're going to pervert and re-post the stuff you grab here as lossy files somewhere else, I wouldn't spread the word of that here. I think the majority of folks here are anti-eMPty3.
Of course, really, if you can't make rockbox firmware work on your little music portable player so you can play flac files directly, you can make the files lossy for your own personal use so you can enjoy them. It is more than frowned upon to let those files get into future trading circles.
Is that a legitimate answer, or am I being too hard on him / you?

AAR.oner
2007-11-27, 07:02 AM
welcome to TTD splinter--

most of our reasoning behind not allowing mp3s or other lossy formats, as well as a wealth of info on other aspects of the site, can be found in our FAQ:
http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/faq.php?

also, here's a thread that we stickied [at the top of the page] on the subject of lossy files:
http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=39406

hope these help a bit :thumbsup

splumer
2007-11-27, 07:28 AM
i noticed that whenever i download a show the taper almost always includes a bit about not converting the show to mp3 format but for some of us thats simply impractible. if i post downloads of shows in mp3 format on this site are people gonna be pissed off and crucify me as some kind of blasphemous evil does in the middle ages? do people want to download mp3 formatted shows?

For your own use, mp3 is fine. It's hard to play anything else on an mp3 player! But when posting shows for download, only shows with a 100 percent lossless lineage are allowed. Look at it like cassette generations. mp3 degrades with each sucessive generation, whereas FLAC & shn does not.

I think if you actually posted a show in mp3 there'd be stunned silence for a day or so... then the angry posts will begin.

ezytouch
2007-11-27, 08:33 AM
think about that 50meg file being squashed down to 5megs; that's ten times smaller... so where did all that data go??? in binary terms it's just a stream of zeros and ones, but as far as your hi-fi system's concerned it's sound, man, and sound is the thing that The Traders Den won't compromise.

there are tons or sites out there that don't give a damn what format you trade in.

and those messages at the bottom of threads about "do not convert... etc" are aimed at future trading, not personal use.

if you want these concerts on your i-pod, go ahead and squash 'em!! :)

just don't pass 'em on in that format to other traders, or there is a chance that some of us will wind up downloading a concert that's been converted from mp3 to WAV; and that would be a total bastard. :thumbsup

Five
2007-11-27, 11:23 AM
I'm merging this into the general 'mp3' thread

excellent points made today, nothing much for me to add! :clap:

habalushy
2007-11-27, 07:55 PM
i dont listen with $5 speakers. but if you choose to, then no you wont here the diff.

paddington
2007-11-27, 08:26 PM
This is exactly what I was referring to. I sensed a definite hostility in your message. Maybe I'm wrong. I was just asking a legitimate question. I’ve been to a lot of shows all over the country and I understand why you want to preserve the quality but other people have different needs and different reasons. I will gladly respect your wishes and not post any “eMPty3s” here.

The points about (not) seeding MP3s here have been covered, except the one about seeders stating the seeds should not be converted to MP3s. What the statements should say is that lossless files should only be converted to MP3 for personal, end-user use and should always be traded as lossless - so other end-users can convert them to their preferred portable format without having the effects of being double-encoded, say, from MP3 to WMA - which will sound terrible.

While we support the adherence to seeder's wishes and usually agree that people getting a recording for free should be mindful of what the seeder asks, it is generally accepted that once you put something on the Internet for free, you no longer have any control over what is done with it and expecting 100% of the recipients to follow your wishes is ridiculous.

Of course, many people will need to convert what they get to MP3 (hopefully high bitrate) so they can listen on portable players - but this site is about trading high-quality audio, so audio that is intentionally degraded (MP3, WMA, etc) isn't allowed - mainly to keep the pool clean.

kupietz
2007-12-13, 02:06 AM
I can most definitely hear the difference between low-bitrate MP3 and lossless, even on $5 speakers. You have to know what to listen for. You know when you get a recording with a really well-defined stereo image, where you can hear precisely where each instrument is placed from left to right? At 128k, MP3 "muddies" that. Things are harder to place in terms of position, because joint-stereo MP3 encoding moves them around in the stereo soundstage. Still, in my own subjective tests, I can't tell the difference between higher-bitrate MP3 and lossless with just my ears.

But here's a test you can do if you really want to objectively hear the difference is with your own ears.

Get a CD with a lot of energy & dynamics. I used "Making Plans For Nigel" by XTC. Rip it to a WAV file. Then, encode the WAV file to MP3 using the highest-quality conversion settings you can. Then, use whatever audio program you've got to expand the MP3 *back* into a new WAV file.

Then, go into your audio editor and open the new, lossy-sourced WAV file. Use your audio editor's "Invert" function to turn the entire waveform upside-down. Then, open your original (non-MP3-encoded) WAV file and use your editing program's Paste function to "add" it to the inverted one - mixing the two waveforms at the same volume to create a new waveform. This way, all audio that is present in both the original and the MP3-encoded file is cancelled out by this process - leaving you only the sound that is present in the original file but not the lossy one.

So when you play this inverted-and-added file, what you hear is everything that MP3 encoding removed from the original file. You'll hear some highhat sizzle, the top end of the guitar, maybe the snare, maybe some crunge off the vocal as well. It's an interesting experiment.

Using this test, I was able to determine that LAME VBR -V3 provided the best tradeoff between filesize and sound quality for listening on my proudly non-iPod MP3 player. Using V2 or V1 increased the filesize didn't significantly reduce the amount of sound I heard in the added-and-inverted file, and using -V4 significantly increased the sound in this file - IE, significantly increased the amount of audio that the lossy encoding removed form the original file.

Using CBR is, as Monty Python used to say, right out.

Fun fun fun.

Another thing you can do to hear the encoding loss is take an audio file and subjected it to several generations of MP3 encoding... convert it to MP3, back to WAV, back to MP3, back to WAV... do this 5 or 10 times and it will greatly exaggerate the lossy artifacts, so you'll get an idea of what even one pass of encoding is doing, ever so slightly.

What's interesting is that people are so used to tape, they assume "lossyness" will sound something like multiple generations of cassette dubbing. This isn't true in the least. Many sharp transients and attacks, the first thing to go in tape dubbing, will survive multiple generations of MP3 encoding... but the stereo imaging will suffer horrifically, sounds will slide all over the place, and sustained or noisy sounds will become "bubbly". As I believe I saw someone somewhere on this board say in a haiku-like post, "Bubbly Limewire cymbals."

kirkhere
2008-01-15, 10:15 AM
I was going to add my comments until I saw kupietz' post! Instead, I humbly offer, "What HE said!"

If you have good equipment, discerning hearing, and some knowledge and listening experience, yes, you can identify the differences. Kupietz kindly offered a "proofing method" in addition!

I keep the originals as I download them and share them, since that's what's expected.

I make mp3's for my own use in my player because (a) I want a LOT of choices in my music when I'm out and about, (b) I'm pushing 40 and the days when my ears could "hear it all" are diminishing anyway, (c) I rarely have the time to sit on my butt an really *enjoy* music in a proper setting anyway (more often I am on the go), and (d) as long as I use a high mp3 encode rate, I don't find myself nitpicking the tracks... I'm just enjoying the music.

kirkhere

bob francais
2008-02-05, 02:51 AM
I am a little slow to understand how mp3 looses quality .I am not talking about thetrading pool, just in general. I have downloaded alot of music from different places in mp3 format and have them on a harddrive, If I copy them to a cd in the same mp3 format do I loose quality everytime or do I only loose quality if I convert them to another format? Can someone please explain? thank you.

U2Lynne
2008-02-05, 11:38 AM
I am a little slow to understand how mp3 looses quality .I am not talking about thetrading pool, just in general. I have downloaded alot of music from different places in mp3 format and have them on a harddrive, If I copy them to a cd in the same mp3 format do I loose quality everytime or do I only loose quality if I convert them to another format? Can someone please explain? thank you.
If you are just copying an mp3 from one place to another, then it will stay in the same mp3 quality that it is currently in. If you convert it to wav to burn to a CD and then convert that wav to mp3, then that new mp3 will be of even less quality than the original mp3.

kupietz
2008-02-05, 05:09 PM
I am a little slow to understand how mp3 looses quality .I am not talking about thetrading pool, just in general. I have downloaded alot of music from different places in mp3 format and have them on a harddrive, If I copy them to a cd in the same mp3 format do I loose quality everytime or do I only loose quality if I convert them to another format? Can someone please explain? thank you.

Basically, to save filesize, MP3 encoding discards audio every time you convert something INTO mp3 from another format. So copying mp3 files from one place to another won't degrade quality any further, or converting them into a lossless format (WAV, AIFF, FLAC, SHN, etc.) won't either. But, as Lynne points out, copying them into a lossless format and then BACK into mp3 will degrade quality further. Converting them into a different lossy format (AAC) also will.

ScottP
2008-02-29, 11:46 PM
There is a definite difference even at a high bitrate like 320kb/s. My computer speakers aren't the best just an average set with a little subwoofer. But if you play back to back an uncompressed WAV and an MP3 of that same WAV...the MP3 just has no life to it. It really dulls the music down. You don't get any of the sparkle or natural bass. It's all flat.
Of course if all you want to listen to is the latest Top 40 dance/punk/whatever hit song...you don't care cause it is all about the catchy hook. But for those of us who like to pay attention to our music...it just doesn't cut it.
So I will never pay for MP3's....I consider them as a preview to whatever album I may be buying only...kind of like seeing a digital snapshot of a Picasso. You're not going to pay top dollar on Itunes for that are you?

thebernreuter
2008-05-14, 09:31 PM
I am not that bad off lol But I am going deaf in my left ear so I can't hear the difference. But just incase I magicaly get my hearing back (haven't in 20 years lol) I leave them the way I download them when I listen on my PC . But I do understand why NOT to trade the mp3's .. That is just common sense :p lol But wanted to actually make a post now that I seem to have more free time now lol
Post whoring in Technobabble...love it! :D

Anyway, back to the person who started this thread, one more voice to say keep your mp3s to yourself--never pollute the trading pool by distributing them...those who can tell the difference won't be pleased if you do!

(Can we have a sticky in here on the lossy/lossless debate so this crap doesn't recur every month or so?)

Is it more accurate to say that single generation high bitrate mp3s are not the real reason for the lossless-only policy, and the real threat to diluting the trading pool is files that are mp3s of mp3s of mp4s of wmas of mp3s. . . the end result of which is DEFINITELY audible by anyone on anything.

thebernreuter
2008-05-14, 09:35 PM
Interesting...let's talk about physics!!
To create a mp3 file, some frequencies are cutted, for high bitrate mp3 (at least 256kbps) the frequency is around 18kHz.
Now let's talk about human earing: we are able to ear sound from 20Hz (low frequency) to 20kHz (high one), but with the age our band of frequency is getting smaller, so about 30yo, we can't ear more than 16-17kHz, which is under the 18kHz cut frequency of mp3...so as far as music is concerned, how can you ear a difference?maybe you have bionic ears?


The frequencies below 20Hz are felt, not heard; sound is essentially moving air. If you don't have a subwoofer, you won't hear them no matter what quality the source file is.

thebernreuter
2008-05-14, 09:42 PM
How do people here feel about .mp4 formats, especially the Apple Lossless Codec? I think the lossy aac files are better sounding than their mp3 counterparts of similar bitrate, to the point that I can't discern 256 kbps aacs from cda.

Will Apple Lossless codec ever be allowed to be traded here? I know dime hates it [I just asked them this afternoon; bitter about it for some reason].

thebernreuter
2008-05-14, 09:43 PM
So I will never pay for MP3's....I consider them as a preview to whatever album I may be buying only...kind of like seeing a digital snapshot of a Picasso. You're not going to pay top dollar on Itunes for that are you?

iTunes doesn't sell mp3s. They are aac files, technically mp4.

Ward
2008-05-29, 11:01 PM
Snobbery ruins everything.... even free music. Some of us are happy to hear something new - without looking a gift horse in the mouth or nitpicking it to death.

AAR.oner
2008-05-31, 06:59 AM
Is it more accurate to say that single generation high bitrate mp3s are not the real reason for the lossless-only policy, and the real threat to diluting the trading pool is files that are mp3s of mp3s of mp4s of wmas of mp3s. . . the end result of which is DEFINITELY audible by anyone on anything.

no, that's not the reason at all...we have never wanted audio that has seen lossy encoding, whether its 320 kb/s or one of the newer VBR codecs...if you want to encode to mp3 for your ipod or whatever, great -- but keep it to yourself...there is simply no need for seeding/spreading lossy versions of a show in this day and age

if you read our mission statement on the first page, you will see that this site wasn't created to be the biggest site, or the most popular site, or ________ -- it was created for the serious collector as a place where they would "know what they're getting" more so than many other online forums




Welcome to The Traders' Den. We, the administrators, will be familiar faces to some, and new to others. Each of us have been involved in various trading communities for many years, and many have worked together on other trading sites. We have come together to create an online trading site with an entirely new ideology. This site will be geared towards a certain kind of collector: those who feel quality and integrity are important. Our policies will seem demanding to many users, but we have witnessed the decline in overall quality in many other trading circles due to lax restrictions. We offer a safe haven for traders frustrated with the dilution of quality in the trading pool, as well as our combined experience and devotion to helping new users enter an elite trading community.

Please read the seeding rules, FAQs, and linked tutorials for more information as to how we are employing our ideals to better serve traders of all music tastes. If there are any questions, comments, or ways we can help make the experience more rewarding, please don't hesitate to post in our forums or message one of us.

Quality is not an option in the seeds here, it will be the standard.

AAR.oner
2008-05-31, 07:22 AM
How do people here feel about .mp4 formats, especially the Apple Lossless Codec? I think the lossy aac files are better sounding than their mp3 counterparts of similar bitrate, to the point that I can't discern 256 kbps aacs from cda.

Will Apple Lossless codec ever be allowed to be traded here? I know dime hates it [I just asked them this afternoon; bitter about it for some reason].

apple lossless -- NO...its a lot less "universal" than flac re: both hardware & software support, the compression rate is not as good AND longer encode/decode times, and its not open source...plus, there's been much debate as to the actual lossless-ness of the codec since the beginning

aac -- NO...i don't know how to say any other way but - we are a lossless-only site! whether you can hear the difference or not doesn't really matter...many of us can...if ya want lossy sources, there are plenty of other sites that'll meet your needs, we however are not going to change

not to mention, i really can't think of one good reason to chose any codec other than flac, it pretty much gives the best in regards to quality vs data size vs universal support

AAR.oner
2008-05-31, 07:27 AM
Snobbery ruins everything.... even free music. Some of us are happy to hear something new - without looking a gift horse in the mouth or nitpicking it to death.

uhhhhh...alright i guess or something :hmm:

GRC
2008-05-31, 07:53 AM
Snobbery ruins everything.... even free music. Some of us are happy to hear something new - without looking a gift horse in the mouth or nitpicking it to death.


It's not snobbery.

When I drink water, I want to know it's clean, fresh, and not polluted by anything, such as humans washing their laundry in it, or animals p**ing in or near it.

When I eat, I like to know where the food has come from - organic source, or not? Free range eggs or battery? Any GM ingredients?

Being particular about my food intake isn't snobbery, likewise being particular about my audio intake isn't either.

When I download, I like to know what the source was, and what it's been through before it reached me. I'm happy to hear something new on mp3 - as long as I KNOW it's an mp3 ...

Regards, Graham

PEPPER
2008-06-12, 12:30 PM
I have come across a site that seems to have a lot of shows that have more than likely come from dime and here.These shows are all mp3 and the admin at this site sees nothing wrong with people sharing these orginally lossless recordings in mp3 to download.This is a quote from the admin on the site.

where is the moral of saying that someone could not transfer the show from flac to mp3 ?

Is it the same as saying we can't record a live show?

I explained that people go to the trouble/effort of recording a show and most people ask not to convert from flac to mp3( unless its for personal use).

paddington
2008-06-12, 01:02 PM
You're right, he's a douche, and the only thing you can do about it is bitch, unfortunately.

uninvited94
2008-06-12, 01:08 PM
People are stupid. I donīt know if itīs as hard as in Germany in other countries to tell people that MP3s are kind of retarded...what they canīt hear with their own ears, that does not exist. When I make a note on fan-forums and stuff that I have recorded this or that show, the first question always is: Could you upload the MP3s on Rapidshare?

scratchie
2008-06-12, 01:29 PM
First off, it's pretty unrealistic to upload a show to a site like this or Dime and expect that nobody is going to convert it to MP3. That's just reality.

Secondly, most people are going to prefer to take a 1/10 reduction in size accompanied by a minor (inaudible to most) decrease in sound quality. I don't know why this comes as a surprise to anyone.

Thirdly, not everyone has fast internet connections. If you're more into appreciating the performance, rather than the subtle nuances of the floor tom's timbre, it can be a lot more practical to enjoy music in a compressed format that makes it much easier to acquire and share new recordings.

Finally, whenever I see a description like this (not that much of an exaggeration based on some of the shows that get upped to Dime):

Recorded on Radio Shack cassette recorder with built-in mike, stuck down my pants while I was dancing out in the hallway.

DO NOT CONVERT TO LOSSY!!

I just laugh and laugh and laugh. Seriously, the only people who give a flying fuck whether some B- quality (or worse) audience tape is converted to mp3 are people who are more interested in numbers than music.

There, I said it.

uninvited94
2008-06-12, 01:39 PM
Good points. Each to his own, we donīt have any problems with people enjoying MP3s, itīs merely the spreading.

rspencer
2008-06-12, 01:50 PM
I don't really care if they share mp3's themselves. Not a fan of people expanding them & burning CD's to spread, or expanding & then flac-ing the lossy files, etc.

Not much you can do about it anyway.

scratchie
2008-06-12, 01:53 PM
Well here's the thing. To clarify my original point...

First off, it wasn't my intention to denigrate the work that goes on at sites like this to propagate high-quality material. Obviously. I'm a heavy consumer of the stuff offered here.

But more importantly, I think it's a complete red herring to worry about people sharing shows in MP3 format.

I got my first CD burner in 1999, which means I've been trading bootlegs digitally for almost ten years.

In that entire time, I've heard dire warnings about sharing recording in MP3 format, lest we "poison the well" or some such.

And also in that time, two trends have been pretty hard to deny:

1) MP3 sharing of every possible type of music (including bootlegs) has increased exponentially.

2) The quality of digital offerings has gone steadily up. Every year it seems we see new, improved, sources for multiple classic shows, as well as new (formerly "unknown") performances by our favorite artists that are widely available for the first time due to lossless digital file-sharing.

Conclusion: The proliferation of MP3 trading has absolutely ZERO effect on the prorogation of high-quality lossless material. End of story.

The way to ensure that high-quality lossless material is available is to do exactly what the trading community has been doing all along:

1) Insist on material with known lineage.

2) Standardize the distribution formats (i.e. SHN or FLAC rather than audio CDs that require extraction).

That way, everybody knows what they're getting, and when a new version comes along, it's easy to tell that it's new. Those are the practices that have improved the stock of available bootleg material to a degree that was almost unimaginable 10-20 years ago. And whether some other people are sharing the exact same material in MP3, or Xvid, or anything else is 100% immaterial.

PEPPER
2008-06-12, 01:59 PM
I dont have any problem with people wanting mp3s,its the spreading of these mp3 shows that were lossless to start with.

AAR.oner
2008-06-12, 02:38 PM
it pisses me off equally that many "lossless traders" still take a lossless file set complete with info & checksum, burn it to an Audio CDR, then trade it out by extracting and re-burning to CDR [and never seem to include the info/checksums either]...to me thats just as aggravating, as is trading DVDs and not burning w/ checksums/lineage...but as james said, nothing you can do really

i usually try to politely educate, and a lot of times people will be fairly responsive...but if that doesn't work [as in this case above], i'll usually just make some snide closing remark like "you mean you can't can't hear the difference between a lossless wav and an 192k/s mp3?! you must either be deaf or a senior citizen, cuz i'm "middle-aged" and definitely have the ability to hear above 15kHz...sucks for you" :lol:

roomful
2008-06-12, 02:44 PM
Conclusion: The proliferation of MP3 trading has absolutely ZERO effect on the prorogation of high-quality lossless material. End of story.

The way to ensure that high-quality lossless material is available is to do exactly what the trading community has been doing all along:

1) Insist on material with known lineage.

2) Standardize the distribution formats (i.e. SHN or FLAC rather than audio CDs that require extraction).

1) the lineage can't always be known, and sometimes people lie 2) someone can easily convert FLAC > wav > mp3 > wav > FLAC, so the distribution format isn't always a guarantee.

Take a look at the lossy or lossless sub forum in technobabble. People post spectrum and frequency analyses screenshots in order to determine if their show is truly lossless. That's the only fail safe way to know for sure if it's truly lossless.

Some shows get pulled for being lossy. I'm not sure how often it happens, but I've seen a few shows pulled here at TTD that were mp3 sourced (but shared as FLAC), and a video that was mpeg1 sourced (but shared as an authored DVD, which is required to be mpeg2). So there is a little pollution still happening.

But I don't think that spreading mp3s on rapidshare or similar for those who want them is a bad thing. A lot of ppl listen to low fi systems (iPod ear buds, cheap computer speakers, etc.) exclusively these days so they probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference anyway. They get to hear the shows, for free, in a relatively high quality format compared to yesteryear. Those are the most important things IMO. www.archive.org has FLACs as well as mp3s available for download for a lot of shows.

AAR.oner
2008-06-12, 03:09 PM
A lot of ppl listen to low fi systems (iPod ear buds, cheap computer speakers, etc.) exclusively these days so they probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference anyway.

that is the saddest part

if i had unlimited resources, every human being with a compute or home stereo would have a pair of at least halfway decent near-field monitors

scratchie
2008-06-12, 03:16 PM
1) the lineage can't always be known, and sometimes people lie 2) someone can easily convert FLAC > wav > mp3 > wav > FLAC, so the distribution format isn't always a guarantee.Sure, but how often does that really happen? Most of the time, when something enters the "compressed realm", it continues to circulate in that format.

Take a look at the lossy or lossless sub forum in technobabble. People post spectrum and frequency analyses screenshots in order to determine if their show is truly lossless. That's the only fail safe way to know for sure if it's truly lossless.Based on what I've read, it's hardly fail-safe, and it can be possible to mistake (e.g.) a poor-sounding audience tape for a lossy source, but anyway, that's beside the point.

Obviously, TTD has the option of taking whatever steps they want to prevent lossy material from being posted here. That's the whole raison d'etre of the site. But to worry about what happens to it once it leaves your hands is foolish and unnecessary. The overlap between quality-obsessive traders and casual mp3 users is so small as to be virtually irrelevant.

Some shows get pulled for being lossy. I'm not sure how often it happens, but I've seen a few shows pulled here at TTD that were mp3 sourced (but shared as FLAC), and a video that was mpeg1 sourced (but shared as an authored DVD, which is required to be mpeg2). So there is a little pollution still happening.I'm sure there's "some" but it's obviously not too toxic, because the pool of original material that's available in great-sounding lossless formats in 2008 is truly mind-boggling.

Most of the lossy material that shows up in a place like this is undoubtedly due to newbie mistakes, and most of them will probably get picked off for other mistakes (e.g. missing or incomplete lineage) before it's necessary to haul out the spectrometers.

They get to hear the shows, for free, in a relatively high quality format compared to yesteryear. Those are the most important things IMO.That's my point. I think that any compression format that makes it easier for people to enjoy and share music is good. The trading pool will take care of itself just fine regardless of whether I make an MP3 copy of some show for my brother-in-law.

scratchie
2008-06-12, 03:17 PM
that is the saddest partNo, that's the best part, because it gives people the freedom to listen to music in the format that gives them the most pleasure. Get it?

saltman
2008-06-12, 03:19 PM
Secondly, most people are going to prefer to take a 1/10 reduction in size accompanied by a minor (inaudible to most) decrease in sound quality. I don't know why this comes as a surprise to anyone.
These people deserve to have their mp3s and crappy hearing. If you can't tell the difference in mp3 and wav you need to see a doctor. inaudible to most is far from fact. as is you statement that most people would take garbage over a steak if they were both free.

It's easy to tell what has mp3 in lineage it is just time consuming to check all the files on a public tracker. I disagree that proliferation of mp3 files will have no impact on public lossless trackers for this reason. There are too many people who for whatever reason (uneducated, belief that mp3 is an inaudible difference, etc.) will try to pass one by.

AAR.oner
2008-06-12, 03:23 PM
No, that's the best part, because it gives people the freedom to listen to music in the format that gives them the most pleasure. Get it?

if you say so...i for one feel quite blessed to be able to listen critically [which most could do if they wanted], noticing the slight nuances of a recording, thereby getting a fuller picture of the song/performance/etc

but i guess some prefer paint-by-numbers...that's cool, bygones

roomful
2008-06-12, 03:30 PM
Sure, but how often does that really happen? Most of the time, when something enters the "compressed realm", it continues to circulate in that format.

I agree with this, it probably doesn't happen too often once it's in compressed format (for a lot of bands, there are databases with checksums to prove it), but a lot of stuff (esp. rare) is sourced from audio CD-R(x) trades and mp3 has had a significant effect in that area.

roomful
2008-06-12, 03:38 PM
that is the saddest partNo, that's the best part, because it gives people the freedom to listen to music in the format that gives them the most pleasure. Get it?

It's good to have options, but if you never hear the music on a pair of halfway decent speakers or headphones, you won't know what you're missing. You won't be able to hear the difference as easily, or at all, between a beautifully mastered lossless show and one that has been compressed to mp3 and compressed so it has little to no dynamic range, but is always loud as fuck (and may clip :disbelief ).

roomful
2008-06-12, 04:03 PM
^^^ actually the recording mastered loudly with little dynamic range may sound better than a properly mastered recording on a shitty system that can't reveal all the details that well, and can't be turned up very loud.

paddington
2008-06-12, 06:33 PM
No, that's the best part, because it gives people the freedom to listen to music in the format that gives them the most pleasure. Get it?


no it, confines the recipients to only be able to listen to a lossy format - whereas if the audio was kept in lossless FLAC for distribution, the recipient has a choice. Play or burn a disc in FLAC or convert to MP3 - or both.

I don't know how you can make any argument that receiving audio in MP3 gives the listener more 'freedom'? :hmm:

scratchie
2008-06-12, 06:55 PM
I don't know how you can make any argument that receiving audio in MP3 gives the listener more 'freedom'? :hmm:It gives them the freedom to download a show in 10 minutes, copy it to their portable player and go, where the alternative would be an hour-and-a-half download followed by some sort of file conversion requiring extra software.

scratchie
2008-06-12, 06:58 PM
If you can't tell the difference in mp3 and wav you need to see a doctor. The simple fact is that Apple and their competitors sell millions of mp3 players every year. Objective reality indicates that there are millions, if not hundreds of millions of people who either cannot tell the difference or don't care because they prefer the convenience. So unless you're shilling for a hearing aid manufacturer, you put your high horse back in the stable.

schmoe75
2008-06-12, 07:24 PM
You have to remember, we are a site geared towards hard core collectors. There are people out there who don't trade or even know that sites like this even exist, much less that there are differences. These are the same people who are still paying $45 at the record store for that 'insert band' imported cd.
But to worry about what happens to it once it leaves your hands is foolish and unnecessary. The overlap between quality-obsessive traders and casual mp3 users is so small as to be virtually irrelevant.
+1
These people deserve to have their mp3s and crappy hearing. If you can't tell the difference in mp3 and wav you need to see a doctor.
:thumbsup

paddington
2008-06-12, 07:40 PM
It gives them the freedom to download a show in 10 minutes, copy it to their portable player and go, where the alternative would be an hour-and-a-half download followed by some sort of file conversion requiring extra software. you lopped off the part of the post that makes the point.

Distribute in FLAC - then do whatever the hell you want with it - but spreading in MP3 give the end-user no choice at all. And it removes the choice (or freedom, whatever) from everyone down the line he may give it to.

roomful
2008-06-12, 08:45 PM
I don't think scratchie wants mp3 at TTD or DIME or any site that is currently lossless only. I think he's saying that it isn't bad if the shows that are upped here are spread in mp3 elsewhere, like rapidshare. It can't be stopped, some ppl want the mp3s for fast downloads, less space, and can't hear a difference, some can't use BT (college, etc.), and the risk that they will be converted back to FLAC is small. Basically, the 'mp3 for personal use only' suggestion gets broken all the time and is only relevant to traders of lossless files on lossless sites who know not to go FLAC > mp3 > FLAC unless they are a total n00b.

scratchie
2008-06-12, 08:50 PM
I don't think scratchie wants mp3 at TTD or DIME or any site that is currently lossless only. I think he's saying that it isn't bad if the shows that are upped here are spread in mp3 elsewhere, like rapidshare. It can't be stopped, some ppl want the mp3s for fast downloads, less space, and can't hear a difference, some can't use BT (college, etc.), and the risk that they will be converted back to FLAC is small. Basically, the 'mp3 for personal use only' suggestion gets broken all the time and is only relevant to traders of lossless files on lossless sites who know not to go FLAC > mp3 > FLAC unless they are a total n00b.

:clap:

AAR.oner
2008-06-13, 08:39 AM
i find it funny how "downloading" and "bittorrent" and "file size" keeps coming up ...guess some folks don't remember collecting by mail trading...you know, before the intardnet ;)

truth be told, i could care less about the ipod wankers out there and the mp3 addicts...they have nothing to do with me or the site i help run...now i want everyone read read the following very carefully, because we have to re-iterate on a regular basis:

this site was not started to be a place for the casual listener or obsessed fan...it was & continues to be designed for the serious collectors & audiophiles out there, & the site's standards continue to morph based on current technology improvements


now don't get me wrong, we are more than happy that people come to the site even if they don't fall into the collector/audiophile category...many of our users are casual listeners or just fans looking for a show...we are glad you are here! but our "rules" and beliefs regarding the taping and collecting of shows will never degrade from the lofty standards we seek to keep in place...we want TTD to be at forefront of the sites out there, not in the middle

i understand what yer sayin scratchie, and as we all agree, there ain't mucgh you can do...some of us put "don't encode to lossy except for personal use" in hopes that people might actually respect our requests...ya see, i'm the one lugging $4000 working-class dollars worth of gear to shows so that everyone else can enjoy a recording...least folks could do is respect my requests...i'm not dumb enough to believe all or even most of em will, but if that little request in the info text stops a handful from doing so, and then they starting thing & researching the "why" behind the request, then i've accomplished what i want

scratchie
2008-06-13, 10:42 AM
i find it funny how "downloading" and "bittorrent" and "file size" keeps coming up ...guess some folks don't remember collecting by mail trading...you know, before the intardnet ;)Are you kidding? I remember it very well and I still have the boxes (and boxes and boxes) of cassettes to show for it. That's why I have to laugh when I hear people saying that mp3s are going to "ruin the trading pool" or some such. The "trading pool" is so much richer and more varied -- by at least a factor of 10, if not 100 -- than at any time in the last 20 years, mp3 proliferation notwithstanding.


this site was not started to be a place for the casual listener or obsessed fan...it was & continues to be designed for the serious collectors & audiophiles out there, & the site's standards continue to morph based on current technology improvements


now don't get me wrong, we are more than happy that people come to the site even if they don't fall into the collector/audiophile category...many of our users are casual listeners or just fans looking for a show...we are glad you are here! but our "rules" and beliefs regarding the taping and collecting of shows will never degrade from the lofty standards we seek to keep in place...we want TTD to be at forefront of the sites out there, not in the middle
I'm 100% in favor of this. I'm glad TTD is here and I'm glad TTD has the rules it does, and there are cases where I've proposed even stricter regulations, only to be ridiculed and shouted down by a mod who shall remain nameless.

But, none of that changes the fact that once a recording is "out there", it's out there, and there's not much you can do (any more than the original performers have control over what we do with their music).

I appreciate your reasons for writing "Please do not convert to mp3 except for personal use", but I'm glad to see that you appreciate the actual likelihood of that request being followed in all cases (pretty slim). And when I see some crap-tacular audience tape over at DIME with a notice that says "DO NOT CONVERT TO MP3!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!", I'm still going to laugh my fool head off.

i understand what yer sayin scratchie, and as we all agree, there ain't mucgh you can do...some of us put "don't encode to lossy except for personal use" in hopes that people might actually respect our requests...ya see, i'm the one lugging $4000 working-class dollars worth of gear to shows so that everyone else can enjoy a recording...least folks could do is respect my requests...OK, but you know what? To take this thread all the way back to the very first post, this whole site -- and the whole hobby of trading live recordings -- is, in essence, based on disregarding the requests of musicians (and their representatives). Sure there are some artists who encourage taping, but they're still in the minority, and even on a site like this one, I'd be willing to bet that the majority of torrents available were recorded at a concert where taping was forbidden (or recorded off of a TV broadcast where "Unauthorized duplication" was forbidden), etc.

The Grateful Dead were the most notoriously bootleg-friendly band in the history of rock-music, but even they prohibited videotaping at their concerts. Yet, since upgrading to FIOS a couple of months ago, I've been downloading Grateful Dead videos like they've been going out of style.

I just think it's important to remember that this whole bootleg culture is based around the notion that the fan's desire to hear the music is more important than the artist's desire to keep control over their music. Just something to consider the next time you start to get upset about what someone else does with your recording.

paddington
2008-06-13, 12:05 PM
I need to run some compression on these posts! :lol:

AAR.oner
2008-06-13, 12:10 PM
werd scratchie, sounds like we pretty much agree

i personally won't tape a band that doesn't allow it--but i don't run stealth rigs, strictly open taping...hell i've actually erased a show at the end of the set cuz the artist asked me to...but sure, i've got shows in the collection by bands that don't like tapers [f*ck you Danzig! :lol4: ]

as for TTD, i understand yer points re: bands that don't allow taping...however, i will say that we will prohibit the trading/torrenting of any band, no matter how popular or unknown, if they contact us and ask that their shows be removed...simple as that

AAR.oner
2008-06-13, 12:11 PM
I need to run some compression on these posts! :lol:

:lmao: :clap:

scratchie
2008-06-13, 12:32 PM
werd scratchie, sounds like we pretty much agree Yeah, I think you're right. I think it's very cool that you choose not to stealth tape, but we both know that even if one of our favorite bands forbids taping, when a bootleg pops up, we're all over it (for me it's King Crimson).

Also, I know TTD's (and Dime's) policy regarding prohibited artists, but there's a slight difference between asking people not to tape your shows and sending a formal take-down request to every torrent tracker that includes them. To get back to the MP3 analogy, that would be like saying "I won't share this show as MP3 if the original taper contacts me personally and asks me not to." That's a whole different standard than simply respecting the taper's publicly-stated wishes.

Or, to put it another way, if the only concerts allowed on this tracker were audience recordings of shows where open taping was allowed, let's just say that the torrent list would be a little bit shorter.

Anyway, peace out, I've got to get back to work, but it was good yakking with you, AAR.

Five
2008-06-15, 02:22 AM
People are stupid. I donīt know if itīs as hard as in Germany in other countries to tell people that MP3s are kind of retarded...what they canīt hear with their own ears, that does not exist. When I make a note on fan-forums and stuff that I have recorded this or that show, the first question always is: Could you upload the MP3s on Rapidshare?
its the same in Canada. music+computer=mp3 to mostly everybody. when I mention lossless (i.e. non-mp3) to mostly anybody they seems as tho they never realized in their life that mp3 was any different from wav. that or else they believe there is a 2% or so quality loss.

as for the online community, without etree (the mother of all sites like this) the trading pool would be 90% mp3 (the other 10% would be phish and GD shows).

when its most harmful to the trading pool is when somebody transfers a unique recording and shares it as mp3 then figures they're done with it, put the master tape back in the bottom of some box in their basement. then all you can get is mp3, because that's all there is.

I'll merge this with the catch-all "mp3" discussion stickied in technobabble in the next couple days. we have the same discussion every three months for years on end.

jadester48
2008-06-15, 02:10 PM
Well, I for one have an ipod. It doesn't support .flac, and even if it did, i can fit ~6 times more music on there if i convert the flac to mp3. However, i won't post any of these self-converted shows anywhere myself, and i still keep the flac files. If i share any of these with close friends, it will be audio cds burnt using the flac files.
But then, asking people not to convert your flac files into mp3 (or other lossy formats for that matter) is getting into territory similar to the big record companies insisting on DRM on their cds and digital music. Why should you have any say in what i do with files i get here? You can tell me what to do only in regards to the actual downloading - and this only because you run the tracker the torrents use. If you enforced a ratio, that would be fair enough, but telling me not to convert to mp3? So what, i download all this excellent live music but then i can only listen to it if i act like an audiophile?
Incidentally, i know my ratio is bad but i'm about to post here asking for specific advice regarding that fact.

Five
2008-06-15, 05:23 PM
rockbox.org ;)

AAR.oner
2008-06-16, 02:38 PM
Why should you have any say in what i do with files i get here? You can tell me what to do only in regards to the actual downloading - and this only because you run the tracker the torrents use. If you enforced a ratio, that would be fair enough, but telling me not to convert to mp3? So what, i download all this excellent live music but then i can only listen to it if i act like an audiophile?
Incidentally, i know my ratio is bad but i'm about to post here asking for specific advice regarding that fact.

no one's telling you not convert to mp3 for your personal player...there asking you not to spread mp3 versions around to other people, and especially not upload or trade lossy versions on other trackers

jadester48
2008-06-17, 01:53 PM
Well, as I hope was clear, i have no problem with that.

cc_
2008-06-18, 01:48 AM
The "trading pool" is so much richer and more varied -- by at least a factor of 10, if not 100 -- than at any time in the last 20 years, mp3 proliferation notwithstanding.



I'm sure this is true, in terms of what's available, and I'd incline toward at least 100x, but it's this very growth that creates the grim scenario of a thoroughly "polluted pool" down the line, when it might be impossible to sort out lossless from lossy lineages.

at least, it seemed that way in the early days of broadband. You're right that the lossless community has seemed to thrive within or alongside the larger world of file sharing. But that flourishing may only have been possible because of the determination of sites like this. Hopefully, mp3 will become archaic as storage limits disappear...

then again, I read that some ISPs are now once again considering caps for their home high-speed customers, with fees per GB over monthly limits! so the incentive to stay small might persist.

Shawn=)
2008-07-16, 09:42 PM
I listen on decent phones, and absolutely the difference between mp3 and lossless is clear.

I do have a lot of music I've converted over to mp3 either at 256k or 320k, and the higher sample rates are certainly listenable, and much more portable. My essential music is all archived on CD/CD-R, etc..

Shawn

Hollie
2008-08-10, 11:43 AM
Is there anychance that Rockbox is going to be availabke to work on iPod classics any time soon?

Five
2008-08-10, 04:51 PM
maybe a year or two? (guessing)

I read that the latest generation of iPods are totally different inside so the poor rockbox guys have to start from scratch.

ameyer17
2008-08-11, 01:59 AM
no one's telling you not convert to mp3 for your personal player...there asking you not to spread mp3 versions around to other people, and especially not upload or trade lossy versions on other trackers

I've actually seen shows saying not to convert to lossy formats for any purpose.
I think that's a ridiculous request and I don't feel compelled to comply, though.
In fact, it's almost ridiculous enough that I feel like converting it to MP3, Ogg, Musepack, AAC, and WMA, and then contacting the taper to tell him/her what I think of the "no mp3" request.
Don't have the disk space or CPU cycles to burn, though.

Hollie
2008-08-11, 06:56 AM
maybe a year or two? (guessing)

I read that the latest generation of iPods are totally different inside so the poor rockbox guys have to start from scratch.

Ah fair enough, if you have decent earphones with an iPod you can definaely tell the difference but obviously if you use the ones that come in the box theres no point worrying but I got sick of those after about a week

unohu69
2008-08-15, 06:51 PM
Ok well this kinda goes with technobabble .... I am the original taper of a show, I have 3 bands from the show full sets, the problem is they are in WAV format on my pc. how do I track mark the files ? then what would be the prefered format for this site ? flac ? or shn ? I would probably rather convert them to flac. I would like to upload here to share...

The bands are: Bullet for my Valentine, Atreu, and Avenged Sevenfold. From the RockStar Taste of Chaos tour.

AAR.oner
2008-08-16, 04:55 AM
Simplest method using Audacity and xACT:

1. Open your wave, Edit->Move Cursor...->Track Start and hit command-B.
2. Locate all your track splits and mark each one by hitting command-B.
3. Go to File->Export Multiple, select WAV as the export format, Split files based on:Labels, Name files:Numbering consecutively, hit Export.

You'll now have a nice set of consecutively numbered split tracks but they are not cut on sector boundaries.



then.......

use either xACT [Mac] or Traders Little Helper [PC] to correct the sector boundary errors, encode wavs > flac, create checksum

unohu69
2008-08-16, 08:18 PM
Thanx for the response. I'm not exactly sure how to use those programs, so with a little research, and trial and error. I'll see what I can accomplish.
I have been playing alot of C&C3 Tiberium wars lately, so it might take a little while...

stephsbear
2008-08-25, 02:00 PM
hi folks! long been a member here, but I don't think I've ever posted in a forum - so hi.

Seems like this is the site to ask this question: I am a creator of ROIOs, and am working on a certain very large project that due to its very nature requires that I use some mp3-sourced files. I don't like it, but it has to happen (with full disclosure, etc, and not something that could be posted here anyway). So, I have in my possession some flac files that were mp3-sourced (which is probably why I can't find them lossless either). Is there any way, outside of getting a PhD, of figuring out what bitrate of mp3 they came from? The only way I know of comparing them is to "earball" them.

I have no plans to down-sample them, as of course that would compound the problem, just annotate that they are lossy. But if you have a lossy "lossless" file, is there a way anyone knows of to find out if it came from a 64 kps or a 320 kps? I would love it if there were a TLH type application that could just tell me.

Please no rants about lossy files - I know, and I agree. However, in this instance, it's unavoidable. PM me if you're interested in what the project is....

Five
2008-08-25, 02:12 PM
you could probably get a general idea from this:
http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=32490

in general this forum might be helpful:
http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=47

mp3 has a pretty abrupt cutoff, but there are also other codecs, sometimes its difficult to tell what the source is, sometimes its fairly obvious.

stephsbear
2008-08-25, 04:33 PM
Looks tremendously helpful - thank you. Great thread with graphics. I had no idea the "cliff" at the high end moved like that at different bitrates. Cool.

Drewa311
2008-10-06, 08:08 PM
this may sound like a dumb question, but im a recording arts student 4 weeks deep and i was hoping one of you could clarify this for me

it says on flacs website that flac files are compressed??

same with apple lossless? how and a file be lossless if its compressed?

im guessing that "compressed" is meaning any form of wav capture, .wac, .flac, .mp3 and so on? i hope this question makes sense-thanks

AAR.oner
2008-10-07, 06:54 AM
what up drew...too early for me to explain, need more coffee :lol: but vhere's a few wiki entries that might give ya an idea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_data_compression
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless_data_compression
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossy_data_compression

U2Lynne
2008-10-07, 10:34 AM
They are compressed, Drew, in order to save space. Think of it like this:

This is a normal sentence you would read on screen.
Thisisanormalsentenceyouwouldreadonscreen.

The second sentence has all the same data as the first (no data lost), but the spaces are removed to save space (it's compressed). We just need an application to take it and spit it back out with the spaces so it's easier for you to read.

Zenith023
2008-10-07, 12:16 PM
They are compressed, Drew, in order to save space. Think of it like this:

This is a normal sentence you would read on screen.
Thisisanormalsentenceyouwouldreadonscreen.

The second sentence has all the same data as the first (no data lost), but the spaces are removed to save space (it's compressed). We just need an application to take it and spit it back out with the spaces so it's easier for you to read.

So presumably by that rationale, the mp3 equivilent would be "lke wrtng t n txt spk" ;)

theface07
2008-12-09, 06:11 PM
Lots of interesting points here. It's obvious that there is a difference of opinion as to whether mp3s are as bad as claimed or if they sound much different than wav files.

I don't think a lot of the arguments are being objective enough though. Personal differences/opinions on music are subjective and shouldn't be a factor. I think that side should be kept out of a "quality" argument between wav & mp3. Many physical and physiological factors come into play in such a debate.

Firstly, not everyone has the same hearing. Yes, the human hearing range is about 20-20000Hz but that doesn't mean everyone can hear 20Khz or identify it! It's important to remember that mp3 files alter mostly high frequency content.
Some people are born with limited hearing and some develop it through their life through regular exposure over a long period of time (say 40 yrs.) or short term exposure to very high sound levels. This will definitely affect your ability to determine the different between an mp3 and a wav file, not just because your hearing is damaged or limited but because mp3 files alter and eliminate mostly high range frequencies, which are the first to go!
Secondly, as much as I am a firm advocate of keeping mp3s and other lossy audio out of the trading circles (unless it is the best sounding source available, such as the mc5 torrent that got banned recently.. :disbelief), with bootleg recordings, especially older audience recordings with a limited source recording range, the higher frequencies are not recording and are usually just noise because of storage, transfers and/or tape noise from source.
In these cases, depending on how extreme, it will become very difficult and sometimes impossible to tell the difference between an mp3 and a wav file.
Finally, and to a lesser degree, the original recording, mix and master quality will have an effect on how easy/hard it is to distinguish an mp3 file from a wav file. I noticed this while listening to recordings transferred from badly mastered cds, such as a lot of first issues of older analog releases on disc. A bad quality master will make an mp3 same equally worse. Think of cymbal sounds and other high frequency instruments. A lot of times you will get that garbled digital sound when a cymbal is hit (especially hi-hats), this is because it has been compressed, cut down, and altered by mp3 compression. That's why a bass drum usually sounds pretty non-garbled, even in low bitrate mp3s. It's a very low range instrument and doesn't get altered. Nowadays, popular music is so garbled after going through the processing stage that it doesn't really mater what you do with it! People are used to listening to mp3s so the engineers master the recordings to sound like mp3s to begin with! It's sad to think that's what has happened but it's not debatable, the compression and processing levels have been increasing dramatically since the 60's. Classical scholars (who are really the real audiophiles) used to get upset by popular music's lack of dynamic in the 50's & 60's! Based on a comparison of dynamic range, classic rock will soon be considered classical music! :wtf:
That's my take on all this anyways. Listen to what you want to, just don't trade one thing and call it another. ;)

theface07
2008-12-09, 06:15 PM
And to answer the fellows question about FLAC compression, yes FLAC files do compress the wav file, but then you can decompress it back to wav! Some people say there's a difference between the decompressed FLAC>wav but I haven't detected it.

Aimee Wilbury
2009-03-06, 10:16 AM
yes

of course, you are asking "audiophiles", who i guarantee aren't listening on 5 dollar speakers, nor on the computer

Or my $10 computer speakers which pop and squeal all the time? :lol:

DanielG
2009-03-09, 09:29 PM
Some people say there's a difference between the decompressed FLAC>wav but I haven't detected it.
Some people have no idea what they're talking about.

dealtadawn
2009-08-08, 11:41 AM
about every month there's a thread about mp3 saying "I can't hear the diff!!", well most average ppl can't and that's why this is a rare site.

there's another issue with encoding where if any small change needs to be made to the mp3 audio including simply retracking it you have to double-compress it, then it gets burned to a disc and extracted while playing cpu-intense video games adding some crackes, then re-encoded to mp3 by another guy (triple-compressed) and so on and so on.

go find some of the other threads with "mp3" in the title and you'll see endless discussions on this, or just repeat to yourself "no mp3 at ttd" and you'll sleep better at night.

I was just explaining to my husband yesterday why I need him to not be playing World of Warcraft when I'm converting or burning shows to disc. Is my assumption that it would add cracks etc even if he's on a different computer but we are on the same network correct?

AAR.oner
2009-08-08, 11:55 AM
i wouldn't think him being on another comp would have any effect [even if on same network]...the issues arise when yer comp's processing resources are being strained by multiple progs running

paddington
2009-08-08, 12:18 PM
about every month there's a thread about mp3 saying "I can't hear the diff!!", well most average ppl can't and that's why this is a rare site.

there's another issue with encoding where if any small change needs to be made to the mp3 audio including simply retracking it you have to double-compress it, then it gets burned to a disc and extracted while playing cpu-intense video games adding some crackes, then re-encoded to mp3 by another guy (triple-compressed) and so on and so on.

go find some of the other threads with "mp3" in the title and you'll see endless discussions on this, or just repeat to yourself "no mp3 at ttd" and you'll sleep better at night.

I was just explaining to my husband yesterday why I need him to not be playing World of Warcraft when I'm converting or burning shows to disc. Is my assumption that it would add cracks etc even if he's on a different computer but we are on the same network correct?

no. It's actually probably better, because then he won't be bothering you while your burn your discs :thumbsup

dealtadawn
2009-08-08, 01:19 PM
no. It's actually probably better, because then he won't be bothering you while your burn your discs :thumbsup

lol, actually he'd probably be standing behind me if he's not on his own computer. i just wondered if it would bog down the network resources if there is such a thing. anyway, since i have 744mg of data it is a mute point until i figure out how to get that on a 700mg disc...

but ty for the info.

Forgot
2009-08-17, 08:58 PM
heh came back two years later and i'm surprised to have my old post stickied, and a few mbs on my uploads... btw, i'm still not convinced of the virtue of lossless, other than the fact that it's valuable to traders... and hence i should have as much lossless as possible if i want to trade...

Five
2009-08-20, 08:16 AM
yeah if you never trade lossless is not important beyond personal listening preference, its a free country :thumbsup

pjposterguy
2009-08-30, 05:48 AM
Can anyone actually HEAR any quality difference between a shn original file and high bitrate mp3 convert?

i don't mean "loss of data within human hearing range"... i know data are lost... what i'm asking is whether the lost IN QUALITY is perceivable....

i just converted a bunch of shn files to mp3, and on my 5 bucks speaker, i can just barely hear enough difference to know that they're not the same, but that's only if i put the speaker right on my ear and play it with very low volume...

if i have to say,short of living in a sound proof chamber, the humming from an average computer probably spoils the sound more than than the conversion from shn to mp3... either that or i happen to be deaf in those frequencies lost during the conversion.

YES you/I can the highest mp3 can only get fairly close to a AIFF/FLAC... (don't get me started on .wav) generally it's a loss of the "weight" in the low end, and nerfing the highs, not to mention loss of imaging/soundstaging (ie spatial placement of instruments, and the "air" inbetween.... now if only the world would STOP using PCM encoding... DSD ftw

trustthex
2009-09-02, 02:30 AM
YES you/I can the highest mp3 can only get fairly close to a AIFF/FLAC... (don't get me started on .wav) generally it's a loss of the "weight" in the low end, and nerfing the highs, not to mention loss of imaging/soundstaging (ie spatial placement of instruments, and the "air" inbetween.... now if only the world would STOP using PCM encoding... DSD ftw

:disbelief

DSD is dead. Even Sony is beginning the funeral process. Sorry. :wave:

slewofboots
2010-05-19, 02:45 PM
I listen on decent phones, and absolutely the difference between mp3 and lossless is clear.

I do have a lot of music I've converted over to mp3 either at 256k or 320k, and the higher sample rates are certainly listenable, and much more portable. My essential music is all archived on CD/CD-R, etc..

Shawn

I would argue that for a lot of music genres FLAC (lvl 8) is not much less portable than high-bitrate encoded MP3. In other words filesize is close to 320kbps mp3.
I assume there exist portables capable of FLAC playback?

If so, and with decent headphones, this is certainly the way to be (more) portable and lossless!

slewofboots
2010-05-19, 03:13 PM
I would argue that for a lot of music genres FLAC (lvl 8) is not much less portable than high-bitrate encoded MP3. In other words filesize is close to 320kbps mp3.
I assume there exist portables capable of FLAC playback?

If so, and with decent headphones, this is certainly the way to be (more) portable and lossless!

I tested this and the starting .wav file (a live recording of Robben Ford, fully lossless) was 38MB.

File sizes for resultant FLAC was 14MB, and 8MB for the 320kbps MP3.