Determining The Better Quality File

[MourningStar]

As can be determined from my previous posts, I'm still learning. Situation :

When I place the mouse cursor over a music track the attached image pops up. If I have the same tune from a different source AND rip and it is the same format (flac) can I expect the same identical specs to appear? In other words, are all rips equal? Does this image even qualify/contain the proper information to make such a determination? If not, what would I do/use to choose the better quality file?

thank you

[MourningStar]

...

[Thulani]

Your ear is your best friend. Those are just numbers.

[MourningStar]

Your ear is your best friend. Those are just numbers.non-responsive. i'm collecting for someone else. one's ears are as eyes and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. thnx anyways.

[MourningStar]

Your ear is your best friend. Those are just numbers.Another thought to this response. Numbers do not lie. However, eyes and ears do deteriorate. Just wanting to provide the best from a technological perspective. Otherwise, I can provide my friend mp3's (and a greater quantity of material to boot!).

[MourningStar]

Another thought to this response. Numbers do not lie. However, eyes and ears do deteriorate. Just wanting to provide the best from a technological perspective. Otherwise, I can provide my friend mp3's (and a greater quantity of material to boot!).... I was just hoping to make a determination from a raw-numbers, analytical perspective and take the fault-ridden human out of the equation. The rip scenario would be totally unknown.

[rspencer]

It's really quite subjective, as you know. You could open up a file in an audio editor, to get a look at the overall level & see if there are any clips, etc. But that won't tell you if one is from a better/lower-gen source than another. Then it just comes down to listening.

[co9ol]

I'm not sure if this is what your asking, but theoretically if the same CD was riped using two different drives using different software (as long as it was software that's approved by TTD) and both encoded to what ever level of Flac, they are the same quality. One should not be better than the other. Even if one was encoded with half the FLAC compression as the other, they should be the same. Now if your asking how to tell what source to choose when comparing two different bootlegs, then just choose the one that sounds better to you.

[MourningStar]

I'm not sure if this is what your asking, but theoretically if the same CD ....and if it was not the same cd BUT the same tune? e.g. one from album A and another from a so-called re-mastered, re-whatever version. peoples, why is it so simple to determine the better quality among mp3 versions, but with lossless everybody is all like, hey man - it's up to your ears to decide. Right! I (and others too) have heard some, but not much, but still, lossy stuff sound way better that some lossless. I know there is more to it and I will find it.


have a nice day & thnx,

[MourningStar]

and if it was not the same cd BUT the same tune? e.g. one from album A and another from a so-called re-mastered, re-whatever version. peoples, why is it so simple to determine the better quality among mp3 versions, but with lossless everybody is all like, hey man - it's up to your ears to decide. Right! I (and others too) have heard some, but not much, but still, lossy stuff sound way better that some lossless. I know there is more to it and I will find it.


have a nice day & thnx,Lastly, as I just recalled, I have heard people sing praises of certain cd's when they first came out compared to later re-releases. a thought ...

[AAR.oner]

when discussing "better quality" with mp3s, yer talkin about compression quality...i.e. one is way more compressed, therefore losing more frequency spectrums and sounding more muddied or tunnel-y or swish-y -- this is objective

when it comes to lossless audience recordings, "better quality" has to do with type of recording gear [quality of mics, etc], location & mic config/placement, if recorded to analog the number of generations/transfers, etc...this gets a bit more subjective, although is still objective in some regards

then when it comes to people's "re-masters", it gets even more subjective...very few re-masters floating around are done by someone with the knowlege and equipment to do a proper job...there are a lot of collectors these days who have a copy of some basic audio editing program, think they're an engineer, do some tweaking on a recording cuz they think "it sounds better", and presto -- another re-mastered version circulating...most of the time they've done nothing but polluted the pool with shite, but whatever...

this is why people are telling you -- listen and decide which version think is better

[AAR.oner]

Lastly, as I just recalled, I have heard people sing praises of certain cd's when they first came out compared to later re-releases. a thought ...

if you mean studio albums, yes i usually prefer the original release to the new re-mastered version where they used too much compression and then boosted the overall level til its hot as hell...this gets rid of all the dynamics of the recording...one of the best examples i can think of is the original release of the Allman Bros "Eat A Peach" on vinyl compared to the re-mastered re-release on CD

[MourningStar]

^
well, there you go, see? There has to be a way of "seeing" this obvious difference without the ears.

[MourningStar]

^
well, there you go, see? There has to be a way of "seeing" this obvious difference without the ears.Perhaps the analysis tools in question are cost-prohibitive at this level, and reside in generously-funded law-enforcement and/or intelligence agencies.

[sysoverload]

^
well, there you go, see? There has to be a way of "seeing" this obvious difference without the ears.Perhaps the analysis tools in question are cost-prohibitive at this level, and reside in generously-funded law-enforcement and/or intelligence agencies.

or artificial intelligence

this odds of this protocol droid not being able to determine the best sounding bootleg source are approximately 5473 to 1.

http://starwarsdotcom.com/star_wars/gallery/characters/pics/tc/misc_tc1.jpg

Threepio is more of a SBD droid though. R2D2 will take a nice mic source in the sweet spot any day over a dry, sterile board.

[Thulani]

^
well, there you go, see? There has to be a way of "seeing" this obvious difference without the ears.
No, that's not a way because a recording with high dynamic range can be crap too. He had to listen to the early press to compare it with the later press.

[AAR.oner]

^
well, there you go, see? There has to be a way of "seeing" this obvious difference without the ears.

yes there are analyzation tools if you know what yer lookin for, but yer ears will do a much better job of telling you what you think is a better sounding recording

after all, "better sounding" is subjective

[chinajoe]

ears are your best judge, but dont go by the crappy speakers that came with the computer. this is where a good set of headphones come into play.

there is a way to see the sound. cd wave shows how the sound "looks" and allows you to determine things like volume, if it clips, etc. after some time, you'll be able to look
at your "soundscape" and figure out when the snare, tom gets hit, if its an ambient passage, crowd yelling like mad, whistles, etc. make sure you do this with wav files

however, it does not tell you how it sounds. ears are the best judge.