• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Saving CDs on PC

I meant component manufacturer and record company, ie Denon, McIntosh, Pioneer, etc producing FLAC players and record companies dropping the bloated CD format for FLAC discs.
Click to expand...
There is no point in it for the manufactures. We have the CD standard and they have no marketable reason to change. What would be the incentive to support FLAC via a DVD player? If we want lossless we can just play the CD. However, there are companies that manufacture media players that support FLAC, WMA Lossless, or Apple Lossless. The people that archive media on their computers want to move a lot of music around from place to place. That is why Roku, Rio, Sonos and other media players support FLAC for entire libraries. Even the McIntosh Media player (MS300) has the ability to burn to FLAC.

There is not a huge market for playing FLAC from a CD. However, the media server market for FLAC or other compressed lossless formats is on the rise and is being accepted by the huge companies.
 
It's a conversion. Any conversion of the music = not original music.
Click to expand...
This is wrong. Flac has proven that conversion from wav to flac and back to wav is the exact same data. There is no difference unless the wav file contains extra information that is not related to sound. They have an open source test that anyone is able to use to prove them wrong. Of course, some people do not believe in tests, so I guess we will have to live with predetermined biases (even if they are incorrect).

I think we have been down this road before.... :sigh:

From McIntosh's downloadable guide:

What is FLAC?
FLAC stands for Free Lossless Audio Codec. Grossly oversimplified, FLAC is similar to MP3, but lossless, meaning that audio is compressed in FLAC without any loss in quality. This is similar to how Zip works, except with FLAC you will get much better compression because it is designed specifically for audio, and you can play back compressed FLAC files just like you would an MP3 file. The quality of a FLAC encoded file is an exact bit for bit copy of the original CD audio data. MP3 encoded files are not bit for bit copies of the original audio and therefore technically don’t equal the quality of the original.
FLAC is freely available and supported on most operating systems, including Windows, "unix" (Linux, *BSD, Solaris, OS X, IRIX), BeOS, OS/2, Mac OS X, and Amiga.
Notable features of FLAC
• Lossless: The encoding of audio (PCM) data incurs no loss of information, and the decoded audio is bit-for-bit identical to what went into the encoder. Each frame contains a 16-bit CRC of the frame data for detecting transmission errors.
The integrity of the audio data is further insured by storing an MD5 signature of the original unencoded audio data in the file header, which can be compared against later during decoding or testing.
• Fast: FLAC is asymmetric in favor of decode speed. Decoding requires only
integer arithmetic, and is much less compute-intensive than for most perceptual codecs. Real-time decode performance is easily achievable on even modest hardware.
• Hardware support: Because of FLAC's free reference implementation and low
decoding complexity, FLAC is currently the only lossless codec that has any kind of hardware support.
• Streamable: Each FLAC frame contains enough data to decode that frame. FLAC does not even rely on previous or following frames. FLAC uses sync codes and CRCs (similar to MPEG and other formats), which, along with framing, allow decoders to pick up in the middle of a stream with a minimum of delay.
• Seekable: FLAC supports fast sample-accurate seeking. Not only is this useful for playback, it makes FLAC files suitable for use in editing applications.
• Flexible metadata: New metadata blocks can be defined and implemented in
future versions of FLAC without breaking older streams or decoders
• Suitable for archiving: FLAC is an open format, and there is no generation loss if you need to convert your data to another format in the future. In addition to the frame CRCs and MD5 signature, flac has a verify option that decodes the encoded stream in parallel with the encoding process and compares the result to the original, aborting with an error if there is a mismatch.• Convenient CD archiving: FLAC has a "cue sheet" metadata block for storing a CD table of contents and all track and index points. For instance, you can rip a CD to a single file, then import the CD's extracted cue sheet while encoding to MS300 Advanced Users Guide yield a single file representation of the entire CD. If your original CD is damaged,the cue sheet can be exported later in order to burn an exact copy.
• Error resistant: Because of FLAC's framing, stream errors limit the damage to the frame in which the error occurred, typically a small fraction of a second worth of data. Contrast this with some other lossless codecs, in which a single error destroys the remainder of the stream.
What FLAC is not
• Lossy. FLAC is intended for lossless compression only, as there are many good lossy formats already, such as Vorbis, MPC, and MP3 (see LAME for an
excellent open-source implementation).
• SDMI compliant, et cetera. There is no intention to support any methods of copy protection, which are, for all practical purposes, a complete waste of bits. (Another way to look at it is that since copy protection is futile, it really carries no information, so you might say FLAC already losslessly compresses all possible copy protection information down to zero bits!) Of course, we can't stop what some misguided person does with proprietary metadata blocks, but then again,non-proprietary decoders will skip them anyway.

http://www.mcintoshlabs.com/data/manuals/ms300advanced.users.guide.pdf
 
Last edited:
The holy grail of music compression has been found. :sigh:

Audio's perfect compression program is here - and it's free!! :D

If I had a dollar for every technical white sheet that has been written claiming that "X" format is the best, I'd have retired long, long ago. Once again I'll state my opinion, and it's just my opinion. FLAC is cool, but so is mp3. I can still hear the difference. :yes: But everyone's mileage will vary.

BTW: what was the original question of this thread about? Oh yeah: "Like if I save it as a MP3, and then later born a copy, will that copy be worse than if I had saved the CD originally as a WAV file?"
To answer your question, yes. If you copy a CD as an MP3, it will be worse than the original CD (unless you saved it as a WAV file). :smoke:
 
it will be worse than the original CD (or if you had saved it as a WAV file).
Click to expand...
No...If you save it is a wav file, you will have exactly what is on the CD.

If you think you know more about music than McIntosh, I am surprised you just don't make your own products instead of buying theirs.
 
answering styler's question

JimmyNeutron said:
It's a conversion. Any conversion of the music = not original music. :no:

Hey man, I don't write and distribute these "free lossless audio codecs", I just listen to them. And I don't like what I hear. You like them - good for you. But I'm not going to say that they sound EXACTLY like the original source. :no: We all hear different and I, like many other people, can hear the difference in these formats. Does that make them bad? No. Does it make me bad? No. Does it make you bad for not hearing a difference? No. Frankly I don't care what you can and can't hear. But compression/conversion will NEVER replace the source. :thumbsdn:
Click to expand...

I was replying to styler's question if FLAC was free. You must have thought I was commenting on something you said, but I wasn't.
 
head-fi.org

VintageNut said:
On a related note, does anyone here have experience with the Chaintech AV-710 sound card?
Click to expand...

Go to the computer as source board at head-fi.org. Tons of information on the AV-710.
 
JimmyNeutron said:
Good for you John. If I had a dollar for every test I won that somebody made me take to prove to them that nothing sounds as good as an original I'd have me a complete McIntosh set! :D That's a lot of dollars and even more people proved wrong. Bottom line is if all these forms of lossless compression were so good, they would be the holy grail of audio storage, yet no major manufacturer or studio wants to have anything to do with them - unless it's for downloading music over the internet! Pure audio is still pure audio - and nothing beats vinyl for "quality and air" in playback. CD would be next, but it too leaves a lot to be desired, as proven by the constant upgrades like hardware and software - CD to SACD/DVD-Audio.
Click to expand...

I am sorry but you're wrong. Both DVD-A and SACD employ lossless compression. The FLAC encoder and decoder are 100% lossless. Providing your WAV file has a normal header you can even compare checksums on the original and an encoded-decoded file. Any differences between the two are either down to placebo effect or differences in the quality of the plugins/software you are using.
 
JimmyNeutron said:
The holy grail of music compression has been found. :sigh:

Audio's perfect compression program is here - and it's free!! :D
Click to expand...

Oh for christs sake.
Audios PERFECT compression program has NOT been found. There are still steps to be taken to increase the compression available with lossless. Do you wish me to explain to you in undoubtable terms how to write a 100% bit for bit lossless encoder? Because I am more than willing.
 
Mandel said:
Oh for christs sake.
Do you wish me to explain to you in undoubtable terms how to write a 100% bit for bit lossless encoder? Because I am more than willing.
Click to expand...


Go for it. It's your dime. :saywhat:
 
Ok!
Lets work with an 8bit wav for simplicity
Lossless encoders use a set of estimates and then correction values. We will make 3 estimations here.
1: Each value of the .wav is the same as the previous value
2: Each value of the .wav is 14 values above the previous
3: Each value of the .wav is 14 values below the previous
We will attempt to encode in 4bits:
14 of the 16 values for correction values -6 to+7
2 bits for 4 possible values on what to do next:
1) use estimation 1
2) use estimation 2
3) use estimation 3
4) value outside of estimations capabilities, encode as follows
8 bits unaltered wav value, 2 bits for what to do next

Lets make up some wav values
50,78,100,122,140,150,160,178,190,194,192,186,181,176,160,120,80,40,10,-30
20, 8 bit values, this requires 160 bits in a .wav file

We use 10 bits to encode a value of 50 and specify do 'd' next
We use 10 bits to encode a value of 78 and specify 'd' next
We use 10 bits to encode a value of 100 and specify 'd' next
We use 10 bits to encode a value of 122 and specify 'b' next
(140)We use 6 bits to apply correction of +4 to 'b' and specity 'b' next
(150)We use 6 bits to apply correction of -4 to 'b' and specify 'b' next
(160)We use 6 bits to apply correction of -4 to 'b' and specify 'b' next
(178)We use 6 bits to apply correction of +4 to 'b' and specify 'b' next
(190)We use 6 bits to apply correction of -2 to 'b' and specify 'a' next
(194)We use 6 bits to apply correction of +4 to 'a' and specify 'a' next
(192)We use 6 bits to apply correction of -2 to 'a' and specify 'a' next
(186)We use 6 bits to apply correction of -6 to 'a' and specify 'a' next
(181)We use 6 bits to apply correction of -5 to 'a' and specify 'a' next
(176)We use 6 bits to apply correction of -5 to 'a' and specify 'c' next
(160)We use 6 bits to apply correction of -2 to 'c' and specify 'a' next
(120)We use 10 bits to encode value of 120 and specify 'a' next
(80)We use 10 bits to encode value of 80 and specify 'a' next
(40)We use 10 bits to encode value of 40 and specify 'a' next
(10)We use 10 bits to encode value of 10 and specify 'a' next
(-30)We use 10 bits to encode value of -30 and specify 'a' next

We have used 156 bits, and this can be losslessly converted back to the original 160 by reversing the process. Now, this is a very simple version, the estimates assume linear relationships. There are much better ways to estimate a musical wave file, made up of sine wavs. Plus it can be more scalable, extra information about which estimates to use every 10 values or whatever. Ther possibilities are almost endless, which is why development of lossless decoding is still going on.

It is simply ZIP, but optimised for wav files which are largely predictable
 
Tutorials for Lossless and close to perfect audio archiving

www.High-Quality.ch.vu

or www.rex-guide.de.vu

Those guides should lead everybody to perfect audio archiving.
MPC Musepack is the lossy format, which is closest to original audio,

and, all the Lossless formats like Wavpack, Flac, Monkey's audio ape, Optimfrog,
are all the original audio, just as you pack your word.doc documents into a zip-file, and decompress later, and you will not lose any bit or single word, lol
The critical guys like JimmyNeutron can easily make trial themselves:

1. get a *.wav file,
2. compress by flac.exe/eg. via foobar2000 player to *.flac,
3. decompress from *.flac to *.wav again,
4. and make bit-to-bit-comparison, eg. in totalCommander or windows commander32.
The 2 files, original *.wav, and the wav->flac->wav *.wav file will be identical, maybe besides some weirdo headers.


maybe good read for starters:
http://www.angelfire.com/magic2/hq-audio/l/intro-mpc-lossless.html

or:
http://www.angelfire.com/magic2/hq-audio/tut-lossless.htm




For clarifying,

MPC is lossy compression, comparable to mp3 where you lose some (presumable not listenable audio content), but MPC performs at given bitrate much better than mp3, starting at 128 kbit/s.
MPC reaches transparency at ca. 160 - 220 kbit/s compression for most people.
(transparency means perfect audio quality comparable like original, but transparency is subjective, dependent to a single persons listening abilities !)

Between lossy formats like mpc, mp3 and the LOSSLESS formats like wavpack, ape, flac, shorten is a very very big difference,
Lossless formats preserve the original audio, data content by compression without losses, like zip, rar, 7zip etc. etc.
So, Lossless formats are objectively 100% perfect in storing audio data.

Lossless is Lossless is Lossless !
You can transcode from original wav to flac -> wv -> ofr -> shn -> ape -> wav and you keep still the unaltered original.

Stay away from lossy -> lossy transcoding wav -> mp3 -> mpc -> ogg etc etc etc., as you will lose in each step audio data, content of the music....
 
Last edited:
MP3 (based on MPEG2 standard) takes advantage of some quirks of the human ear. Above certain level a 1000Hz tone will mask the adjacent tones and you do not hear them even in an original performance. I have a whole artical on how the compression is done but it is too big to scan and post here. Most people use the Fraunhoffer software to achieve MP3 compression as Fraunhoffer Institute in Germany was one of the major contributors to the MPEG2 standard. There was an MPEG3 planned but it was dropped because the work done on MPEG2 obviated the need for another standard, although there is an MPEG4 standard that compresses everthing, video, sound and text. I worked on this some myself, in fact I still have a copy of the MPEG2 standard, when I wrote a self paced training course for a local company. I also visited a company called Nuko in San Jose who had developed a unit of hardware and software that could put 6 video streams on a DS-3 telecom channel.

Rob
 
JimmyNeutron said:
True. MP3's at any bit rate will still sound less like the CD - it's plain mathematics. But a lot of people either don't care about the difference or they can't hear the difference due to other reasons (hard of hearing, use the music in noisy enviroments, etc). WAV files are CD clones, but they are huge!! FLAC files are bigger than mp3's, but smaller than WAV's and have "almost" the same sound as CD's. I say almost because I happen to be one of the people who can hear a difference - albeit a very small difference with FLAC. I hear it in the "air" and "quality" to the music. Oh well, whatever. FLAC is still the best sounding format to use when you store your music onto your computer. I have my music mostly in mp3 format @ 320 kps simply because it's the most widely accepted format around - ANY music program, streamer, media server, etc will recognize mp3's, not many will recognize FLAC files.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you're just plain mentally challenged or if you're one of those loudmouth, not overly intelligent, people who THINK they know it all but FLAC is lossless. There is NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER between a file compressed with FLAC and a WAV file. They are completely, 100% identical. If you think you can hear a difference and continue arguing then you are a complete and utter fu*king moron.
 
User> If you think that is good enough for some people you are mistaken. A worrying number of people are of the opinion that a bit of empirical evidence can outweigh actual FACT.

CDs do not contain music, they contain a MATHEMATICAL representation of an electric signal created by an object moving in a magnetic field. These numbers are therefore subject to the same arithmetic as your accounts or the number of peas on your plates.
 
userThe [B said:
critical guys [/B] like JimmyNeutron can easily make trial themselves:

.
Click to expand...


You know it's not all that hard to download the codecs and rip some music and then play the files back on your computer for comparison. I have done just that - many times over. I NEVER said that FLAC was a bad codec, or that it sounds inferior (like mp3). I have always only stated that, to my ears, it does not sound EXACTLY like the original. Even though the bits are "rearranged" into smaller packages, and then reassembles back to their original bit structure - as FLAC claims to do, there is a "quality and air" that gets lost in that conversion. It is very evident in doing A/B comparisons on your system. Don't give me this crap about "strict A/B/X comparisons using HP measureing equipment to match levels within .00000000% tolerance for fair consideration, blah, blah, blah"!!! We don't have that kind of equipment, or the expense to get it. How do they compare, in real world computers connected to real world stereo's playing real world music? DO it yourself (If you have a critical ear as most of us audiophile do). There is something lost in the conversion - period. Maybe you can't hear it, but that's not to say that someone else can't. I can hear it, as well as other members of this board. Chaulk it up to a more revealing system, or better trained ears, but the difference is there. CD playback has been claimed to have "perfect sound" since it's inception back in 1982. Guess what - it's still being improved to this day. But how could the math be wrong? All CD's were bit for bit perfect copies. Bottom line - digital, in any form - lossless or compressed, still isin't perfect. Anything introduced into the playback chain, or the decoding chain, can have audible effects on the final sound. I'm not saying FLAC is bad, never have, but I'm saying that it's not, at least in the world of audio playback, the same as the original. Been there, tried it, heard it.

This thread has gone a different path since it started out. I'm not hear to convince anyone of my points, only to offer my opinion. You can take it any way you want. I think, for the sake of everyone watching this pissing contest, that I'll just bow out and let this thread run it's close. :rant:
 
Last edited:
"You know it's not all that hard to download the codecs and rip some music and then play the files back on your computer for comparison."
As a double blind test? Else it is useless, placebo effect anybody?

CD reproduction has never been perfect, converting 16/44 back to analogue requres a shed load of interpolation and reprocessing to get a listenable sound. This process is being continuously improved.

Anyway, it's not really you I am trying to convince, its those who might be swayed and make bad decisions about their audio encoding by reading what you've been posting here. I will leave it to them now to make their own mind up about who is posting conjecture and who is posting cold hard fact.
For more on this topic, this makes amusing reading:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=34696

One question though, what soundcard do you use?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom