What Audio Format For CD Burning

[Ken Pachkowsky]

Hi All

Just curious what audio format some of you use for authoring?

I just downloaded (wma) and burnt a copy of Peter Gabriel's "So" using Variable Bit Length WMA format and did not like the results. Its supposed to be a high quality lossless format....but the end result was very metalic sounding with what I would describe as horrible mid range hash...

Ken

[Ducatista47]

I like - in this order

FLAC
WavPack
APE (Monkey Audio)

If I can't download in one of these formats, I forget it.

Apple Lossless does not sound good to me. I don't trust Windows Media anything for quality. I always pre unpack, as I find decompression on the fly is asking for it despite the theoretical equivalence.

I also always burn to a CD, as music servers in my case answer a question I never asked. I mean how hard is it to put in a CD?

Clark

[Mr. Widget]

I just downloaded (wma) and burnt a copy of Peter Gabriel's "So" using Variable Bit Length WMA format and did not like the results. Its supposed to be a high quality lossless format....but the end result was very metalic sounding with what I would describe as horrible mid range hash...

I would describe my redbook CD of that album similarly in comparison to the original vinyl album.

How can you be sure it isn't in the digital source?


Widget

[hjames]

Agree with Ducatista47 - for serious music downloading, its FLAC or nothing.
Its a lossless method and sounds quite good.
Anything less has compromised the music to some degree, but, its only important if its music you are fussy about it.
I have tried the Variable Bit Length compressions - and don't like them.

For some pop music I can take a bit of compression for music I just want to casually listen to.

I grabbed a couple of Cat Steven songs from Harold and Maude the other night, just because they were on my mind, I wanted to hear them that night and didn't want to buy the greatest hits album on disc and wait for shipping.
So, I bought them as a 256kb dload from amazon for $2 and its all I needed. ("Trouble", and "Sing Out")

But after Ducatista got me into Bill Evans, no mp3s there, I wanted them in the best quality I could find - so, they need to be FLAC.

Burning Software - I'm OSX based so my comments aren't going to help,
I use Toast, it will burn from FLAC - but I did like NERO burning back in my Win days ...

[scott fitlin]

I would describe my redbook CD of that album similarly in comparison to the original vinyl album.

How can you be sure it isn't in the digital source?


Widget

I honestly believe we can't!

Some files sound great in ANY format, and some won't sound good regardless of whatever you try.

I'm gonna get flamed for this, BUT I DO NOT CARE, some files that were NOT well made in the 1st place, well, they have no chance. But well made, good sounding files will sound good in ANY FORMAT. It is really more up to what works best, ( CORRECTLY ) in your computer.

[Mr. Widget]

I like - in this order

FLAC
WavPack
APE (Monkey Audio)

If I can't download in one of these formats, I forget it.

Apple Lossless does not sound good to me.

I tend to agree with Skylab over on Head-Fi.

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f15/fl...erence-179488/

[Ken Pachkowsky]

I would describe my redbook CD of that album similarly in comparison to the original vinyl album.

Widget

Hmmm. Well thats explains that.....to bad

Thanks Widget

[Ducatista47]

I tend to agree with Skylab over on Head-Fi.

Parenthetical rant:

Nice to know. I trust Skylab pretty much. But I am not an iTunes user, will probably never be into iPod or any portable audio, and definitely do not like the way they sound. At my age pretty good is not enough - time is short - and bit for bit is not the end all in how something sounds. Obviously, YMMV! Good advice for what Ken is doing if he is into portable, but with his main rig I would avoid anything related to a music server. Let me know when an iPod or a sound card has a tube or JFET analogue section. End of parenthetical rant.

I can tell you that any and every little bit of care in the making of a CD can matter, even at home. JVC went to a lot of trouble to make XRCDs and it showed. Bit for bit does not guarantee a quality result, it is just a basic requirement.

Clark, Obviously an Old Fart at this point.

[Mr. Widget]

Nice to know. I trust Skylab pretty much. But I am not an iTunes user, will probably never be into iPod or any portable audio, and definitely do not like the way they sound.

Don't discount the little guys... when plugged into the Wadia iTransport, they are simply another hard drive pumping out a digital stream to your favorite DAC.


Widget

[boputnam]

Agree with Ducatista47 - for serious music downloading, its FLAC or nothing.

Yes, but...

I tend to agree with Skylab over on Head-Fi.

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f15/fl...erence-179488/

...there are choices to be made on the bit depth and sampling rate. I've recorded live shows at FLAC 96kHz/24 bit, and that data file is ginormous...

What FLAC parameters are you guys talking about?

[Mr. Widget]

...there are choices to be made on the bit depth and sampling rate. I've recorded live shows at FLAC 96kHz/24 bit, and that data file is ginormous...

What FLAC parameters are you guys talking about?

Bo, bit depth and sampling rate are the quality that you want to record the audio in... FLAC is simply a lossless compression codec that reduces what you've recorded.

For example, if you record at 24/96 your FLAC file will be much larger than a FLAC file that was originally recorded at CD redbook or 16/44.1. Since you are likely handing the disc off as a two channel demo disc, 16/44.1 is likely all you need.

FWIW: I was talking with Tom Holman in September and we were discussion just how good, good needs to be and he said for two channel, or multichannel as the final mix, i.e. 5.1, a true 20/60 appears to be imperceptible from a live feed. That said, since additional processing is always likely to occur, in a professional studio application 24/96 or 24/192 are better choices.


Widget

[Ducatista47]

Don't discount the little guys... when plugged into the Wadia iTransport, they are simply another hard drive pumping out a digital stream to your favorite DAC.

Wadia is like Stax gear. Using it is kind of like cheating.

...there are choices to be made on the bit depth and sampling rate. I've recorded live shows at FLAC 96kHz/24 bit, and that data file is ginormous...

I have often wondered how large the files are when using the Sony DSD system with its 2.8mhz sampling rate.

Clark

[boputnam]

Bo, bit depth and sampling rate are the quality that you want to record the audio in... FLAC is simply a lossless compression codec that reduces what you've recorded.

Yeah, I know all that - I was just curious what Clark and all are using, themselves. I waffle between FLAC at 24/96 and 16/44.1, because the former is too large for my uploads to the Live Music Archive at Archive.org (etree) and WAY too large when I push stuff up to LiveDownloads.

[Robh3606]

Hi All

Just curious what audio format some of you use for authoring?

Me I am using the dreaded MP3 format on my I-Pod. I use high bitrate VBR for the compression. When I originaly got started I was limited to 30G. Couldn't fit all I wanted using a lossless compression format. Now I have a 120G so eventually I will try some Apple Lossless on some material to see if it realy matters for casual listening or not. I never use it at home although it is tempting to use it as a portable server because of the flexibility.

- time is short -

Exactly why I got mine. It was a PITA being limited to only a dozen or so CD's at work every day. This way I can carry a much larger selection. I know it's not the best format but frankly it doesn't stop me from enjoying what I decide to play and that to me is the bottom line.

I am not advocating MP3 as a general release format guite the contrary. I would like to see it all on CD as a minimum and wishfull thinking on 24/96 DTS/DVDA/SACD or Blueray.

Rob

[Akira]

Since I got into film I have been using 24/48 for the moving picture (a standard) and 24/88.2 for music which converts down well to Redbook. I can't really hear the difference between either of them because as others have mentioned, all that matters is the quality of the original program...that's what my ears hear, not a bunch of over rated numbers.

Honestly, I don't think higher sampling rates make very much difference at all. It just means you do not have a 'brick' wall' limiter after the point of "superb" human hearing. Therefore anything past double (88.1KHz) is meaningless. What is vitally important is the depth of the numeric code used to describle the encoded program--bit rate.

As far as compressed files, my weapon of choice is Mp4.

p.s. It may interest you to know that in the world of film, the latest HD decks which cost in the $100K+++ range only go up to 20 bit.
That's over $100K for a single video deck!