After reading allquixotic and slhck answers I was curious as to the audio codec for the wav files in question. This is what I found. For example, most all? Bottom line, I'd say their practice is redundant but a nice gesture for folks who don't want to download massive amounts of data and prefer the compressed version. But compression ratio is better than ZIP, because this compression format is tailored specifically for audio.
Many devices music systems, portable devices, TVs, etc. WAV has a constant bit rate. That means even the silent parts are stored as 0 Hz and occupies space in the container. FLAC on the other hand has a variable bit rate and eliminates the silence parts and stores only the part of the audio between 1 and , Hz. If any audio frequency in that range is not detected, say 0 Hz or anything above , Hz, FLAC treats it as silence and does not store it. As reference, humans can only hear frequencies in the range between 15 Hz and 20, Hz, which also narrows with age.
I also feel that way, although I am perfectly aware that they deliver the exact same quality. Not getting the WAV file makes me feel that something is missing, which in fact is largely untrue if in reality, I will only be missing something that is not there and something that nobody in this world would be able to hear: even the bats.
I do not understand why people say FLAC is lossless. It is lossy by definition because in music there is no such thing as an absence of sound. Now people can go back and forth on the specifics and arguments if they want but here is the absolute truth of it. If your listening to music over a boombox or your cellphone you won't notice a difference at all. But and this is a really, really big BUT.
If you have any kind of quality stereo system ex. Your speakers alone are more then a couple hundred bucks You will most definitely notice a drop in Fidelity. For me being a HI-FI buff pretty much since birth and loving Klipsch cornerhorns that's a huge difference. The difference in a song being 32mb vs. Basically it's the same as a P movie vs. So YES there is a difference and you will without question notice it if you're using audio of higher quality then CD and you're looking for it That's the skinny.
The human frequency range is limited - and on a summit-fi rig of Hi-Fi separates with an amplifier, CD player, sound field processor, and tuner is able to extract ultrasonic frequencies when used with compatible headphones 5 HZ - 40 KHz to the point of being able to feel these ultrasonic frequencies around you; even disrupting listening sessions when you will believe someone has stopped on the floor.
This is possible with redbook CDs. When audio files are compressed, some information that the file contains is removed to reduce file size. That makes it a lot more convenient to store without requiring huge disk space. The problem with this compression is that, because you remove information, the audio usually suffers in quality depending on compression rate. But in contradiction to, e.
But it may not be the best choice when editing your audio files, where you might want the most information possible. Bit depth is expressed in bits, while sample rates are measured in kilohertz or Hertz. Both factors help you understand how accurate the digitally recorded sound is. Sample rate measures how many times the audio rendering software samples the file in a second.
Typically, the software sample rate is high and is around kHz, which means that the software samples the audio , times within a second and takes in the information. The software takes about 16—24 bits of information to get the audio file during this process — This is known as bit depth. The higher the bit depth is, the better the audio translates.
With FLAC, as we know, the sample rate and bit depth is limited, which causes it to lose some of the information. WAV, on the other hand, takes more space and has unlimited bit depth and sample rate. Yet, to the ear, the audio quality remains as it was during the original recording.
Considering the file format lossless , these factors do not affect the audio quality in any way. I always have been amazed by how music sounds better on Linux compared to Windows: more details, better dynamic. That was, historically, one of the first reason for me and a few friends to move permanently to Linux, to listen, produce and record music. Perhaps it's just a feeling. But, I would really like to see if it's possible to measure the impact of the operating system and the softwares playing the music.
What I wanted were better-sounding versions of some of my favourite tunes, where the mastering engineer backed off on the level a bit to leave some headroom, got rid of some of the compression, and I hoped re-equalized the low frequencies that were often reduced to make records that played on toy record players of the 60s and 70s. I find your comments about Linux vs Windows interesting as well.
I have read that Windows users really concerned with sound quality will download some kind of driver? I have to confess that I haven't done a whole bunch of comparisons of different setups in the way that you have. I think you should write an article about that here on opensource.
As to measuring the differences between different music reproduction chains, that sounds like a great idea. I don't necessarily trust claims that "wow this sounds much better than that", nor do I necessarily trust the results of elaborate blind or double-blind testing. Certainly it would be cool to figure out some way of unequivocally determining that chain A provides a higher fidelity than chain B. But it's also good to remember the wise words of Siegfried Linkwitz requiescat in pace , as quoted by Michael Fremer here:.
Nature makes sure each does its job and does its job perfectly. You get cues from the eye, but some things that look gross in the frequency response, the ear says, "I don't care". I put together a new PC laptop after my older macbook died, and I wanted to take the opportunity to start experimenting with different players and file types.
Towards the end of my favorite song, "Sprawl II," there were audible artifacts toward the end of the song. I listened straight from the CD and no such artifacts were present. I did a little research on what to try, ripped it in WAV, and voi la! No artifacts. Could I hear a difference in the sound quality?
But I want to rip my library and not have to worry about whether or not artifacts will be introduced in the process. So, WAV it is, specifically when ripping.
Thanks for the very interesting comment, Jud. It would be good to hear a bit more about these audible artifacts you noticed.
At what moment do they occur in the track "Sprawl"? What do they sound like to you? Have you tried another ripper - I'm not familiar with MusicBee, but one possibility must be that the process generated errors that were audible in the MusicBee rip. What is your DAC? I don't think I have this CD but I'd love to experiment with it if I did especially since I'm using a different platform than you are.
You will find audio files going from The more sample rate an audio file has, the clearer it will sound, and the more accurate it will be. But of course, WAV comes with the highest among the two. This happens because it is totally uncompressed, which means you see a natural or raw form of sound.
But for FLAC, you may lose some of the sample rates. Lossy refers to audio files that lose quality when their type of file changes. The focus of lossy files is to focus just on the essential parts of an audio file and discard the rest. To give you a better idea, lossy is the type of music you find in most streaming services with a few exceptions , and music CDs.
On the other hand, you find lossless. The primary way to do so is by using the compression system. As a rule, the more compressed file usually has a lower bit depth, sample rate, and smaller size. As for WAV, it is totally uncompressed. This lack of compression means the file is in its raw or natural form. It is not necessary to compress it at all unless the listener or producer wants to reduce its size file.
So, of course, WAV often comes with large audio files, which can be bothersome.
0コメント