MP3 conversion to ACD

What is ACD ?

Do you mean a CD ?

Audio CD

what is lost is lost. while conversion "redundant or info not required" is removed and thrown away.

Its like trying to make back a Chicken out of chicken sausages

II totally agree, Arj. Only would like to add to your example.... try to re-create the entire chicken, after Half the chicken has been discarded... albet the 'Non essential components'

To re-state my post from another thread :

Just a comparision of Digital compression formats (approx) :

1. Uncompressed Digital Music on a CD : 10 MB per minute

2. Lossless compression 6 MB per minute

3. ( Lossy compression ) 128K MP-3. 1 MB per minute.

To me it appears that the 128K mp-3 compression throws away 5 MB per minute of digital data.

THAT IS HALF OF EVERYTHING !

Almost a miracle that it still sounds the way it does....

Amp_Nut, idid not understand the term MB/min. what does it convey ?


Is it the "flow rate"
Since Bit for Bit a lossless file is exactly the same as the original, it is only compession which brings about the difference in size.. more likes books lying in a table haphhazardly and the same arranged well in a shelf..same stuff but taking less space !

idid not understand the term MB/min. what does it convey ?

I was referring to the file size, or the bits of data required for 1 minute of Music in each of the 3 different fileformats.

Yup, you are correct, in lossless compression, its just a more efficient way of storing the same info.

Lossy compression part is understood, but what is lossless compression. How does it compresses the CD Audio without compromising in quality? I mean what elements does it remove?

The decrease in size definitly should have its effects on compressed output.

I also came across this term "Lossless" while going thru specs of iPod.

I am not very familiar with Audio Compression techniques. I know Video techniques better, forb compression.

On a simplistic level, you can understand that prolonged silent passaages can be ignored.

The same note sustained over 2 consececutive samples can simply be termed as a Repeat, rather than restate its entire value.
Encode only the Difference between 2 consecutive samples.....

All these techniques can be used to provide Lossless compression.

In lossy compression, portions of the music are thrown away, because they are deemed to be inaudible, or masked by other louder sounds ....

Amp_Nut has just explained it correctly.

in lossless, in the end there is nothing lost..bit for bit it is same as the original. the "way" the bits are stored is more efficient..thats all.

in case of MP3s, depending on the bit rate the encoder will assume which parts would no be heard and accordingly prune them up.

somehow pitch, tone and texture of sound cannot be accounted in this and hence the concern that the soul of music is lost

[quote="Amp_Nut"]

The same note sustained over 2 consececutive samples can simply be termed as a Repeat, rather than restate its entire value.
Encode only the Difference between 2 consecutive samples.....
quote]

i thought that the average of the two signals consecutive and not the difference would be encoded.

with and average u lose both signals. so theoretically you encode the first value and then the relative difference from that. so if you sum both you get all the signals

ahh...that's right..
seems that i have forgotten my digital communication basics...

Arj schrieb:

in lossless, in the end there is nothing lost..bit for bit it is same as the original. the "way" the bits are stored is more efficient..thats all.

That implies all lossless formats sound the same ????
There isnt any SQ difference between any of the lossless formats ??

Not really..unless you want to hear it !!!!

again.i guess it depends a lot on the hardware/SW being used for the Coding..if they are good and take care of error protection to ensure the output is bit perfect with the source, there should be no difference !

to be frank i really have to really really concentrate to notice differences between a 320kbps mp3 and a LOssless !!

and again i am not sure if i would be able to notice the same if i did not know which was which. (since i tried a random playlist and i found it very difficult to be sure of what i was deciding)

Converting MP3 back to PCM (Audio CD) format and then listening to it on a HiFi system is a good way of finding out what you lost when you created the MP3. Especially true if you have the original Audio CD to compare it with.

If compression could help us accomodate more musical information then there would probably be no need to wreck one's brains (& finances) on the formats like SACD & DVD-A. Both these formats carry a lot more information and at a much faster sampling rates.

MP3 is a great format for portable music.

Regards

Sanjay

abhi.pani schrieb:

Arj schrieb: in lossless, in the end there is nothing lost..bit for bit it is same as the original. the "way" the bits are stored is more efficient..thats all. That implies all lossless formats sound the same ???? There isnt any SQ difference between any of the lossless formats ??

Yup... mathematically there is none. The only difference between FLAC/WMA Lossless/Monkey Audio and a myriad of others is in the encoding/decoding times taken by the codec. The bit correctness/error correction will be at the software that does the cd ripping not the software that is encoding/decoding ;).

Hence if you have good softwares to rip your CDs into FLAC, AAC etc then all would sound the same ???

^^AAC ain't lossless. Theoretically all lossless formats shud sound the same. However in practice, there are other issues to be encountered such as cpu load which can negatively affect decoding quality (frame x may take more time to decode than frame x+1 due to differing compression ratios which could negatively affect output quality as there may be latency introduced due to decoding). However if you have a reasonably fast CPU with no/light load during playback, all this should not be an issue :P.

Theoretically I agree that they should sound the same...but is it prctically true (considering that you have reasonably fast CPU with little load) ???

reignofchaos:

is data also lost while duplicating a CD i.e. during CD to CD copying process.

SUNILYO schrieb:

reignofchaos: is data also lost while duplicating a CD i.e. during CD to CD copying process.

Data CD no chance... Audio CD its possible if the original disc is scratched and those areas can't be read reliably.

Edit: Forgot to mention... if you burn copies of Audio CDs at high speeds, there might be uncorrectable errors cos of the CD burner itself failing to write data reliably. So the most reliable way to burn audio CDs is to burn them at 1X.

SUNILYO schrieb:

reignofchaos: is data also lost while duplicating a CD i.e. during CD to CD copying process.

Not if done properly.
Only if you have uncorrectable errors while reading the CD due to bad equippment or software you will find them on the recording too.

Regards,
Grumbler

abhi.pani schrieb:

Theoretically I agree that they should sound the same...but is it prctically true (considering that you have reasonably fast CPU with little load) ???

Can't say for certain but FLAC and WAV sound the same to me on my headphones(Senn HD580/Grado SR60+Head amp+Maudio audiophile).

reignofchaos schrieb:

abhi.pani schrieb: Theoretically I agree that they should sound the same...but is it prctically true (considering that you have reasonably fast CPU with little load) ??? Can't say for certain but FLAC and WAV sound the same to me on my headphones(Senn HD580/Grado SR60+Head amp+Maudio audiophile).

Since it is a lossless format that is certainly true. The tot-enough-CPU-Power is very hypothetically and when happen should lead the real errors like stutter. Nothing hard to catch.

Regards,
Grumbler

And WAV vs CDA, I find CDA to be quite better. I use LAME encoder while ripping CDs

Oh, so you have SR60 as well...cool so how do you compare SR-60 to HD580 ?

Which Headphone amp do you have ?
How do you rate the sound quality of iPod 5th generation ?

any advises on some better softwares than Nero (which i use for CD burning process).

The most picky persons usually use this for reading CDs:
http://www.exactaudiocopy.org/

I dont ... usually

Regards,
Grumbler

abhi.pani schrieb:

And WAV vs CDA, I find CDA to be quite better. I use LAME encoder while ripping CDs Oh, so you have SR60 as well...cool so how do you compare SR-60 to HD580 ? Which Headphone amp do you have ? How do you rate the sound quality of iPod 5th generation ?

No comparison... the Sennheiser is way way better. The SR60 is good for portable devices and unamped sources like a laptop... thats the only reason I have it :). Its sort of in your face whereas the sennheiser is much more reserved and laid back. I have a DIY class A amp... does pretty decently though I really don't have a yardstick to compare it with. Might get a good headphone amplifier once the wallet allows :). The only thing available locally is the musical fidelity xcan v3 which is priced at a ridiculous 27000 bucks by theaudiopeople chennai. (Its found for 300-350 in the US) As I mentioned somewhere else, ipods are getting worse in audio quality with every generation. The gen 2 and 3 were the best of the lot.

Grumbler schrieb:

reignofchaos schrieb: abhi.pani schrieb: Theoretically I agree that they should sound the same...but is it prctically true (considering that you have reasonably fast CPU with little load) ??? Can't say for certain but FLAC and WAV sound the same to me on my headphones(Senn HD580/Grado SR60+Head amp+Maudio audiophile). Since it is a lossless format that is certainly true. The tot-enough-CPU-Power is very hypothetically and when happen should lead the real errors like stutter. Nothing hard to catch. Regards, Grumbler

True... on a low end CPU stuff like FLAC might lead to choppiness. Not the case on my rig though... I have a 2.7GHz AMD64 with 4gigs of RAM ;).

reignofchaos schrieb:

SUNILYO schrieb: reignofchaos: is data also lost while duplicating a CD i.e. during CD to CD copying process. Data CD no chance... Audio CD its possible if the original disc is scratched and those areas can't be read reliably. Edit: Forgot to mention... if you burn copies of Audio CDs at high speeds, there might be uncorrectable errors cos of the CD burner itself failing to write data reliably. So the most reliable way to burn audio CDs is to burn them at 1X.

Which software allows you to burn CDs at 1X ??? I use Nero and they allow lowest 4X

^^Which drive? My NEC dvd burner allows 1X in nero.

I have a Sony CD-Rewritable drive and a Sony DVD-Combo drive.

The probablity of accuracy or errors in CD reproduction is same for Data CD & Audio CD, as long as no DA - AD conversion is taking place in the process and keeping other factors constant.

Both the Data & Audio CDs are read & written as pits & land in the reflective surface, so why should there be any difference? Its only the encoding and decoding that's different in the two.

Regards

Sanjay

SDhawan schrieb:

The probablity of accuracy or errors in CD reproduction is same for Data CD & Audio CD, as long as no DA - AD conversion is taking place in the process and keeping other factors constant. Both the Data & Audio CDs are read & written as pits & land in the reflective surface, so why should there be any difference? Its only the encoding and decoding that's different in the two. Regards Sanjay

^^Redbook vs Yellowbook... CDROM has error correction built in whereas audio cds have none. So even if there are errors in the data cd, you can still recover the complete information. This is not possible in audio cds.

Audio CD also has error correction codes embeded within the audio signal codes. But I was just pointing towards the reproducibility and not really the useablity in presence of any errors.

Regards

Sanjay

SDhawan schrieb:

Audio CD also has error correction codes embeded within the audio signal codes. But I was just pointing towards the reproducibility and not really the useablity in presence of any errors. Regards Sanjay

I think you misunderstood what I was saying... A redbook audio CD has virtually nil error correction. Whenever you burn a CD whether audio or data, there will always be write errors (called Parity Inner/Parity Inner Fail). PI/PIF errors are correctable in a data CD whereas there's another class of uncorrectable errors called POF (parity outer fail) which are not. If there's even a single POF, the audio/data cd is a toast. PI/PIF errors cause data cds to be read slower than normal because error correction must be invoked everytime and the cd will go bad sooner. However it can still be read. In case of audio cds however, there's no error correction and you hear pops and clicks if you record an audio cd at say 48x or something. The incidence of these errors is obviously higher at high speeds and also with bad quality media. It also depends on the drive characteristics to a large extent. Hence especially for audio cds, its best to have the highest quality available media and record it at the lowest possible speeds.

Edit: If you wanna check how well the CD was recorded, download Nero Cdspeed 2000 from www.cdspeed2000.com. Just run the disc quality check to find the burn quality.

reignofchaos schrieb:

abhi.pani schrieb: And WAV vs CDA, I find CDA to be quite better. I use LAME encoder while ripping CDs Oh, so you have SR60 as well...cool so how do you compare SR-60 to HD580 ? No comparison... the Sennheiser is way way better. The SR60 is good for portable devices and unamped sources like a laptop... thats the only reason I have it :). Its sort of in your face whereas the sennheiser is much more reserved and laid back.

Hi Reign,
I too have the SR-60. It sounds way better than a $50 Sony headphone. But I guess the HD580 is in a different league altogether. Way too expensive though. How much did it cost you. I paid $70 + shipping for the Grado SR60.

^^Got it for 69.95 with free shipping from jr.com.

[quote="reignofchaos]
I have a DIY class A amp... does pretty decently though I really don't have a yardstick to compare it with. Might get a good headphone amplifier once the wallet allows . The only thing available locally is the musical fidelity xcan v3 which is priced at a ridiculous 27000 bucks by theaudiopeople chennai. (Its found for 300-350 in the US) [/quote]
You mentioned Chennai, Reign. Really sorry, but I am high an dry in this city. If you wanna make contact with an ET from Bombay, do PM me.
The Audio People do have good stuff. I remember falling in love with the Energy C3 Connoisseur the last time I visited Chennai. And great subwoofers from REL and Velodyne.

reignofchaos schrieb:

I think you misunderstood what I was saying... A redbook audio CD has virtually nil error correction. Whenever you burn a CD whether audio or data, there will always be write errors (called Parity Inner/Parity Inner Fail). PI/PIF errors are correctable in a data CD whereas there's another class of uncorrectable errors called POF (parity outer fail) which are not. If there's even a single POF, the audio/data cd is a toast. PI/PIF errors cause data cds to be read slower than normal because error correction must be invoked everytime and the cd will go bad sooner. However it can still be read. In case of audio cds however, there's no error correction and you hear pops and clicks if you record an audio cd at say 48x or something. The incidence of these errors is obviously higher at high speeds and also with bad quality media. It also depends on the drive characteristics to a large extent. Hence especially for audio cds, its best to have the highest quality available media and record it at the lowest possible speeds. Edit: If you wanna check how well the CD was recorded, download Nero Cdspeed 2000 from www.cdspeed2000.com. Just run the disc quality check to find the burn quality.

Thanks Reign, for the news byte. I had somehow guessed that lower write speeds were safer and usually write between 4x to 12x though my Liteon CD writer supports 52x speed. I use Nero. It always says that the write was successfully completed. When I enable the checking of the written disk, the drive opens, then closes and the checking takes place. It invariably reports that the CD has pased the test.
So use are saying that this tool: Nero Cdspeed 2000 does a more thorough check than the default check of Nero Burning ROM?

The check is the same... it just reads the cd bit by bit... however cdspeed2000 actually gives you statistics as to how well the cd was recorded.

I have a DIY class A amp... does pretty decently though I really don't have a yardstick to compare it with. Might get a good headphone amplifier once the wallet allows

In case you are into DIY, check out :

http://www.headwize.com/projects

The link was given to me by Maneck