Best Sound Formats

[zad0030]

I think this was discussed on here a while ago but I searched and it didn't come up with anything.

What is the better quality audio. The program I am using gives me a bunch of options for formats and then bitrate and variable bitrate and the channel which is set as joint. Im not quite sure what that means. And also each format has different option as to the bitrate and other settings.

The only format I dont see is ATRAC, but there is a .aac which I thought could be.

There is also an option for error protection, not quite sure what that does but I guess it would get rid of those blips you get sometimes.

But basically I will be using this on my PSP. Im not entirely sure what formats it accepts but right now im using mp3. But if i do remember it will also read ATRAC and WAV. Ill be using it for my own listening off the headphones, and in the car stereo, in the boat and also when I play drums.

And also does anyone know of anything program (preferably free) that writes good Data Cds. I like using these in the car as it can read the mp3 format and I can get about 150-200 songs all on one CD but it sounds terrible. Or maybe I need to change settings for that as well.

Any help would be appreciated.

[hoopykat]

AAC is the format Apple uses for encoding music via their iTunes program. IIRC it outputs files in the .m4p format...and has copy protection capabilities. Apple just recently started allowing folks to download copyprotect-free AAC files for a bit more money.

The .mp3 format is good for recording music files, and if you use a higher encoding bitrate (say 192 .vs something lower) you get a better sound, although the file size is larger. I'd avoid .wav files for anything other than short sound clips.

If you're looking for programs to encode CDs and such, do a search for "audio applications" or "audio editors" on cnet.com or some such website.

-Mike

[spharis]

mp3 and 192. It is the perfect marriage of sound quality and size.

AAC is an inferior format as documented bountifully across the web.

[Lunchbox]

I'm surprised ragboy hasn't chimed in on this yet...

[zad0030]

I actually stumlbed upon a free bundle of stuff.

I got a Video converter (Prism), sound converter (Switch), sound editor (WavePad), CD ripper (Express Rip), CD burner (Express Burn) and something that converts recors and tapes to your computer and another that I dont know what it does. All for free!


Thanks for the help guys. Sounds like .mp3 is still good just with a higher bit rate. I think most of my songs are at 128 right now.

[ragboy]

There are so many tests online about this stuff. But one thing rings true, the ENCODER is the more important question, and the settings you use during encoding. If you stay above 180kbps, and use the latest versions of LAME, or iTunes, or Vorbis, quality will be outstanding. LAME can give you the best results, the only thing, is you really have to know how to tweak it, and tweak it depending on the source. I use some settings for spoken word, and others for different kinds of music. MP3 is probably the best, because it works on everything, and LAME is free. However, all of my stuff is in AAC. I use itunes at 256kbps, which at that rate, I cannot hear the difference between the real cd, no matter how good the headphones, and how hard I try.

Anyway, the format is just the container, the algorithm used to encode is where the quality is the factor.

[zad0030]

There are so many tests online about this stuff. But one thing rings true, the ENCODER is the more important question, and the settings you use during encoding. If you stay above 180kbps, and use the latest versions of LAME, or iTunes, or Vorbis, quality will be outstanding. LAME can give you the best results, the only thing, is you really have to know how to tweak it, and tweak it depending on the source. I use some settings for spoken word, and others for different kinds of music. MP3 is probably the best, because it works on everything, and LAME is free. However, all of my stuff is in AAC. I use itunes at 256kbps, which at that rate, I cannot hear the difference between the real cd, no matter how good the headphones, and how hard I try.

Anyway, the format is just the container, the algorithm used to encode is where the quality is the factor.

Do you know anything about the program I have, "switch"?

[ragboy]

no. But I am sure they use some library to encode. So say you are using mp3, do they use lame, and can you set the options? If AAC, are they using FAAC? I would bet they use lame for mp3, since it is free, but I would check.

[dogbert]

I use itunes at 256kbps, which at that rate, I cannot hear the difference between the real cd, no matter how good the headphones, and how hard I try.

Anyway, the format is just the container, the algorithm used to encode is where the quality is the factor.

That's because most of the music mastered today is done so with the MP3 players in mind. Gone are the days where the interchangeable digital decoder found on many high-end CD players would actually make a difference. You're right, you'll never be able to tell the difference on a set of headphones, but I guarantee you would on a high-end amp and set of speakers. I hear it whenever I play my iPod through my hi-fi system.

Take some older CDs out and you'll hear the difference.

[philwsailz]

Do you know anything about the program I have, "switch"?

Switch, Wave PAd, Mix Pad, Golden REcords, etc... All good programs, real quality stuff.

Zad, be prepared though; they are not free. All of these are a trial version, and they have an expiration.

Switch seems pretty lossless for conversion from format to format. IT is also real easy, which is a bonus. Just remember to preset your preferences for bit rate.

I used to import .WAV files for use in my studio software. Not cool; they are HUGE basically lossless full size versions of what is on any CD. Stay away from those.

Also, .WMA files sound good on my equipment, and I used to prefer that type; unfortunately, much of the software out there is built around .mp3, so if one is to play with the masses, one must go with the preferred format, most of the time.

Again, remember, it has been said here earlier. encoding is the key to a good copy. Just like the disease you got from your best friend's little sister, you have to be careful what you copy from your friends. I have some music files I have copied from others, and I have never quite gotten over James Taylor sounding a lot like Alvin's chipmunks. Converting a good song to a tiny file is usually a bad idea. To keep it simple, go with SP's recommendations above for conversion rate and format.

[zad0030]

This is the site I got it from. http://www.nch.com.au/switch/index.html

When I downloaded it I got everything. I dont remember seeing anything about a Free trial. I just remember it saying download the plus version free.

[zad0030]

Also what about the Error protection option and the Channels. For the channels i t gives me the option of joint stereo mono and force.

[ragboy]

That's because most of the music mastered today is done so with the MP3 players in mind. Gone are the days where the interchangeable digital decoder found on many high-end CD players would actually make a difference. You're right, you'll never be able to tell the difference on a set of headphones, but I guarantee you would on a high-end amp and set of speakers. I hear it whenever I play my iPod through my hi-fi system.

Take some older CDs out and you'll hear the difference.

I have pretty sensitive ears, and even older stuff, I can't hear the difference at a good quality encoded 256kbps AAC.

Its not just the design for player issue, for a while, since digital post production has been available, record companies have tried to make their music STAND OUT, by making it louder, and destroying quality. It has been referred to as the loudness war.

More info:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

[ragboy]

Thought this was interesting.

The inventor and biggest proponent of MP3 has moved to an AAC based format, which is claimed to be "better than CD".

http://www.macworld.com/article/1314.../01/hdaac.html

http://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/EN/bf/a...less/index.jsp

[spharis]

It is for large files, where is the happy medium though? I don't want the bloat of AAC for a file that could be half the size with a different codec. Movies and large storage, it is great b/c of the quality, but it is larger at the same bitrate. That is why it is inferior on "packable" hardware.


***edit
maybe I am doing something wrong when I convert. I did some more reading on AAC, it has been a while, and it is now touting:
# Higher coding efficiency for stationary signals (blocksize: 576 → 1024 samples)
# Higher coding efficiency for transient signals (blocksize: 192 → 128 samples)

Why are my files always larger with it? I have only been using it for movie encoding for XBMC because the audio files are usually 1.3 times as large.

***second eidt...

Yep something I am doing wrong. Should be a smaller file; however......from what I read AAC only holds an advantage for audio encoded below 192kbs (which is a defacto standard). It also supports DRM....run away now.