Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Technical Questions Lossy vs Lossless questions

I am about to embark on creating a digital music library. Right now I have nothing - no music on the computer, no hardware/software to transfer music from hard-drive to stereo receiver. I am getting an Ipod for Christmas. I have a very limited understanding of the software and methods for creating music files on my computer. I am somewhat familiar with the lossy compression format for MP3's and AAC, and the lossless compression format of FLAC and Apple Lossless. I should note that I have both a PC and a MAC available for use.

My music sources would be ripped CD's and downloaded from itunes or Amazon, etc. Assume that hard-drive storage space is not an issue.

I have a couple questions.

First, If I want to play the music over both an Ipod and my home stereo system (through Squeezebox or Apple tv), will I need two separate libraries on the computer, one lossless for the stereo and one lossy for the Ipod?

How will the lossy compressed files sound on the home stereo, if I use the 256kbps itunes+ format? Is itunes+ an acceptable alternative to lossless for playback on the home system?

Is there any way to download lossless music files?

Thanks in advance.

A lot depends on the volume of music you have. If lossless will all fit on your iPod, do everything lossless. If not, then you might want to consider dual libraries.
Even if 256K+ sounds pretty good on a sound system, it is always nice to have a perfect backup on your computer (in case of disk dammage or theft).

It looks like you already have a receiver, but there is an option on some receivers that will enhance lossy sound sources to bring back some of the quality.

Hard drive space is very, very cheap compared to the bad old days. Much easier/cheaper to store straight .wav/.aiff files than ever before.

I've seen people rip their entire collections and convert into mp3s and then sell their cds! Madness!

But then, I despise any mp3s.

If I were you, I would never, ever store cd files in any other format other file than it's native 16 bit 44.1.

That's already "lossy" enough imho.

Hear, hear.

Not to mention that CPUs are fast enough, that one can transcode from Wave, AIFF, FLAC, or Apple Lossless into MP3 or what have you, on the fly as part of copying to a device with less than infinite storage.

A Transporter based music server is probably in my future.

Don't look forward to ripping my extensive cd collection though!

At least if you do it right, you only have to do it once.

I've been ripping mine as I play discs. When I want to hear something if I don't have it ripped yet, I rip it then, and play the rip instead. Some days I do sit down and do a few discs. But it is more fun to listen than to rip.

So true.

I burned out a cdr/dvd drive on my powerbook when I tried to catalog my cd collection using database search library software.

I hope to do it only once.

And make sure I back it up on several devices!

Notebook drives are not the most hearty of beasts. Definitely recommend using a desktop machine for the work.

It's going to depend on how transportable you want those files. If you want them to play on almost everything, MP3 is your best bet. Maybe choose something like 320kbps. That's always seemed to work fine. Then you can play it on any MP3 player, PC, Mac, PS3, Tivo, etc.

If you do FLAC, you're limited to only a few portables. If you do AAC, then it's only Apple. If you want music from the Apple store, it's only Apple products for playback, can't use Sonos for example.

I've started to move to lossless but since most of my equipment is Apple, I've gone w/ AAC. The guys are right, hard drives are cheap so don't make decisions on that.

I have been using digital music for some time now on a windows based pc. Thus far I have stuck with FLAC for use on my stero and need be converted to mp3 for use on my ipod. 256-320kpbs should should be fine for use on your ipod, if not you can also use rockbox depending on your ipod model for FLAC support. As for stero I use FLAC, for the most part above 1000kbps and some vinyl rips at nearly 4000kbps. I keep the two formats in different folders, use itunes for mp3 and VUPlayer for FLAC. I have had pretty good luck finding FLAC for download, it is not as widely used as mp3's but getting better. I would suggest testing all the options before committing to anything as it is your opinion that matters the most.

I rip everything to FLAC for listening in my home systems. At the same time, I then also rip to 320kpbs MP3s. It's a 'challenge' for people without ultra-trained ears to perceive a difference at 320 but it produces much smaller and universally acceptable files. I'd never be able to fit my 44GB of MP3 music on my 64GB portable player if I didn't compress to MP3.

Also, I run a music server at home with a single, (so far) non-exploitable port opened up so I can listen to all my music from home via my laptop and the Interweb.

Hi murph and all,

"Ultra-trained ears" signing in here, ha, ha. Actually, in the very controlled double-blind listening tests of compression codecs that took place in Ottawa (where I was on the listening panel) and which were repeated in the U.K. and Australia with similar panels of trained listeners, we found 320 kbps to be "essentially transparent" for virtually all but the most complex types of music.

The exceptions were test tracks that had castinets; also a harpsicord selection and a solo vocal a cappella by Suzanne Vega. Those anomalies were only audible with intense comparisons using headphones--we really couldn't reliably detect them with loudspeaker playback. By the way, the listening sessions went on for several days, plus a day of training, so the results, which were replicated by the Australian and UK listeners, are extremely reliable.

The harpsicord sounded a bit harder, more metallic, and Suzanne Vega's solo voice became a bit sibilant and harder sounding. The castinets took on a slightly metallic sound. The rest of the music including rock, classical and jazz, sailed through at 320 kbps with no audible anomalies.

Regards,

Alan (UTE)

Alan has regained his ute.

Maybe he found the fountain of ute.

I thought he found his Coupé utility