So as far as I know, the audio files on music CD's are not any standard audio format. This makes me wonder, are they a lossy or lossless quality (as in lossy MP3 or lossless FLAC?) The reason I ask is, being the audiophile I am, I'm just curious about what exactly goes on in the data of a music CD.
Basically, I'm asking if the UNALTERED audio directly from a CD is literally the best quality possible, or if it isn't. I believe it's entirely lossless, but I don't know for absolute sure. If it is, though, can Winamp rip the music into .FLAC? What about .ogg? Or maybe the other way around - can Winamp burn a .flac or an .ogg to a CD?
CD players al just know the cda format, which is lossless. No idea if it's compressed, but I don't think so, because CD players are pretty simple.
Don't think that the unaltered audio from the CD is best quality possible, because you can enlarge the samplung rate and resolution to infinity.
If you got around the copy protection, you can RIP a CD and can convert the music to any format you want.
You can burn flac, ogg, mp3 or whatever on a CD, but only .cda can be played by a normal CD player (like the old ones, that didn'T understand mp3 and stuff). Don't know about the filesystem you have to use, but when you have a program that can burn an audio CD, it should use the correct one.
I know there's a difference between just slapping files on a CD and actually burning them through an audio burner. Just slapping a .flac on a CD means next to no music player on Earth will play it. But if I burn it to the CD through Winamp (instead of using Windows Explorer), will it convert the .flac/.ogg to the proper CD audio format?
CDs are lossless. They have the best possible quality, same with vinyl. Not too sure about the burning question. I'd guess that the file is converted to CD format when burned. Conversion can have some loss.
CDs are lossless. They have the best possible quality, same with vinyl. Not too sure about the burning question. I'd guess that the file is converted to CD format when burned. Conversion can have some loss.
Is whatever format iTunes uses not lossless? I've noticed that I like the sound of songs I ripped off of vinyl records better than the same ones downloaded off of iTunes (main reason I quit using iTunes, also, I can grab entire albums for the price of a single song on going with vinyl over iTunes).
I just say "screw itunes and anything made by Apple, if you can't get it on anything else the song is probably ****"
I wish I didn't need iTunes to get to my physics lectures. Although, I guess I could always just go to one of the actual lectures rather than listening to the online ones.
Is whatever format iTunes uses not lossless? I've noticed that I like the sound of songs I ripped off of vinyl records better than the same ones downloaded off of iTunes (main reason I quit using iTunes, also, I can grab entire albums for the price of a single song on going with vinyl over iTunes).
256kbps AAC actually. Works for the standard person usually.
I just burnt a disc with a bunch of brony songs (and the super-mega extended version of Halo 3's warthog run) for my sister...she loves it, and since Winamp conveniently converts it to proper CD audio, it will play in our car! (This is more to annoy my mom than anything, but I like the music too so win-win :P)
Shouldn't hear an advantage. In fact, 256Kbps AAC is usually better than standard 320Kbps mp3.
I wonder if someone messed with the balance between the two albums (is this even possible?). Same songs, one was on a greatest hits album, the other was on the album it was originally released on.
It was more that the guitar and synthesizer were slightly stronger from the vinyl than the iTunes download.
As long as the samplingrate stays the same (or is multiplied by 2^x) and the number format doesn't change, there shouldn't be any loss. But even if the number format changes, loss probably can't be noticed by any human.
There is always some loss in conversion. No matter what. Whether it can be heard or not.
As long as the samplingrate stays the same (or is multiplied by 2^x) and the number format doesn't change, there shouldn't be any loss. But even if the number format changes, loss probably can't be noticed by any human.
While true, there are hordes and hordes of audiophiles that would disagree and insist there is a quality difference that is so annoying and noticeable it drives them insane.
While true, there are hordes and hordes of audiophiles that would disagree and insist there is a quality difference that is so annoying and noticeable it drives them insane.
Somehow.
I don't know if this warrants a new thread, but Winamp's EQ confuzzles me...
I want to make the bass louder/more prominent, but this is alien language to me.
If you are "audiophile", why do you want to change the song? But well, play around, and you will hear what happens. Bass is usually at the right, and up is boost, down is cut...
More just to experiment than anything. I'd still keep it default most of the time.
If you are "audiophile", why do you want to change the song? But well, play around, and you will hear what happens. Bass is usually at the right, and up is boost, down is cut...
A mp3-file has to be uncompressed to be played, or to be converted. For example, a stream of 16-bit signed integers (Dunno if that's used in mp3, but it is realistic enough for my example) will be created, one for every sample with a samplingrate of 44kHz. You can create a wave file from that stream, using the exact same data without changing it. Just write the 16-bit signed integers number for number to the file (And add some header or whatever).
Now you have converted your mp3-file to a wave-file, completely lossless. You could also just have used a lossless compression. If you uncompress the lossless compressed file (using 16-bit signed integers and 44kHz again), the exact same sequence of numbers will be restored.
If you go mp3 to wav to mp3, the converter will cut parts of it out. It's how it works. A lossy file takes out certain parts of the song, usually unhearable to the human ear, though sometimes there is mistakes. It is not always about bit rate and sample rate. In theory you are right, but software conversion is far, far, far from perfect.
can Winamp rip the music into .FLAC? What about .ogg? Or maybe the other way around - can Winamp burn a .flac or an .ogg to a CD?
I haven't used Winamp for many years now, but MediaMonkey allows you to do just that and much more. It's one of the best archive programs around IMO, give it a try.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You will not touch my jar file. I repeat, you WILL NOT touch my jar file!Keep it simple and use MagicLauncher
Winamp can rip in .FLAC it is what I use for making copies of any CD I purchase and want to store on my PC for my own use.
I definitely hear a great difference in a standard mp3 rip (which is what iTunes gives you).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Opinions are like armpits. Everyone has one and some stink, now if someone says your armpits stink it isn't very polite to go rubbing it in their face, it isn't going to make them say yours doesn't stink it'll just make them dislike you and your armpit even more. Remember keep your armpits and opinions respectful.
Well, going mp3 -> wave -> mp3, there is loss, because mp3 creates loss while compressing. But going from mp3 to any lossless format, as I described, there won't be any loss.
Basically, I'm asking if the UNALTERED audio directly from a CD is literally the best quality possible, or if it isn't. I believe it's entirely lossless, but I don't know for absolute sure. If it is, though, can Winamp rip the music into .FLAC? What about .ogg? Or maybe the other way around - can Winamp burn a .flac or an .ogg to a CD?
I know there's a difference between just slapping files on a CD and actually burning them through an audio burner. Just slapping a .flac on a CD means next to no music player on Earth will play it. But if I burn it to the CD through Winamp (instead of using Windows Explorer), will it convert the .flac/.ogg to the proper CD audio format?
Thinking about coming a mod to simply not moderate.
Is whatever format iTunes uses not lossless? I've noticed that I like the sound of songs I ripped off of vinyl records better than the same ones downloaded off of iTunes (main reason I quit using iTunes, also, I can grab entire albums for the price of a single song on going with vinyl over iTunes).
http://pcpartpicker.com/user/SteevyT/saved/21PI
I wish I didn't need iTunes to get to my physics lectures. Although, I guess I could always just go to one of the actual lectures rather than listening to the online ones.
http://pcpartpicker.com/user/SteevyT/saved/21PI
256kbps AAC actually. Works for the standard person usually.
Thinking about coming a mod to simply not moderate.
Hmm...weird. I'm even using just standard speakers, nothing fancy.
http://pcpartpicker.com/user/SteevyT/saved/21PI
Shouldn't hear an advantage. In fact, 256Kbps AAC is usually better than standard 320Kbps mp3.
Thinking about coming a mod to simply not moderate.
I wonder if someone messed with the balance between the two albums (is this even possible?). Same songs, one was on a greatest hits album, the other was on the album it was originally released on.
It was more that the guitar and synthesizer were slightly stronger from the vinyl than the iTunes download.
http://pcpartpicker.com/user/SteevyT/saved/21PI
There is always some loss in conversion. No matter what. Whether it can be heard or not.
Thinking about coming a mod to simply not moderate.
Somehow.
I don't know if this warrants a new thread, but Winamp's EQ confuzzles me...
I want to make the bass louder/more prominent, but this is alien language to me.
More just to experiment than anything. I'd still keep it default most of the time.
Audiophilia is subjective.
If you go mp3 to wav to mp3, the converter will cut parts of it out. It's how it works. A lossy file takes out certain parts of the song, usually unhearable to the human ear, though sometimes there is mistakes. It is not always about bit rate and sample rate. In theory you are right, but software conversion is far, far, far from perfect.
Thinking about coming a mod to simply not moderate.
I haven't used Winamp for many years now, but MediaMonkey allows you to do just that and much more. It's one of the best archive programs around IMO, give it a try.
I definitely hear a great difference in a standard mp3 rip (which is what iTunes gives you).
Of course, but why would you do that?
Thinking about coming a mod to simply not moderate.