Overclock.net › Forums › Components › Sound Cards and Computer Audio › Question about file types
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Question about file types - Page 2

post #11 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by metalkobra
I use the crystalizer and I do notice a difference without it, but what do you mean by lost information? like lost parts of the track? Also, when and why should I convert audio tracks?
The original source (whether it's an mp3,wav,etc) doesn't contain all of the original information. Think of it this way, I have 3 thousand grains of sand in my hand, when I hand you the sand, several pieces are lost. If you then hand the same sand to someone else, even more of the original sample is lost. Everytime you convert a file or record something, some of the original information in the recording is lost forever. There is a reason that the Linn Sondek CD12 costs $20,000 and is nothing more than a cd player....it simply retrieves more information from the source disk than anything else on the planet. Hooking a tape player to record the output of that cd player would sound better than actually playing the original cd on nearly every cd player on the market. Make sense? It's off subject, but you can see my point. If you're given a horrible mp3 recording at a crappy sampling rate, the lost information can't be regained no matter what sampling rate you choose to upconvert it to. My suggestion is to keep the file in the original filetype that you were given it in. If you're recording it from the original source, then that's a whole different ballgame.
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 2500k Asus P8P67 Galaxy GTX580 8GB G Skill Ripjaws 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel 80 gb SSD, Raptor 150 Windows 7 Home Premium 24" Samsung LCD Saitek Eclipse 
PowerCaseMouse
PCP&C 750W Antec P180 Logitech MX-510 blue 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 2500k Asus P8P67 Galaxy GTX580 8GB G Skill Ripjaws 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel 80 gb SSD, Raptor 150 Windows 7 Home Premium 24" Samsung LCD Saitek Eclipse 
PowerCaseMouse
PCP&C 750W Antec P180 Logitech MX-510 blue 
  hide details  
Reply
post #12 of 24
To simplify what I posted, always try to keep the original material as "pure" as possible, meaning recorded,converted,manipulated,EQ'd as few as times as humanly possible.
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 2500k Asus P8P67 Galaxy GTX580 8GB G Skill Ripjaws 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel 80 gb SSD, Raptor 150 Windows 7 Home Premium 24" Samsung LCD Saitek Eclipse 
PowerCaseMouse
PCP&C 750W Antec P180 Logitech MX-510 blue 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 2500k Asus P8P67 Galaxy GTX580 8GB G Skill Ripjaws 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel 80 gb SSD, Raptor 150 Windows 7 Home Premium 24" Samsung LCD Saitek Eclipse 
PowerCaseMouse
PCP&C 750W Antec P180 Logitech MX-510 blue 
  hide details  
Reply
post #13 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by sccr64472
The original source (whether it's an mp3,wav,etc) doesn't contain all of the original information. Think of it this way, I have 3 thousand grains of sand in my hand, when I hand you the sand, several pieces are lost. If you then hand the same sand to someone else, even more of the original sample is lost. Everytime you convert a file or record something, some of the original information in the recording is lost forever. There is a reason that the Linn Sondek CD12 costs $20,000 and is nothing more than a cd player....it simply retrieves more information from the source disk than anything else on the planet. Hooking a tape player to record the output of that cd player would sound better than actually playing the original cd on nearly every cd player on the market. Make sense? It's off subject, but you can see my point. If you're given a horrible mp3 recording at a crappy sampling rate, the lost information can't be regained no matter what sampling rate you choose to upconvert it to. My suggestion is to keep the file in the original filetype that you were given it in. If you're recording it from the original source, then that's a whole different ballgame.
I beat you to it....lol
Rig 2.1
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 3770k ASUS P8Z77-V LK Sapphire 7850 1GB G.SKILL Ripjaws X 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3 F3-12800CL... 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Western Digital Blue 1TB WD10EZEX Search Results Crucial MX100 CT256MX100SSD1 256GB ASUS DRW-24B1ST DVD±R/RW Zalman CNPS10X Optima 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Dell 23" IPS CM Storm Quick Fire Pro Brown OCZ StealthXStream 600W 
CaseMouseAudio
Antec P182 Logitech MX518 Logitech X-530 
  hide details  
Reply
Rig 2.1
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 3770k ASUS P8Z77-V LK Sapphire 7850 1GB G.SKILL Ripjaws X 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3 F3-12800CL... 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Western Digital Blue 1TB WD10EZEX Search Results Crucial MX100 CT256MX100SSD1 256GB ASUS DRW-24B1ST DVD±R/RW Zalman CNPS10X Optima 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Dell 23" IPS CM Storm Quick Fire Pro Brown OCZ StealthXStream 600W 
CaseMouseAudio
Antec P182 Logitech MX518 Logitech X-530 
  hide details  
Reply
post #14 of 24
Well put info bentrinh, but let me clear that up a little.

When you rip music off of a CD, unless you put into a format that is lossless (WMA lossless, Apple lossless, FLAC, APE, certian WAV formats) there will be some infomation that is taken away to make the file smaller. The bit-rate of the file determines how much info is taken away. (Hence higher bitrate files are larger then a lower bitrate file. But, the higher bitrate will sound better.) The universal standard for MP3 is 128kbps. It's most common, and is a good compramise between size and quality. The files you are talking about are mostly around 256kbps, which is very good quality, and most people can hear a noticble difference between 256kbps and 128kbps. The other common standard is 320kbps, which is almost indistinguishable from CD-quality. The best way to do this is to rip a song at several different bitrates, and see at what level you start to become unable to tell a difference between the mp3 and the CD. And as sccr64472 said above, less conversion/editing=better sound.

EDIT: Oh jeez, I'm way behind. Stupid audiophile perfectionism...
Morpheus Mini
(7 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6700T SN970 GTX 960 Crucial CT102464BF160B 
Hard DriveOSAudio
Samsung 850 Evo M.2 Windows 10 Pro MOTU Audio Express 
  hide details  
Reply
Morpheus Mini
(7 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6700T SN970 GTX 960 Crucial CT102464BF160B 
Hard DriveOSAudio
Samsung 850 Evo M.2 Windows 10 Pro MOTU Audio Express 
  hide details  
Reply
post #15 of 24
Thread Starter 
LOL @ stupid audiophile perfectionism, so basically if i took just one song and converted that to various types and stuff and see what sounds best, I should do that for ALL the songs then?
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardOSMonitor
Athlon 64 3700+ @ 3.0 DFI lan P UT Ultra-D Win XP Pro liquidvideo 17" LCD 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
a wal mart one truepower 2 550W Sunbeam Transformer razer diamondback 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardOSMonitor
Athlon 64 3700+ @ 3.0 DFI lan P UT Ultra-D Win XP Pro liquidvideo 17" LCD 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
a wal mart one truepower 2 550W Sunbeam Transformer razer diamondback 
  hide details  
Reply
post #16 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by metalkobra
LOL @ stupid audiophile perfectionism, so basically if i took just one song and converted that to various types and stuff and see what sounds best, I should do that for ALL the songs then?
No, you shouldn't convert it at all unless you have to. Let me explain 1 other way and see if this makes sense to you. Take a picture with a good camera. From that point on, every camera is taking a picture of the previous picture. Waaay down the line, you have an expensive Minolta with all the latest technology.....the absolute best job it can do is to copy the picture before it, but it can't improve upon it. Make sense? My point being, don't take a picture of a picture if you don't have to. Leave it alone!

Happy New Year's guys, I gotta jet!
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 2500k Asus P8P67 Galaxy GTX580 8GB G Skill Ripjaws 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel 80 gb SSD, Raptor 150 Windows 7 Home Premium 24" Samsung LCD Saitek Eclipse 
PowerCaseMouse
PCP&C 750W Antec P180 Logitech MX-510 blue 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 2500k Asus P8P67 Galaxy GTX580 8GB G Skill Ripjaws 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel 80 gb SSD, Raptor 150 Windows 7 Home Premium 24" Samsung LCD Saitek Eclipse 
PowerCaseMouse
PCP&C 750W Antec P180 Logitech MX-510 blue 
  hide details  
Reply
post #17 of 24
Thread Starter 
Well, i just took one song and kept it as MP3 just at different rates and I can tell a noticable difference between the 3, @56kbs, it sounds faded and groggy, at 128kbs it sounds a little better, at the original file, it sounds better, and at 320kbs it sounds nice, BUT i did notice what you said about the loss of informaton, because at the beginning of the song i used there is a small bass slide and it wasnt caught on the 320kbs, it just went to the cymbal and guitar had beguneth lol.
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardOSMonitor
Athlon 64 3700+ @ 3.0 DFI lan P UT Ultra-D Win XP Pro liquidvideo 17" LCD 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
a wal mart one truepower 2 550W Sunbeam Transformer razer diamondback 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardOSMonitor
Athlon 64 3700+ @ 3.0 DFI lan P UT Ultra-D Win XP Pro liquidvideo 17" LCD 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
a wal mart one truepower 2 550W Sunbeam Transformer razer diamondback 
  hide details  
Reply
post #18 of 24
let me know if u manage to create the "brown note"
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD K6-2 450MHz MSI 5182 3D ATI ragepro turbo 2x 192mb 
Hard DriveOSMonitor
9GB XP Pro LG Studioworks 775C 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD K6-2 450MHz MSI 5182 3D ATI ragepro turbo 2x 192mb 
Hard DriveOSMonitor
9GB XP Pro LG Studioworks 775C 
  hide details  
Reply
post #19 of 24
Thread Starter 
lmao...
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardOSMonitor
Athlon 64 3700+ @ 3.0 DFI lan P UT Ultra-D Win XP Pro liquidvideo 17" LCD 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
a wal mart one truepower 2 550W Sunbeam Transformer razer diamondback 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardOSMonitor
Athlon 64 3700+ @ 3.0 DFI lan P UT Ultra-D Win XP Pro liquidvideo 17" LCD 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
a wal mart one truepower 2 550W Sunbeam Transformer razer diamondback 
  hide details  
Reply
post #20 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by metalkobra
Well, i just took one song and kept it as MP3 just at different rates and I can tell a noticable difference between the 3, @56kbs, it sounds faded and groggy, at 128kbs it sounds a little better, at the original file, it sounds better, and at 320kbs it sounds nice, BUT i did notice what you said about the loss of informaton, because at the beginning of the song i used there is a small bass slide and it wasnt caught on the 320kbs, it just went to the cymbal and guitar had beguneth lol.
What I was talking about was going from your origanal source. (CD, DVD, ect.) I would leave the files in the picture above just the way they are. Also, I would never do any MP3 less than 128kbps.
Morpheus Mini
(7 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6700T SN970 GTX 960 Crucial CT102464BF160B 
Hard DriveOSAudio
Samsung 850 Evo M.2 Windows 10 Pro MOTU Audio Express 
  hide details  
Reply
Morpheus Mini
(7 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6700T SN970 GTX 960 Crucial CT102464BF160B 
Hard DriveOSAudio
Samsung 850 Evo M.2 Windows 10 Pro MOTU Audio Express 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Cards and Computer Audio
Overclock.net › Forums › Components › Sound Cards and Computer Audio › Question about file types