Help with file management/style/compression/quality

[HIFI]

Few Questions . . . Somewhat all related . . .

 

Should I ever be worried about hard drive space given the price of space is somewhat inexpensive? The reason I ask is to compress or not to compress my rips. I am currently ripping in Flac (no compression). At the same time I am converting each file to Apple lossless for my iTunes/iPod/iNeeds.

 

This is leading to my next set of questions . . .

 

Managing my audio files seams difficult. I first rip in Flac per recommendations. I am using JRiver player on my PC. I then convert those files to Apple Lossless just for my must have IPod. Managing the second group of files for my iTunes needs is additional/questionable work. What if I simply left everything ripped in its original WAV and uncompressed file format? Am I going to hear SQ differences or will it simply be SQ preference differences?

 

 

Thanks in advance for helping.

[esldude]

No you want hear any sound quality differences between FLAC, or AIFF or Wav or ALAC. FLAC has an advantage with metadata over the other file formats. What you are doing now makes sense for your needs it sounds like.

[sandyk]

"No you want hear any sound quality differences between FLAC, or AIFF or Wav or ALAC"

 

Quite a few C.A. members will disagree with you about that statement.

Many people claim that playing .flac files "on the fly", instead of converting them to .wav first, causes a minor reduction in sound quality.

[crisnee]

Managing my audio files seams difficult. I first rip in Flac per recommendations. I am using JRiver player on my PC. I then convert those files to Apple Lossless just for my must have IPod. Managing the second group of files for my iTunes needs is additional/questionable work. What if I simply left everything ripped in its original WAV and uncompressed file format? Am I going to hear SQ differences or will it simply be SQ preference differences?

As Alex mentioned some people hear differences in various compressed lossless file formats, however the differences seem to be quite minor as many also cannot hear those differences--fierce arguments ensue. Plus you can always convert lossless compressed files back to their original form--not so with lossy files.

 

However, if you have enough space on your ipod and hdds for music in the original wav format and don't care too much about metadata I would not bother compressing your files at all. It will save time and aggravation for now. You can always compress later if you feel like it. You lose nothing in the mean time except space and copy speed (bigger files take longer to copy from place to place).

 

-Chris

[HIFI]

As Alex mentioned some people hear differences in various compressed lossless file formats, however the differences seem to be quite minor as many also cannot hear those differences--fierce arguments ensue. Plus you can always convert lossless compressed files back to their original form--not so with lossy files.

 

However, if you have enough space on your ipod and hdds for music in the original wav format and don't care too much about metadata I would not bother compressing your files at all. It will save time and aggravation for now. You can always compress later if you feel like it. You lose nothing in the mean time except space and copy speed (bigger files take longer to copy from place to place).

 

-Chris

 

Thanks Chris and all.

 

So with that said . . . If I am not using any compression it would make sense to abandon my stratagy of a rip to flac and just use wav format. This, of course, really makes file management easy as I can use wav file on all my players and sources.

 

Is there a sound quality difference between wav and flac? I ask because my current home audio is not resolving enough for me to here. I do plan on getting to the resolving 2 ch home audio though.

[Julf]

Is there a sound quality difference between wav and flac?

 

There is no sound quality difference between the contents of the files. Both formats are bit-perfect, and contains the same sound wave information. Some people report hearing differences in how different players reproduce that information - there is a possibility that some players / DACs reproduce the information slightly differently because of differences in processing and buffering of the data.

[bdiament]

Hi HIFI,

 

First, your reference to "...Flac (no compression..." is not correct. FLAC is a so-called "lossless" form of data reduction (aka data compression).

 

As to whether it *sounds* indistinguishable from the raw PCM (.aif or .wav) source, that will depend on who you ask. As Alex has pointed out, some folks do *hear* a difference. I count myself among them and store files on my own server in .aif format, the same format in which I make my recordings and in which I do all my mastering. Others do not hear a difference. I don't find this surprising as my experience over the years is that different folks have different sensitivities to different aspects of sound.

 

Another thing I've found over the years is that if you ask three audio folks a question, you will get at least four different answers (five of which may be wrong). ;-} (Personally, I tend to find myself in agreement more with the folks who say things like "I listened and I hear a difference" or "I listened and I don't hear a difference". I'm always wary of pronouncements of Universal Truth - about what *others* may or may not hear.)

 

My best suggestion would be to compare a few high quality recordings in both formats, then draw your own conclusions about what works for you. Have fun!

 

Best regards,

Barry

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

http://www.barrydiamentaudio.com

[maximum kahuna]

Why worry about managing your itunes library? Are you trying to carry all of your music on your ipod? Rip it to FLAC, play it using jRiver at home, and just convert to ALAC when you need to load songs on your ipod.

[HIFI]

Hi HIFI,

 

First, your reference to "...Flac (no compression..." is not correct. FLAC is a so-called "lossless" form of data reduction (aka data compression).

 

As to whether it *sounds* indistinguishable from the raw PCM (.aif or .wav) source, that will depend on who you ask. As Alex has pointed out, some folks do *hear* a difference. I count myself among them and store files on my own server in .aif format, the same format in which I make my recordings and in which I do all my mastering. Others do not hear a difference. I don't find this surprising as my experience over the years is that different folks have different sensitivities to different aspects of sound.

 

Another thing I've found over the years is that if you ask three audio folks a question, you will get at least four different answers (five of which may be wrong). ;-} (Personally, I tend to find myself in agreement more with the folks who say things like "I listened and I hear a difference" or "I listened and I don't hear a difference". I'm always wary of pronouncements of Universal Truth - about what *others* may or may not hear.)

 

My best suggestion would be to compare a few high quality recordings in both formats, then draw your own conclusions about what works for you. Have fun!

 

Best regards,

Barry

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

http://www.barrydiamentaudio.com

In my dbpoweramp I have a choice of 10 levels of compression including zero compression when ripping from cd to flac. Are you saying it is still compressed no matter what choice I make? And if it is compressed would using a wav rip be best?

 

I am reading carefully here to try to understand. Thanks for your help.

[esldude]

If the extra metadate in FLAC isn't important to you, then you can't go wrong using wav for everything. It isn't compressed, you have changed nothing from the raw data involved. It is the surest approach not to compromise sound quality. It has the widest compatibility with various software and devices.

 

Uncompressed flac allows you to have un-compressed music with no bits changed as well. It simply offers the ability to use the metadata without any compression. I don't think Ipods read flac however.

[HIFI]

Why worry about managing your itunes library? Are you trying to carry all of your music on your ipod? Rip it to FLAC, play it using jRiver at home, and just convert to ALAC when you need to load songs on your ipod.

Not really my goal to carry all my music on iPod. My thoughts are ripping in a flac, converting to apple lossless may be more work than needed. If I can determine that I won't here a SQ difference in a wav vs flac file I can just settle on wav. Wav format works on all my players and devices. Having just the one format of music file seems easy to manage.

[firedog]

In my dbpoweramp I have a choice of 10 levels of compression including zero compression when ripping from cd to flac. Are you saying it is still compressed no matter what choice I make? And if it is compressed would using a wav rip be best?

 

I am reading carefully here to try to understand. Thanks for your help.

 

Correct. dbpoweramp has "zero compression" flac, which is basically an uncompressed PCM file in a flac "shell"; same size as a WAV file of the same music. This should eliminate some or all of the supposed differences people hear between flac and WAV

[bdiament]

Hi HIFI,

 

In my dbpoweramp I have a choice of 10 levels of compression including zero compression when ripping from cd to flac. Are you saying it is still compressed no matter what choice I make? And if it is compressed would using a wav rip be best?

 

I am reading carefully here to try to understand. Thanks for your help.

 

It would seem that the zero compression option is not compressed. However, I wonder if the file size is any smaller than the raw PCM source (.aif or .wav).

 

If it is smaller, I would deem the "zero compression" option to be improperly labeled. If it is the same size, I would wonder what advantage anyone would see in adding another layer of encoding to the music file.

 

I understand it would allow tagging, which a lot of software doesn't permit with .wav files. But what about .aif files? Still raw PCM, no added layer of encoding and full tagging. The only reason I can think of to use .wav would be if you felt .wav sounds better than .aif. I've heard a number of folks say this but in my own testing, have not been able to sonically distinguish between the two on my system. (So I use .aif, happily ever after. ;-})

 

Best regards,

Barry

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

http://www.barrydiamentaudio.com

[maximum kahuna]

I agree, two libraries are more trouble than you need. wav files are considerably larger than flac or alac files. Not a concern at home, but it may be for your portable. Flac or aif is just too convenient for metadata and dbpoweramp will convertert to almost any format you need. I wouldn't sweat it.

[orgel]

If it is the same size, I would wonder what advantage anyone would see in adding another layer of encoding to the music file.

 

I can't swear to it, since I don't have dBpoweramp, but I'm not certain that a FLAC "container" would add significantly more overhead than a WAV or AIFF container.

 

As far as benefits from uncompressed FLAC, the only concrete one I can think of would be better handling of metadata in certain software, compared with WAV. In the more speculative realm, I guess that for those who hear a difference in SQ between FLAC and WAV, if that difference were attributable to, say, something to do with on-the-fly decompression, using uncompressed FLAC might overcome the purported deficiencies of the compressed flavor. So hypothetically, in a particular set of circumstances, uncompressed FLAC could yield better handling of metadata and equivalent SQ to WAV or AIFF.

 

Meanwhile, I'll stick with ALAC.

 

--David

[bdiament]

Hi David,

 

I don't know if the sonic differences I experience with so-called "lossless" formats have to do with compression or simply with the additional layer of encoding/decoding. AIF gives me the metadata and it does so without the added overhead of further encoding/decoding.

 

It is the format in which I do all my recordings and all mastering, so it works for me on my server (and iPhone) too.

One library, one format, no complaints. ;-}

 

Best regards,

Barry

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

http://www.barrydiamentaudio.com

[HIFI]

Thanks to all . . .

 

I think I will settle on one library, one format.

 

Forgive me if I ask more questions. Say I decide on AIF for all. . . Can I simply convert all files (downloads and CD rips) using dBpoweramp converter? Should I re-rip my audio CD's in new format as I have the originals in hand?

[esldude]

Not all that familiar with dBpoweramp. But assuming it converts to AIFF should be no problem. All these formats are lossless and in the case of wav and aiff without compression. AIFF gets you most of the metadata ability of flac as it basically is Apple's version of a WAV. So just convert, no need to re-rip. You will end up with the same bits to work with in a different container (AIFF).

[jnoneiliv1]

David,

 

I use AIFF format files similiar to Barry. Here's the advantages as I see them:

 

1. Agnostic to the compressed versus not compressed debate, it is a non compressed format, so your safe regardless.

2. AIFF format has good tagging support, so if your files get orphaned from your library, they have their medical Id bracelets.

3. AIFF is mostly universally supported by all players, PC, MAC, and IPod. It has no apple proprietary itching powder, but runs nicely on the IPod. With a large capacity classic I can carry around a lot of music and my car deck has it's own DAC that uses raw digital from the IPod.

 

That being said I follow the CA ripping guide and also keep a Flac copy of all my CD's. It can be good to keep yourself Flac capable as the file compression (lossless) can be useful for hi res downloads. The irony of the worry about whether a bit perfect file stored on the hd in compressed format sounds less good, is that if you also believe higher Rez files sound better you'll probably have an easier time purchasing and downloading Flac files, which comes full circle back to compressed data.

 

HDTracks unequivocally recommends FLAC for hi Rez downloads. Right or wrong, if you want hi Rez, some things are going to only be in Flac, so the debate seams a bit irrelevant IMHOP. But most of the other folks here know a lot more than I.

 

Cheers,

 

James

[mwheelerk]

David,

 

I use AIFF format files similiar to Barry. Here's the advantages as I see them:

 

1. Agnostic to the compressed versus not compressed debate, it is a non compressed format, so your safe regardless.

2. AIFF format has good tagging support, so if your files get orphaned from your library, they have their medical Id bracelets.

3. AIFF is mostly universally supported by all players, PC, MAC, and IPod. It has no apple proprietary itching powder, but runs nicely on the IPod. With a large capacity classic I can carry around a lot of music and my car deck has it's own DAC that uses raw digital from the IPod.

 

That being said I follow the CA ripping guide and also keep a Flac copy of all my CD's. It can be good to keep yourself Flac capable as the file compression (lossless) can be useful for hi res downloads. The irony of the worry about whether a bit perfect file stored on the hd in compressed format sounds less good, is that if you also believe higher Rez files sound better you'll probably have an easier time purchasing and downloading Flac files, which comes full circle back to compressed data.

 

HDTracks unequivocally recommends FLAC for hi Rez downloads. Right or wrong, if you want hi Rez, some things are going to only be in Flac, so the debate seams a bit irrelevant IMHOP. But most of the other folks here know a lot more than I.

 

Cheers,

 

James

 

I am of the belief HD Tracks selected FLAC For download of high res files with equal concern to file sizes and required bandwidth, sound quality, and universality. Me, I use AIFF.

[HIFI]

David,

 

That being said I follow the CA ripping guide and also keep a Flac copy of all my CD's. It can be good to keep yourself Flac capable as the file compression (lossless) can be useful for hi res downloads. Cheers,

 

James

 

Please forgive me but this may just be an opinion question . . . Why do you keep a Flac copy?

[jnoneiliv1]

To David's original question, which I understand to mean whether he could use one file format for both the PC/JRiver world AND the MAC /Ipod/Itunes world, I would think AIFF is the best choice. Broadly compatible in both the MAC and PC world, good tagging support, and some folks believe it is a superior format for good quality reproduction.

 

I think the HDTracks recommendation is just a "heads up" that keeping one toe into FLAC might be a good idea just for convenience in case David would like to try out some HiRez files, and Chris H. makes a good case in the CA Ripping guide for ripping simultaneously to two different formats for some extra insurance of file to player compatibility.

 

Given AIFF's footing in the Pro community, just reading between the lines of some of the pro posters here at CA, I would think AIFF is fairly future proof, and there would always be a software tool to convert it over to something else in the future, but I know I feel better having my CD's in both FLAC and AIFF format. I don't use the FLAC files, but take some comfort knowing I have them, and when making copies of my entire library en masse, sometimes I like having the flexibility of moving around .5T instead of 1T of data.

 

But also to David's point, IMHO, I would say "NO" don't worry about storage, Moore's law and all (yes I know it applies to transistors and not magnetic storage). Even using my Ipod classic, I've seen no real loss of convenience using full size, uncompressed AIFF on my Ipod. Just not as many albums. And, of course there are now 250 Gig Ipod's by the Ipod crackers.

 

To step further out on a limb, IMHO, I would avoid WAV files since they do not embed tagging. Again, a pro might have different reasons for using WAV, but as a somewhat convenience oriented listener like myself or I'm thinking David as well, having a music library with files that could become disassociated with their meta data is an accident waiting to happen.

 

Cheers,

 

James