Jump to content
IGNORED

FLAC files from 16/44 CD (WAV) files are smaller than MP3s.


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, esldude said:

Or to look at it another way Dale, I took the Goldberg Glenn Gould track.  Put a brickwall filter at 6 khz.  There is nothing other than low level noise above that.  Noise at -100 db.  The RMS level of the track was -27 db before I did it. And the same after the brick wall filter.  All that is up there is noise or harmonics buried in the noise.  One could have recorded this with a 14 khz sampling rate and it may not have been audibly different.  14 khz vs 44 khz is right in that low 30% range it compressed into.  

 

I'm getting that, to some extent anyway.  Based on my comment just above, I wonder now whether we can't have better "pre-converters" that fatten up some of these FLACs with more detail, rather than just go for the most extreme compression. Just speculating....

Link to comment
59 minutes ago, dalethorn said:

 

I'm getting that, to some extent anyway.  Based on my comment just above, I wonder now whether we can't have better "pre-converters" that fatten up some of these FLACs with more detail, rather than just go for the most extreme compression. Just speculating....

 

Unlike the mp3 or MQA formats, FLAC is a lossless compression method. Everything that's in the uncompressed file (WAV) is in the FLAC file, regardless of what compression level is used.

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to comment
2 hours ago, dalethorn said:

I'm getting that, to some extent anyway.  Based on my comment just above, I wonder now whether we can't have better "pre-converters" that fatten up some of these FLACs with more detail, rather than just go for the most extreme compression. Just speculating....

 

There is one hypothesis that FLAC uncompression boost computing intensity and electromagnetic radiation, thus noise level.

But I never seen real researches this matter, where spectrum of noise altering was shown. Read details https://samplerateconverter.com/flac#sound-quality

AuI ConverteR 48x44 - HD audio converter/optimizer for DAC of high resolution files

ISO, DSF, DFF (1-bit/D64/128/256/512/1024), wav, flac, aiff, alac,  safe CD ripper to PCM/DSF,

Seamless Album Conversion, AIFF, WAV, FLAC, DSF metadata editor, Mac & Windows
Offline conversion save energy and nature

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, mansr said:

That has nothing to do with compression ratios achievable with various inputs.

 

There is uncompressed FLAC, that was created to avoid additional processing.

AuI ConverteR 48x44 - HD audio converter/optimizer for DAC of high resolution files

ISO, DSF, DFF (1-bit/D64/128/256/512/1024), wav, flac, aiff, alac,  safe CD ripper to PCM/DSF,

Seamless Album Conversion, AIFF, WAV, FLAC, DSF metadata editor, Mac & Windows
Offline conversion save energy and nature

Link to comment
1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

 

Unlike the mp3 or MQA formats, FLAC is a lossless compression method. Everything that's in the uncompressed file (WAV) is in the FLAC file, regardless of what compression level is used.

 

Not what I said.  The 16/44 WAV already lost info from the original high res source.  Why can't we get a FLAC that's not so extremely compressed, but has more of the original content instead?  The high res distributors issue FLACs without intermediate conversions.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, dalethorn said:

 

Not what I said.  The 16/44 WAV already lost info from the original high res source.  Why can't we get a FLAC that's not so extremely compressed, but has more of the original content instead?  The high res distributors issue FLACs without intermediate conversions.

Can you clarify what you mean by this.  

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
Just now, esldude said:

Can you clarify what you mean by this.  

 

Let's say I have one of those million-dollar file makers and I'm issuing 16/44 FLACs from my high-res masters.  I discover, without going through a WAV step, that my 16/44 FLAC is smaller (or nearly as small) as an MP3.  Why couldn't I generate a larger FLAC that has more info that's still playable on players that don't accept files higher than 16/44 or 16/48?  There must be a way, rather than saying "that isn't the way things are done".

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, dalethorn said:

Why couldn't I generate a larger FLAC that has more info that's still playable on players that don't accept files higher than 16/44 or 16/48?  There must be a way, rather than saying "that isn't the way things are done".

 

You can certainly create a larger FLAC file by lowering the compression rate.

 

It won't, however, contain any more information than a smaller, more compressed FLAC file assuming, of course, that the bit depth and sample rate match the original uncompressed file. This is why it's called lossless compression.

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, dalethorn said:

 

Let's say I have one of those million-dollar file makers and I'm issuing 16/44 FLACs from my high-res masters.  I discover, without going through a WAV step, that my 16/44 FLAC is smaller (or nearly as small) as an MP3.  Why couldn't I generate a larger FLAC that has more info that's still playable on players that don't accept files higher than 16/44 or 16/48?  There must be a way, rather than saying "that isn't the way things are done".

Sounds like MQA.  Or at least what MQA claims to promise.  

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, esldude said:

Sounds like MQA.  Or at least what MQA claims to promise.  

 

Now I get what he is driving at. His use of "FLAC" in a generic way threw me for a loop.

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

You can certainly create a larger FLAC file by lowering the compression rate.

 

It won't, however, contain any more information than a smaller, more compressed FLAC file assuming, of course, that the bit depth and sample rate match the original uncompressed file. This is why it's called lossless compression.

 

It's "lossless" only in the sense of relating it to a WAV equivalent.  But made direct from a higher res master, it's lossy.

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, esldude said:

Sounds like MQA.  Or at least what MQA claims to promise.  

 

For all I remember of the discussions at Stereophile, MQA is intended as a streaming format (or modification).  In a sense, what I'm asking has a similar bent, but I'm not asking for a special codec that requires a special player to play it.  I'm asking about making the FLAC from a higher res master and simply losing less data.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, dalethorn said:

 

For all I remember of the discussions at Stereophile, MQA is intended as a streaming format (or modification).  In a sense, what I'm asking has a similar bent, but I'm not asking for a special codec that requires a special player to play it.  I'm asking about making the FLAC from a higher res master and simply losing less data.

What you are asking for can't be accomplished within the parameters of the format.  If you start with a 192/24 files you have to reduce the bits to 16.  You have to limit bandwidth to that of 44 khz sample rates.  Other than minor variances in the transition band (20khz to 22050 hz) the differences are all in the higher frequency band.  What content that exists below 20 khz is basically being fully captured in the FLAC.  

 

Taking the Gould track for an example.  There just isn't anything above the noise floor above around 6 or 7 khz.  There isn't anything there.  A simple piano recording is not as information rich as more complex music.  Higher rez doesn't capture more because other than noise there isn't anything.  

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, dalethorn said:

 

It's "lossless" only in the sense of relating it to a WAV equivalent.  But made direct from a higher res master, it's lossy.

 

 

You appear to be equating WAV with CD-quality uncompressed audio data (16/44.1). WAV data can be in any bit depth and sample rate such as 24/44.1, 24/48, 24/96 or 24/192. A FLAC file created from a WAV file in any of these resolutions will be lossless.

 

Creating a 16/44.1 FLAC file from a 24/192 WAV file, for example, requires dithering the bit depth of the WAV file down from 24 bits to 16 bits and reducing the sample rate from 192 to 44.1. These are lossy operations that have nothing to do with the WAV to FLAC conversion which is lossless.  

 

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, esldude said:

What you are asking for can't be accomplished within the parameters of the format.  If you start with a 192/24 files you have to reduce the bits to 16.  You have to limit bandwidth to that of 44 khz sample rates.  Other than minor variances in the transition band (20khz to 22050 hz) the differences are all in the higher frequency band.  What content that exists below 20 khz is basically being fully captured in the FLAC.  

 

Taking the Gould track for an example.  There just isn't anything above the noise floor above around 6 or 7 khz.  There isn't anything there.  A simple piano recording is not as information rich as more complex music.  Higher rez doesn't capture more because other than noise there isn't anything.  

 

I'm not so sure.  I think you agree that the 16/44 FLAC is lossy compared to the master, so the question is, what's thrown away?  I appreciate that there's a sample rate that has to be adhered to for the players that can't go above 16/44, but still, someone is making the decision what to discard, and I doubt it is (or has to be) merely cutting the output data by 4 times.  I'm guessing it's more complicated than that, and there are options...

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

 

You appear to be equating WAV with CD-quality uncompressed audio data (16/44.1). WAV data can be in any bit depth and sample rate such as 24/44.1, 24/48, 24/96 or 24/192. A FLAC file created from a WAV file in any of these resolutions will be lossless.

 

Creating a 16/44.1 FLAC file from a 24/192 WAV file, for example, requires dithering the bit depth of the WAV file down from 24 bits to 16 bits and reducing the sample rate from 192 to 44.1. These are lossy operations that have nothing to do with the WAV to FLAC conversion which is lossless.  

 

 

That's right.  So to my previous question (previous post to this).

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, dalethorn said:

 

I'm not so sure.  I think you agree that the 16/44 FLAC is lossy compared to the master, so the question is, what's thrown away?  I appreciate that there's a sample rate that has to be adhered to for the players that can't go above 16/44, but still, someone is making the decision what to discard, and I doubt it is (or has to be) merely cutting the output data by 4 times.  I'm guessing it's more complicated than that, and there are options...

 

What is being lost in this lossy conversion, is any frequencies above 20 khz, and any bit values below 16 bit.  Various downsampling algorithms accomplish this in slightly different manner.  The dither can vary, and how the transition band filtering is handled can vary a little bit.  For the most part none of the below 20 khz info is lost.  There is no direct way to put the lost info in the file. 

 

http://src.infinitewave.ca/

 

Maybe you have seen this.  It shows the results of various down-sampling softwares.  Izotope and Sox are two of the very best methods available.  

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, dalethorn said:

I'm not so sure.  I think you agree that the 16/44 FLAC is lossy compared to the master, so the question is, what's thrown away?

Frequencies above 22 kHz are discarded, as are details below 16-bit precision.

 

Quote

I appreciate that there's a sample rate that has to be adhered to for the players that can't go above 16/44, but still, someone is making the decision what to discard, and I doubt it is (or has to be) merely cutting the output data by 4 times. I'm guessing it's more complicated than that, and there are options...

The only options you have are the nature of the low-pass filter and what, if any, dither shaping to use. Both are minor tweaks, nothing more.

Link to comment

Something you can do, is take a 192 file.  Downsample it to 44.  Upsample back to 192.  Subtract one file from the other, and the difference is what was lost in the downsampling.  What you'll find is some very low level noise below 20 khz which is from the dither.  And whatever was above 20 khz.  You'll find you cannot hear any of this unless you amplify it heavily and even then you'll only hear the noise like dither.  

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, esldude said:

Something you can do, is take a 192 file.  Downsample it to 44.  Upsample back to 192.  Subtract one file from the other, and the difference is what was lost in the downsampling.  What you'll find is some very low level noise below 20 khz which is from the dither.  And whatever was above 20 khz.  You'll find you cannot hear any of this unless you amplify it heavily and even then you'll only hear the noise like dither.  

 

I wouldn't disagree with this insofar as what I can hear, but of course a high-res industry has been built on being able to hear more music detail.

 

But then again, what do I know?  I'm trying to get to the core parameters before going any further investigating any one conversion software, and this is helpful.

 

BTW, I got the Gould 1955 and 1981 Sony Classics CDs (2 CD album), and the mono disc compressed to 37.3 percent and the stereo disc to 40.8 percent, at Level 5 FLAC.

 

That stereo result surprised me, because I expected the 1981 recording, at the dawn of consumer digital, to compress much better.  I got that idea from a bunch of experiments I did last night.  Anyway, 2 more CDs to go on this round, hopefully by Wednesday.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, mansr said:

Frequencies above 22 kHz are discarded, as are details below 16-bit precision.

 

The only options you have are the nature of the low-pass filter and what, if any, dither shaping to use. Both are minor tweak, nothing more.

 

Could be, but for me to prove any of that to myself isn't possible in a reasonable amount of time.  I appreciate the tips and clues, and I probably just need a lot more experimental data to see who or what is doing a better job.

 

I'm getting the impression, and I could be off-base here, that a very clean recording might compress a lot better than a "dirtier" recording that has extraneous noise, but the same number of instruments, i.e. solo piano.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...