Jump to content
IGNORED

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


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, dalethorn said:

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.

This is correct. Noise compresses poorly, and even a little added to a clean signal reduces the compressibility. You can see this easily by generating a pure sine tone, e.g. with Audacity. This will compress very well. If you add some noise, it will compress less.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, esldude said:

 

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.  

 

If I were just another audiophile asking what is lost in a conversion, so I could feel better about buying 24/88, 16/44, or whatever else I might want to buy, then maybe such a simple explanation would suffice.  And in that same context, I would not want to read an attached technical paper that I have no way to validate.

 

But what I'm after here is something these simple explanations (and the attached technical papers) don't satisfy.  As far as I can tell, these explanations are more about "this is the way we've always done things" than "here's why we absolutely cannot stuff more info into a 16/44 FLAC file.

 

I've written some very technical code, but I've always felt that if another person had the patience to listen and the curiosity to ask, I could explain anything in my code.

Link to comment

Well, redbook did have a provision for pre-emphasis. Almost like an RIAA curve for LPs.  A gradual slope to +9.5 db by 20 khz.  Then the reverse slope upon playback.  Provided extra resolution of high frequencies beyond 16 bits.  Not done anymore.  Was rare even in the early days.  I think I have 5 CDs with it.  I doubt any modern hardware looks for the pre-emphasis flag or can play it back properly.  

 

Other than that I think you are searching for an explanation that isn't there.  

 

What information can you add?  Essentially nothing below Nyquist is lost and you can't add above nyquist info with it still being a PCM 44.1 format.  You could do stuff like MQA does with the folding and unfolding.  But not something you can stick in a common player and get anything out of it. 

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
1 hour ago, esldude said:

Well, redbook did have a provision for pre-emphasis. Almost like an RIAA curve for LPs.  A gradual slope to +9.5 db by 20 khz.  Then the reverse slope upon playback.  Provided extra resolution of high frequencies beyond 16 bits.  Not done anymore.  Was rare even in the early days.  I think I have 5 CDs with it.  I doubt any modern hardware looks for the pre-emphasis flag or can play it back properly.  

 

Other than that I think you are searching for an explanation that isn't there.  

 

What information can you add?  Essentially nothing below Nyquist is lost and you can't add above nyquist info with it still being a PCM 44.1 format.  You could do stuff like MQA does with the folding and unfolding.  But not something you can stick in a common player and get anything out of it. 

 

I do believe you just answered the question, but maybe not as you expected.  "Redbook had a provision ..... not done anymore".  And therein, or in another possibility not stated, lie some possibilities.

 

BTW, I don't know about MQA.  It seemed like a straightforward idea - similar to  steganography, embed some data and either use it or ignore it.  Last time I looked, there was growing opposition.

 

Link to comment

I've been digging out solo piano CDs for a couple of days and receiving some in the post, and today I finally ripped a CD to WAV that I converted to Level 5 FLAC at 22.2 percent of the WAV size.  The closest I had come to this previously was above 35 percent, so this must be one unusual recording.  Chandos label, Debussy, Complete Works Vol.1, Jean-Efflam Bavouzet.  Maybe sometime today or tomorrow I can discover what makes this CD so unusually compressible.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, dalethorn said:

I've been digging out solo piano CDs for a couple of days and receiving some in the post, and today I finally ripped a CD to WAV that I converted to Level 5 FLAC at 22.2 percent of the WAV size.  The closest I had come to this previously was above 35 percent, so this must be one unusual recording.

 

Probably, there is low music time density. As rule FLAC compression about 60% of original PCM.

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
3 minutes ago, dalethorn said:

I've been digging out solo piano CDs for a couple of days and receiving some in the post, and today I finally ripped a CD to WAV that I converted to Level 5 FLAC at 22.2 percent of the WAV size.  The closest I had come to this previously was above 35 percent, so this must be one unusual recording.  Chandos label, Debussy, Complete Works Vol.1, Jean-Efflam Bavouzet.  Maybe sometime today or tomorrow I can discover what makes this CD so unusually compressible.

Incidentally, that was the first album I checked.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, mansr said:

Piano music typically compresses more.

 

I have come to realize that the solo piano music I have on CD is compressing to around 35-40 percent of the WAV size, which seems fair.  But to have one cd be 22.2 percent in the face of a dozen others above 35 percent?  Surely that is a huge anomaly.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, dalethorn said:

 

I have come to realize that the solo piano music I have on CD is compressing to around 35-40 percent of the WAV size, which seems fair.  But to have one cd be 22.2 percent in the face of a dozen others above 35 percent?  Surely that is a huge anomaly.

 

Perhaps it's related to the fact that the recording you are referring to is a native DSD recording.

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
1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

 

Perhaps it's related to the fact that the recording you are referring to is a native DSD recording.

 

The DSD wasn't converted by Foobar, it was converted by a program (JRMC) that failed to produce a playable 24/88 FLAC, despite hands-on help from several JRiver and Stereophile gurus.  So I hold that whole operation suspect, given that I have over a thousand high-res downloads that play perfectly in Foobar, with zero failures.

 

This instance of a CD compressing to less than 35 percent is a genuine anomaly, given all the others I've ripped and converted to FLAC thus far.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, dalethorn said:

I've been digging out solo piano CDs for a couple of days and receiving some in the post, and today I finally ripped a CD to WAV that I converted to Level 5 FLAC at 22.2 percent of the WAV size.  The closest I had come to this previously was above 35 percent, so this must be one unusual recording.  Chandos label, Debussy, Complete Works Vol.1, Jean-Efflam Bavouzet.  Maybe sometime today or tomorrow I can discover what makes this CD so unusually compressible.

The other 4 CDs in that set compress similarly.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, mansr said:

The other 4 CDs in that set compress similarly.

 

Set?  What set?  If it's the same recording venue, then that has nothing to do with the statistics I gave.  I can show you 10 Lincoln pennies from 1959 to 1979.  Does the fact that they weigh the same have any meaning?  It's when the weight drops that I ask why.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, mansr said:

The 5-CD complete piano works of Debussy played by Bavouzet.

 

Not relevant here - the quest for truth needs to know why a solo piano CD (or set recorded in kind) is compressing very much smaller than the average piano CD.  I believe a case can be made that the average compression for modern digital recordings is going to range from 35 percent up.  I don't need more examples of high compression unless the average compression percentage were to drop significantly with a large random sampling.

 

If the average consumer who reads this (do they?  I doubt it.) is OK with whatever the CD ripper and compressor spits out, then no need to go further.  But as I noted above, the conversion issue from DSD to 24/88 or 24/96 has never been fixed.

Link to comment

CD rippers will spit out bit perfect rips.  End of the story. 

 

FLAC will do bit perfect lossless compression which is bit perfect reversible.  End of the story. 

 

There is nothing else.  The characteristics of some music is more amenable to higher compression ratios than others.  Piano with quiet noise floors is one example of that. 

 

As far as DSD conversion, if the software you were using doesn't work it is a software problem.  The Sonore software works fine.  I believe in this thread 3 other softwares have been able to convert fine.   What is it you think is going on? 

 

You originally didn't believe piano recordings compressed below 50%.  Now you  have seen that they compress into the 30% range.  What is the problem you are looking to solve?

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
15 minutes ago, esldude said:

CD rippers will spit out bit perfect rips.  End of the story. 

 

FLAC will do bit perfect lossless compression which is bit perfect reversible.  End of the story. 

 

There is nothing else.  The characteristics of some music is more amenable to higher compression ratios than others.  Piano with quiet noise floors is one example of that. 

 

As far as DSD conversion, if the software you were using doesn't work it is a software problem.  The Sonore software works fine.  I believe in this thread 3 other softwares have been able to convert fine.   What is it you think is going on? 

 

You originally didn't believe piano recordings compressed below 50%.  Now you  have seen that they compress into the 30% range.  What is the problem you are looking to solve?

 

Your "end of story" is See No Evil, etc. etc.  Now you want to ignore most of what I wrote today.  Unless you find some honesty and address the specific issues, you should just go away.  

Link to comment
1 hour ago, dalethorn said:

 But as I noted above, the conversion issue from DSD to 24/88 or 24/96 has never been fixed.

 

Can you explain what you mean by "conversion issue"?

 

I had no problem converting your DSD file to 24/88.2 FLAC format using two different programs (JRiver and XiSRC).

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
1 hour ago, dalethorn said:

 

Your "end of story" is See No Evil, etc. etc.  Now you want to ignore most of what I wrote today.  Unless you find some honesty and address the specific issues, you should just go away.  

 Yeah, glad to help.  

 

Suggest you study how FLAC works.  When you learn enough, the evil will go away.  

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
39 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Can you explain what you mean by "conversion issue"?

 

I had no problem converting your DSD file to 24/88.2 FLAC format using two different programs (JRiver and XiSRC).

And I converted it with Sonore software and had no problems.  So we must be co-conspirators.  :ph34r:

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 hours ago, dalethorn said:

the quest for truth needs to know why a solo piano CD (or set recorded in kind) is compressing very much smaller than the average piano CD

We already told you why. It is because piano music has simple waveforms that compress well.

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, mansr said:

We already told you why. It is because piano music has simple waveforms that compress well.

 

The vibrations of strings are pretty simple. The complexities come from the hammer action and the interaction of string material and the tension where it's attached. Here's an interesting result that shows that piano strings do not produce even-spaced harmonics, but rather harmonics with increased, non-integer spacing at higher frequencies:

 

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/268568/why-are-the-harmonics-of-a-piano-tone-not-multiples-of-the-base-frequency

 

Probably nothing to do with the topic of compressibility, just an interesting side-bar on piano sound :)

 

 

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...