FLAC bit rate

[merlin2049er]

Hi, I'm going thru the process of finally converting my CDs to FLAC files. I'll be using Exact audio copy and FLAC. I'm unsure what bit rate to convert the wave files on extraction to? I used 320kbps for a few cds, and a few people mentioned that I should up the bit rate.

 

Any suggestions?

 

Thanks,

Joe

 

[blaine78]

FLAC is lossless, so it doesn't have a bit rate you adjust. instead it gives you lossless compression options 1 - 8. what these options are, is how much it tries to efficiently compress at the expense of CPU/time it takes. at setting 8 it compresses efficiently to reduce the file as small as possible, but with the expense of CPU/time it takes. Setting 1, is faster compression but not as efficient. i recommend leaving default setting i think that's 5 or 6. whatever setting you choose, it is still the SAME unaffected quality lossless file you began with.

 

 

[bleedink]

And there is a newer standard of flac that I believe was introduced with DbPoweramp Converter which is uncompressed flac which in essence makes it like a wav, aiff, or what have you in that no processing power needed to unlock the file since it hasn't been compressed in the first place. Some people have had issues with flac as far a SQ (which is most likely due to the implementation on a given device) and I believe this was an effort to address that if I am not mistaken.

 

[ted_b]

to the format of your choice (FLAC in this example) at their native rate, which is 16 bit, 44.1khz sample rate (aka 16/44). (*Note; this assumes you are asking for best sound). Anything less, like 320kbps, is making them lossy (i.e lost information, lost music) which you will never get back (think of using a bad copier to make copies. You'll never get a good copy if all you have to work with is a bad copy to start off). Unless you are trying to save huge amounts of space and don't care about sound quality you should rip at 16/44 and then use the compression capabilities of FLAC to save some hard disc space. Formats like 320kbps MP3's are decent for portable music but not for serious home listening.

 

The reason a compressed lossless format like FLAC would release a new version that is literally uncompressed is 1) as Bleedink says, for those that believe sound quality is ever so slightly affected by the compression/decompression that the cpu must do, and 2) this uncompressed version still has all the great tagging (artist, title, genre, etc) capabilities that FLAC brings with it. Other formats like wav, although also lossless, are not good at saving good tagging info.

 

[Audioseduction]

I myself am using the uncompressed version of FLAC with DBPoweramp and experianced nothing but Excellent playback!

 

[Mark Powell]

Blaine78 is right - lossless of any kind does not have a bit rate. I have only ever used WAV, and if you try to alter the bit rate you get 'Not Configurable' or whatever. I suspect other methods are similar. If you can change the bit rate you are using a 'lossy' process.

 

The FLAC people have just brought out 'uncompressed'. So the previous one will probably go out of fashion. That's always the problem with such formats, they don't last. WAV has been around for a very long time and will remain in use for an equally long time. The so-called 'tagging problem' does not really exist. Some say that you can tag it, some say you can't. So it is opinion not fact. In any event, external metadata does not cause any real problems - that is why IBM/Microsoft did it that way in the first place.

 

A search for 'wave files' and thus a read of the resultant Wikipedia entry and its references will remove the need for such 'opinions'.

 

ALWAYS rip at the native rate, regardless of which format you rip to. Otherwise you will lose data, thus sound quality also, and if you don't you will eventually worry about doing it all over again.

 

WAV gives you an inarguable, as near perfect, copy as you will ever get. Use it unless you have really strong concerns (which I believe are not justified, but that is just my opinion) over tags.

 

[bleedink]

I would add that if you are into multichannel music flac is one of the easier ways to save it. It does a great job with DTS and the like as well as just plain ole 5.1 pcm. There seems to be a recent push with blu rays lately that contain 5.1 releases so this could be relevant for some. Also most software that you are using for flac conversion usually will do the sample and bit rate automatically without you're having to manually choose it. I think the only time one need concern themselves with bit rate and the like is when one is up or downsampling their audio for oh say use in a personal music player. Most software just allows you to point toward the file you are trying to convert and will take it from there resulting in an identical file in terms of bit rate, sampling, and the like. I don't think anyone would dispute that wav does in fact have tagging capabilities, but it is dependent on the software you use. Some do a much better job than others. Flac doesn't seem to suffer from this as much but as one poster said, if you have any doubts about the SQ you are getting either go flac uncompressed or choose wav. Of course if you are already in the apple ecosystem and don't mind proprietary formats I believe aiff will similarly serve your lossless needs-as long as you stay on a mac. Note however that if you are a MC fan wav support is hit or miss, very software dependent. Flac does not seem to suffer as much from the hit or miss aspects IMHO.

 

[Miska]

for those that believe sound quality is ever so slightly affected by the compression/decompression that the cpu must do

 

How about the higher I/O activity needed to transfer the larger amount of uncompressed data from the storage? That has usually much higher noise implications within the computer case than ~1% CPU load difference of decompressing FLAC...

 

 

[Mark Powell]

What is the actual POINT of uncompressed FLAC?

 

[bleedink]

Again the point is that some people claim to hear differences in different implementations of the flac codec due to the decompression that takes place and the cpu overhead involved. I don't claim this to be true I am just stating a belief that others have espoused. Basically the theory is that by eliminating the decompression involved in decoding flac you would have a file that is essentially like a wav...ie it is an exact copy of the file you are converting without any kind of compression or decompression going on. Thus one gets the benefit of more universal support for tagging as well as an 'improvement' in sound because none of the bits have been taken out, and thus do not need to be reconstructed. This is essentially how wav works. The file does not need to be reconstructed or decompressed because no bits were removed in the first place. Thus it is with uncompressed flac. This seems to be a compromise to satisfy those audiophiles who feel that the I/O and cpu load contribute negatively to the sonic experience. So again what you are getting with uncompressed flac is what you are getting with wav, what you are getting with aiff, or any other lossless codec you should decide to use. Some programs again do not do well with tagging on wav or aiff files. Similarly flac tagging support is nearly ubiquitous across many playback apps. So one would get the benefits of wav without the sonic compromise that flac decoding would supposedly entail as well as tag support that isn't as dependent on the software you are using to play it back. There are several people who could perhaps state this a bit more eloquently than I have (TedB!) but this is essentially the 'deal'.

 

[Mark Powell]

But what I meant, I was not clear, I admit, is with both WAV and uncompressed FLAC there is (obviously) no compression. WAV is supported by absolutely everyone, has been since the beginning (it was the beginning), and will remain supported for 'ever'.

 

So what useful purpose does uncompressed FLAC serve? More and more 'appliance' servers, such as my Naim (not to date used very much) supports embedded or external WAV metadata correctly, though its ripper embeds it, but its player copes with external as well. JRivers seems to have no problem, nor does WMP. WMP does it externally, but it is in the same folder, so transports to other systems OK. I have not checked how JRiver works. But all these three ways seem to work with each other, as does EAC.

 

So all four players/rippers seem to deal with each others data perfectly. No doubt the others will catch up.

 

So why have yet another 'standard' that does no more than the universal WAV does already?

 

I have a feeling that all these various 'standards' are putting people off of computer audio until it all settles down. It certainly delayed my purchase of the fairly expensive Naim device. Another way of doing it will just make things worse.

 

Went I got home with the Naim, my wife said "it's just a stationary iPod really, isn't it?"

 

Sorry if I was not clear initially.

 

[Sri]

First, there is this assumption that WAV files are always uncompressed, that's not true. Its a file format that can deliver compressed audio. Second, remember that FLAC is from the world of open source. WAV files come from microsoft/ibm and although its use doesn't require licensing, I believe they own the patents. That makes it an anathema to the open source zealots. The same goes for FLAC compression, which unlike pretty much every other algorithmn I can think of, is patent free.

 

 

 

[Mark Powell]

I certainly agree with you about 'free and open'. Most certainly. But Microsoft/IBM would never dare prevent anyone using it now, it is far too late. Nor would they dare start charging. You don't need a licence at all and never have. It is so old, the patents have anyway expired.

 

But if we took open or non-commercial to its logical conclusion, the zealots would have never purchased even one CD!

 

 

 

[ted_b]

as FLAC. No way. However, that being said, uncompressed FLAC is a strangely odd new feature. Either Stephen and the FLAC community agree that compression causes sonic issues, or they bought stock in Western Digital. I see few other reasons. Miska is right in that the same argument against compression could be used against large file sizes clogging the network.

 

Guys, I know I have been guilt too, but please try and edit your posts using the preview button. I must have 10 copies of the last post or two in my email box.

 

[Miska]

WAV files come from microsoft/ibm

 

RIFF aka WAV is just yet another variant of IFF base format from Electronics Arts dating back to 1985. Same goes for AIFF. Really dumb format in the end, nothing to patent (well, I guess that doesn't stop USPTO).

 

Biggest limitation of WAV is four gigabyte size limit for the audio data.

 

In terms of future proof, FLAC is equally safe, since the spec and source code is available.

 

P.S. And Linux is not an issue, FLAC originates from Linux/FOSS-land...