What audio compression yre you using ?

[Jammrock]

When comparing formats one must take other aspects into consideration as well. If the mixer of the SACD takes the CD master and just slaps it on the new format, there won't much, if any, difference.

If however the SACD is taken from a high res master or specifically recording for the high res spec (i.e. DSD for SACD) and specifically mastered for a new format, SACD or DVD-A, then differences can be heard on a system capable of producing the needed sound.

If you play it back on a $250 Best Buy special all in one box home theater package, you probably won't notice the difference. A nice HiFi package would make a difference.

And yes I have listened to CD, HDCD, SACD and DVD-A on various systems and there is an audible difference.

The difference between CD and HDCD is more nuance and a bit more depth to the music. The difference between a good CD and a good SACD/DVD-A is more accurate, full sound, plus the afore menttioned nuance and depth.

And if you don't beleive me, so be it, I don't care. It's not my fualt you can't hear well.

Jammrock

[Umfriend]

Yes it is!

[Nowhere]

musepack (*.mpc, eventually *.mp+, or *.mpp - from times when musepack had different name)

and sometimes ape or flac (but I can notice difference to musepack immediatelly only when in good listening conditions/harsh parts of music, and it isn't, usually, like in mp3 (bleh) some distortion, rather some very subtle nuances of music not so impressive/audible)

[Nowhere]

Originally posted by HedsSpaz

...
If I really want to preserve something as a truly high quality rip then I use Monkey's Audio, it seems to be the best out of the lossless codecs as far as compression time/compression ratio goes.
...

Ian

IMHO ape isn't very good for preservation - one faulty byte and bye-bye to *.ape file. For archiving I would recommend flac because of this. And although it has a little worse compression ratio, it doesn't matter much when we speak about lossles compression and files that are ~55% size of the wave.
FLAC also appears to hog system less...

Originally posted by az

...
I'm really astonished how many people manage to produce horribly clipping, noisy, or much too quiet mp3s from a CD. What are these people doing?

AZ

ermmm...on Hydrogenaudio (btw, check those forums) I've read that many dumb people reencode mp3's from 128 kbit/s to 320 kbit/s for example

Originally posted by Maggi

...
IMHO, those plastic thingies suck rox, compared to the ones from Sony.
Not only do they severly lack sound quality, but also they have a tendency to break into pieces on the first occasion they drop down to the floor, whereas my Sony survived half a dozen of those drops, hitting a concrete floor really hard.

...

Anybody know of an audio compression format that goes beyond 16bit per channel ?

L8erz,
Maggi

Oh yes, nothing beats metal casing (in my case, sony casette (yup, analog! ) player)
And as for more than 16bit...FLAC does that (and recommending FLAC is imho sensible in that case - if someone wants more than 16bit, he'll probably want lossless too). Musepack afai remember also.

[TnT]

Ogg Vorbis @ 208 nominal or something like that.
Probably move on to FLAC if I ever decide to get a file server to store it all

I'm not an audiophile but I do hear artifacts in MP3s that were compressed badly when my friends can't.

[UtwigMU]

I generally just copy the CDs. Otherwise I'd rip to Monkey's audio

Lossless, free and has Winamp plugin.

Otherwise: MP3 = most widespread, ogg = better than mp3 but not lossless.

[Wombat]

Originally posted by UtwigMU
I generally just copy the CDs. Otherwise I'd rip to Monkey's audio

Lossless, free and has Winamp plugin.

Otherwise: MP3 = most widespread, ogg = better than mp3 but not lossless.

So why use this Monkey thing instead of SHorteN?