PDA

View Full Version : What's the best file format to use



Chilts
2010-02-24, 14:24
I'm pretty new to this and would appreciate some advice. I've used WMP to rip CD's and chose the WAV format as it appeared to be the least loss. I'm using a Duet and have had a few problems with the library, biggest bug bear is that the first track of each album is not stored in the album but is in a seperate album under @Unkown@ albeit with the correct album art associated with it, another issue is that 'Best of' albums appear in the Various Artist section and not under the Artist themselves. It was suggested I needed help with tags and to use MP3Tag, this however only works on other file formats. I chose WAV because I thought it would give me the best audio experience....am I wrong, should I be using something else

Mnyb
2010-02-24, 14:33
FLAC. all lossless formats is same sound-wise but FLAC is native to the SB players and have excellent tag support.
FLAC is lossles .

dBpoweramp or EAC can rip directly to flac, WAV files can be converted to flac by many applications (FLAC frontend dBpoweramp foobar2000 and 100 other apps ) and properly tagged by mp3tag or tag&rename for example.

WMA lossles ? can not WMP rip to that ?, this requires that the server is a windows machine and sbs has to transcode but it would also work , how is seeking inside transcoded formats these days ?

However FLAC is more platform independent and if you later on choose to use a Touch as server or a low powered NAS you don't have worry about transcoding.

If you only want to use your squeezebox FLAC for lossles or mp3 for lossy is all you need.

It can be more complicated if other media players and other stuff gets involved.

Phil Leigh
2010-02-24, 14:35
I'm pretty new to this and would appreciate some advice. I've used WMP to rip CD's and chose the WAV format as it appeared to be the least loss. I'm using a Duet and have had a few problems with the library, biggest bug bear is that the first track of each album is not stored in the album but is in a seperate album under @Unkown@ albeit with the correct album art associated with it, another issue is that 'Best of' albums appear in the Various Artist section and not under the Artist themselves. It was suggested I needed help with tags and to use MP3Tag, this however only works on other file formats. I chose WAV because I thought it would give me the best audio experience....am I wrong, should I be using something else

DO NOT USE WAV.
Use FLAC. It is 100% lossless and supports tags easily.

Thg6276
2010-02-24, 15:09
Flac + dBpoweramp + Mp3tag is the best cocktail for use correctly your system

Chilts
2010-02-24, 15:18
All, many thanks busy converting with dBpoweramp as I type!!

pski
2010-02-24, 18:00
I'm pretty new to this and would appreciate some advice. I've used WMP to rip CD's and chose the WAV format as it appeared to be the least loss. I'm using a Duet and have had a few problems with the library, biggest bug bear is that the first track of each album is not stored in the album but is in a seperate album under @Unkown@ albeit with the correct album art associated with it, another issue is that 'Best of' albums appear in the Various Artist section and not under the Artist themselves. It was suggested I needed help with tags and to use MP3Tag, this however only works on other file formats. I chose WAV because I thought it would give me the best audio experience....am I wrong, should I be using something else

I'm not sure about using WMP, especially if it's capable of writing lossless files.

I used iTunes to write lossless files because I could set it to "import" when the CD was inserted and "eject" when it was done.

P

FredFredrickson
2010-02-25, 08:37
I must be a noob, but 192 kbps WMA sounds identical to any FLAC I've listened to...

garym
2010-02-25, 10:39
I must be a noob, but 192 kbps WMA sounds identical to any FLAC I've listened to...

no, you're very normal. at 192kbps, almost any codec will be transparent to most people except for very problematic music samples. You can find lots of discussion on this at hydrogenaudio.org (just search for "transparent" "lossy" "lossless" "ABX"). I can't ABX (tell difference in a blind test) between 192 (or 128 in most cases) mp3 files and FLAC versions. Yes, one can work to train themselves to pick up on small cues about the differences (the high hat cymbols on some songs, for example, certain piano heavy songs), but for general listening I'd argue that it is fairly rare to detect obvious differences in good lossy files (encoded with quality encoders) and lossless.

That said, I rip to FLAC because I only want to rip once and I don't want to do any transcoding from lossy to lossy in the future. What if 3 years from now there is a revolutionary new codec that can create the equivalent of a 256kbps lossy file that takes 1/100 of the space of a 128kbps mp3? If I've already encoded to mp3 192, I can't really take advantage of this. But with FLAC files, I simply point and click to my FLAC library of 100k+ files and come back a day or two later with a new lossy library for my portables.

I do play the FLAC files on my SB's (I have them anyhow, and memory is cheap).

Mnyb
2010-02-25, 10:53
no, you're very normal. at 192kbps, almost any codec will be transparent to most people except for very problematic music samples. You can find lots of discussion on this at hydrogenaudio.org (just search for "transparent" "lossy" "lossless" "ABX"). I can't ABX (tell difference in a blind test) between 192 (or 128 in most cases) mp3 files and FLAC versions. Yes, one can work to train themselves to pick up on small cues about the differences (the high hat cymbols on some songs, for example, certain piano heavy songs), but for general listening I'd argue that it is fairly rare to detect obvious differences in good lossy files (encoded with quality encoders) and lossless.

That said, I rip to FLAC because I only want to rip once and I don't want to do any transcoding from lossy to lossy in the future. What if 3 years from now there is a revolutionary new codec that can create the equivalent of a 256kbps lossy file that takes 1/100 of the space of a 128kbps mp3? If I've already encoded to mp3 192, I can't really take advantage of this. But with FLAC files, I simply point and click to my FLAC library of 100k+ files and come back a day or two later with a new lossy library for my portables.

I do play the FLAC files on my SB's (I have them anyhow, and memory is cheap).

Yep rip once and be done with it, with a lossles files you get an actual backup of the CD's too, fire or theft can happen to you to.
And don't forget about data migration flac may be the sh*t now but who knows what lossles formats you want in the future, lossles can always be transcoded to other lossles formats indefinitely no quality loss between generations.

nolesrule
2010-02-25, 11:06
Yep rip once and be done with it, with a lossles files you get an actual backup of the CD's too, fire or theft can happen to you to.
And don't forget about data migration flac may be the sh*t now but who knows what lossles formats you want in the future, lossles can always be transcoded to other lossles formats indefinitely no quality loss between generations.

You mean the needle on the hard drive doesn't scratch your FLAC files? I must be doing something wrong.

Jeff Flowerday
2010-02-25, 11:19
What format do most of your devices/software support?

Choose the lossless format that is best supported. Be that FLAC, WMA Lossless or Apple Lossless.

If you don't have any devices and are only concerned with getting it right with squeezebox, then FLAC is the way to go.

iPhone
2010-02-25, 11:35
I must be a noob, but 192 kbps WMA sounds identical to any FLAC I've listened to...

If one is a musician or listens to large amounts of Jazz and Classical (I fall into both), 192 is very lacking.

Every time the Forum discusses 192 Kbps anything, it reminds me of the movie Amadeus.

Emperor: My dear young man, don't take it too hard. Your work is ingenious. It's quality work. And there are simply too many notes, that's all. Just cut a few and it will be perfect.
Mozart: Which few did you have in mind, Majesty?

Notes, persistence, upper and lower frequencies are removed to make the files smaller (there is no other way then removing them to do compression at this level) so the music is directly affected, IE it is forever changed and no longer the original. Which is why a 192 file can not be changed back into a copy of the original. If one buys into the con that it is OK because one can't really hear the difference, then the brain will not bother to hear or listen for the difference. The MP3 codecs were not created because people just would never hear the difference, they were created to provide a means to put some songs on small portable devices and on computers without taking up all the drive space. And as the music goes, I want the original with all its penned/recorded notes and persistence the original piece intended.

Device and hard drive space are not really an issue anymore, so until something better comes along, FLAC is truly the way to rip and listen to for playback.

bobkoure
2010-02-25, 13:00
...with a lossles files you get an actual backup of the CD's too
Don't neglect to make a backup of your ripped albums. Even though you've still got the CDs, re-ripping-re-tagging and re-scanning (or re-finding-online art) represents a good deal of work...

FredFredrickson
2010-02-25, 13:11
If one is a musician or listens to large amounts of Jazz and Classical (I fall into both), 192 is very lacking.

Every time the Forum discusses 192 Kbps anything, it reminds me of the movie Amadeus.

Emperor: My dear young man, don't take it too hard. Your work is ingenious. It's quality work. And there are simply too many notes, that's all. Just cut a few and it will be perfect.
Mozart: Which few did you have in mind, Majesty?

Notes, persistence, upper and lower frequencies are removed to make the files smaller (there is no other way then removing them to do compression at this level) so the music is directly affected, IE it is forever changed and no longer the original. Which is why a 192 file can not be changed back into a copy of the original. If one buys into the con that it is OK because one can't really hear the difference, then the brain will not bother to hear or listen for the difference. The MP3 codecs were not created because people just would never hear the difference, they were created to provide a means to put some songs on small portable devices and on computers without taking up all the drive space. And as the music goes, I want the original with all its penned/recorded notes and persistence the original piece intended.

Device and hard drive space are not really an issue anymore, so until something better comes along, FLAC is truly the way to rip and listen to for playback.

As a home-recording artist, I understand the difference in theory of lossless and compression algorithms. I submit lossess files to my producer because he only takes losseless.

That being said, on my two Behringer TRUTH B2030As I can't for the life of me hear any difference. I can tell the jangle sound of less than 128, but I've done back to back comparisons of flacs vs 192 mp3, and it's just not audible. Even on my own music.

garym
2010-02-25, 14:56
As a home-recording artist, I understand the difference in theory of lossless and compression algorithms. I submit lossess files to my producer because he only takes losseless.

That being said, on my two Behringer TRUTH B2030As I can't for the life of me hear any difference. I can tell the jangle sound of less than 128, but I've done back to back comparisons of flacs vs 192 mp3, and it's just not audible. Even on my own music.

I agree with iPhone's comments, which is why I rip to FLAC (and listen to FLAC on my SBs). But I'm like you...I can't ABX 192 vs FLAC. Part of my problem is typical age related hearing loss at certain frequencies. And, correlated with my age, being front row on many, many 1960s/1970s rock shows probably didn't help matters.

edit: I'm sure I couldn't ABX my Transporter vs. my original SB3 either. But what I've lost in hearing, I've gained in disposable income. Some benefits to getting older.

Chilts
2010-02-25, 15:08
Guys

interesting discussion, but can anyone help me. I have as was suggested converted my files to FLAC, run through MP3Tag,rescanned entire library but still have the same issue. In WMP library all the tracks from an album appear in the album, when I have recsannned a very large number of albums are all minus the first track and I have a very large collection of 'unkown' albums that contain the artwork and the missing first track.

Plus, loads of 'best of' albums appear as compilations.

Rgds
Chilts

garym
2010-02-25, 15:34
Sounds like you've got problems with your tags. On some of the problem albums, load up the files in mp3tag, and really look at ALL the tags of each file (right click, select extended tags, then you'll see all the tags that are in that file). I suspect you have COMPILATION=1 in some files, may have album names that are slightly different, etc. Computers are pretty stupid and take everything at face value (including tags). Problems such as yours are 99.9% of the time an issue of rogue tag values.

Mnyb
2010-02-25, 15:47
You mean the needle on the hard drive doesn't scratch your FLAC files? I must be doing something wrong.

But i really meant if you convert mp3 to for example AAC you get cascade conversion erros and artifacts ! loosy to lossy creates weird losses the resulting file sound worse than file it begun with, two lossy formats are not exactly on terms on with what data to discard so each trascoding wrecks the quality. If you do this 100 times mp3-AAC-mp3-AAC-wma-ogg-mp3 and so on it will sound garbage.

If you on the other hand covert wav-flav-aiff-alac-wma-lossles-ape-wav-flac or whatever it will be the same after 1000 generations until you have to change needle on your harddrive ;)

For migration in some dim future flac may be obsolete, then I want to convert to what ever is current then I might be senile by then so it does not matter, but friend and family should be able to use ol Mnyb's files in the future if they so desire. I'm I nuts to rip for future generations ?

Chilts
2010-02-25, 16:00
gary thanks for the reply, but if I choose an album or track and try extended tags I see no reference at all to compilation just


ALBUM
ARTIST
CDTOC
GENRE
TITLE
TRACK

where should I find compilation=0 or =1

garym
2010-02-25, 16:05
gary thanks for the reply, but if I choose an album or track and try extended tags I see no reference at all to compilation just


ALBUM
ARTIST
CDTOC
GENRE
TITLE
TRACK

where should I find compilation=0 or =1

This tells me that you don't have a COMPILATION tag. Which is fine, because you don't want them treated as compilations. Squeezebox will also use some sort of rubric to decide whether something is a compilation by looking at whether the ALBUM ARTIST tag exists and the ARTIST tag is something different (e.g., Album Artist is "Gram Parsons" and ARTIST on track is "Flying Burrito Brothers"). I may have this example a little off, as I explicitly have my compilations tagged with COMPILATION = 1. EDIT: you can learn more than you want about this by searching this forum on the term "compilation".

So next step is to closely examine your ALBUM names and your ARTIST names. With "unknown" it sounds like the ALBUM tag is missing from some of the tracks. Find one of these albums where the first song is listed separately and pull it in to mp3tag and look at extended tags (and the values in each of the tag fields). It has to be that some of the tags for the "missing" track are different from the tracks in the rest of the album.

Phil Leigh
2010-02-25, 16:12
Unexpected album track splits are nearly always caused by errors in the ALBUM tag. They can also be caused by spurious DISCNUMBER tags.

Chilts
2010-02-26, 10:59
Gary/Phil

thanks for the guidance, I did indeed see track one of an album has

Title=Track1
Artist=Unknown Artist
Album=Unknown album

I have manually corrected and it then sorts, which leads me to two questions,
do I have to do this manually for all the other similar issues and how do I prevent it from happening again when I rip a CD.

Rgds
Chilts

garym
2010-02-26, 11:30
the manual change issue largely rests with how you've organized your data structure? For example, do you have something like this:

C:\music\artist\album\track

If so, you can probably use "mp3tag" to guess the correct artist and album name from the directory structure. And does the file name have the name of the track?

Regarding ripping, remind me of what program you use to rip and add metadata. Good ripping software shouldn't have left you with this mess. I use dbpoweramp myself (secure rips with good metadata support). I rip to FLAC and also maintain an MP3 library for my portables.

tcutting
2010-02-26, 11:35
If the existing files are well organized in terms of directory structure and naming of the files, mp3tag may be able to be used to create tags based on the directory structure and file name.
Going forward, use EAC or dbpoweramp to do your ripping and initial tagging. I use EAC, but there are a few manual steps required (but it's free); I understand dbpoweramp can provide a more automated process. For example, EAC doesn't (at least for me) get album artwork, so I manually grab them from Amazon while I am ripping. I then use foobar to create replaygain tags. I have not had the issue with one of my files not getting tagged, but I'm somewhat at the mercy of the public domain tag library... sometimes I need to go back and clean up tags after a rip (mp3tag is used).

Chilts
2010-02-26, 12:10
Guys

thanks again for the support, to answer some questions

I had ripped with WMP, then used dbPoweramp to convert the WAV files to FLAC, I then ran mp3tag.

The music is stored like this H:\My Music\Aretha Franklin\Queen of Soul- The Very Best of Aretha Franklin\Track Name

I still however have issues, after re naming manually some tracks they appear under the artist rather than unknown but as a secondary version of the album in SB library, I have even gone in and changed album artist from blank to match album artist that it saw already. The isolated track/album seems to be carrying the track name , name of artist plus unknown artist wheras in the album folder that has alll th rest of the album the 'unknown' element is missing.

Additionally even adding Album Artist to the known artist tag still leaves some albums in the Compilation/Various Artists section e.g
Best of Rod Stewart SB controller shows under more info as
Location H\My Music\Rod Stewart\Best of Rod Stewart\(WEA International)\01Maggie May.flac
and I have added Album Artist to the tag in mp3Tag, it already had artist=Rod Stewart.

rgds
Chilts

garym
2010-02-26, 15:31
Guys
Additionally even adding Album Artist to the known artist tag still leaves some albums in the Compilation/Various Artists section e.g
Best of Rod Stewart SB controller shows under more info as
Location H\My Music\Rod Stewart\Best of Rod Stewart\(WEA International)\01Maggie May.flac
and I have added Album Artist to the tag in mp3Tag, it already had artist=Rod Stewart.

rgds
Chilts

Given that WAV files don't have a standard tagging scheme, I suspect most of your problem stems from this. I can't think of any obvious problem causing your remaining issues with album sorting. Do be sure that you do a complete CLEAR AND RESCAN of your music library after you've dealt with fixing the tags. The example problem you point out still points to some wayward tag. With that one, I'd pull ALL the tracks from the "Best of Rod Stewart" album into mp3tag, right click them, and then edit the ARTIST and ALBUM and DISCNUMBER fields by blanking them out and typing new info in (so that you are editing these fields for ALL the tracks at the same time. This way you know everything is identical. Also look at "extended tags" for the wayward track to see if it has a tag that is different from the other tracks.

p.s. Adding all these Album Artist tags may not hurt, but it is not likely helping fix your problem.

garym
2010-02-26, 15:48
Probably not the same issue, but I did just notice this:

http://forum.dbpoweramp.com/showthread.php?p=97420#post97420