Topic: Is There A Way Of Calculating A Ratio of Quality Lost (FLAC vs mp3C)?

[guysonic]

Hard for me to tell as with Flac encoders I've used, seems limited to only 16 bit depth (anyone know of Flac 24 bit, and maximum sample rates over 48K?), but Flac does NOT limit encoded high frequency bandwidth and is supposed to be totally lossless NOT throwing away any audio file information. 

MP3 seems always to more-or-less affect high frequencies encoded bandwidth and also seems limited to 48K sample rates. 

I have used MP3 encoders working directly with 24-to-32bit (float) bit depth files giving 'chance' of more encoded audio details.  But as is generally well known, all MP3 encoders, regardless of encoding (to 320 kbps) rates are NOT lossless, so throw away information to reduce file sizes, and Flac does not do this.

No clear winner here if 24 bit depth MP3 encoding has some benefits over 16 bit Flac limitations.

[Brian Skalinder]

FLAC supports up to 24-bit and up 192 kHz and has for some time, now.

[Teen Wolf Blitzer]

Boojum if you believe all that why do you run a 788, 2 722's, DPA omni's, Schoeps, ect. ( i might add that's a mighty sick setup {minus the shemps}  lol)   Why not run a pair of mics>minidisc?  Do you record in mp3 to the 788?  Just curious.

So because two people couldn't hear the difference that means the rest of the world can't either?

boojum are you a skeptic about everything unless it's in a book somewhere?

Just show me the evidence.  One test is worth a thousand opinions.  I have been down these roads and heard this stuff way longer than you.  That is why I am a skeptic.   ;o)  I have for 55 years heard the stories of Golden Ears and super gear again and again.  It is not impossible, but I am a skeptic.  Listening to your set one time with FLAC/WAV files and the MP3's is not a test.  When someone else plays unknown files for you, on your set if you wish, in an order neither of you know which is which in, that is a test.  And yes, I believe published data way more than the anecdotal BS that floats around unsubstantiated. 

Prove me wrong.  Take a double blind test with a witness and let us see the results.  That would be fair, wouldn't it?    ;o)  You see, it is just that I have heard this stuff for decades but rarely have I seen it pass the rigorous test.  You do not have to believe what I believe but I have the right to believe it and support it.  And if you have a reason that anecdotal evidence is better than rigorous testing, tell us about it.

[notlance]

Boojum if you believe all that why do you run a 788, 2 722's, DPA omni's, Schoeps, ect. ( i might add that's a mighty sick setup {minus the shemps}  lol)   Why not run a pair of mics>minidisc?  Do you record in mp3 to the 788?  Just curious.

A quick answer as to why we should not record directly to a perceptual Codec is because it does not tolerate post processing.  For example, the MP3 Codec may discard low frequencies that are below the threshold of hearing relative to the overall program level.  However, if you wanted to process the initial recording by boosting the bass, there may not be any bass to boost if you recorded in MP3.  Perceptual Codecs may be OK for music distribution, but not for music production.

Chapter 10 of "Principles of Digital Audio" by Ken Pohlmann is a good introduction to perceptual coding.  It is not light reading.

The quality of perceptual codecs depends on many factors: psychoacoustics, implementation, bitrate, listening conditions, listener experience and acuity, etc.  When everything is done right, it can sound pretty good.  The irony is that the main reasons for using perceptual Codecs, namely reducing bandwidth and memory use, are becoming less important.

[rastasean]

Boojum if you believe all that why do you run a 788, 2 722's, DPA omni's, Schoeps, ect. ( i might add that's a mighty sick setup {minus the shemps}  lol)   Why not run a pair of mics>minidisc?  Do you record in mp3 to the 788?  Just curious.

A quick answer as to why we should not record directly to a perceptual Codec is because it does not tolerate post processing.  For example, the MP3 Codec may discard low frequencies that are below the threshold of hearing relative to the overall program level.  However, if you wanted to process the initial recording by boosting the bass, there may not be any bass to boost if you recorded in MP3.  Perceptual Codecs may be OK for music distribution, but not for music production.

Chapter 10 of "Principles of Digital Audio" by Ken Pohlmann is a good introduction to perceptual coding.  It is not light reading.

The quality of perceptual codecs depends on many factors: psychoacoustics, implementation, bitrate, listening conditions, listener experience and acuity, etc.  When everything is done right, it can sound pretty good.  The irony is that the main reasons for using perceptual Codecs, namely reducing bandwidth and memory use, are becoming less important.

So with all this being said about mp3s, what would we be able to do with the lowest bit rate/sampling of a wav file. It must be in some way superior to an mp3.

[rhinowing]

I think you'll find a decent mp3 to be far superior to an 8 bit .wav

[easyed]

FLAC supports up to 24-bit and up 192 kHz and has for some time, now.

other lossless compression formats I like are
APE* http://monkeysaudio.com/
and WavPack** http://wavpack.com/

*Format: PCM WAVE (standard windows .wav file) Sample Rate: anything, Bit depth: 8 or 16 or 24, Channels: 1 or 2
**Compatible with virtually all PCM audio formats including 8, 16, 24, and 32-bit ints; 32-bit floats; mono, stereo, and multichannel; sampling rates from 6 to 192 kHz (and non-standard rates)