Highest Sound quality format?

[SirSlaughter]

Like the title says, What is teh Highest sound format for quality? I know of a site that allows me to download any format I could choose from. (AAC, MP3. So on so forth) I wanna know which would be best, I am not looking to conserve any memory at all, I have plenty of space to go with, so I want teh best. Oh and any programs/software/drivers you could tell me about to get even better quality would be nice too. :3

[aj]

FLAC is probably best.

Even given the option though, I tend not to download music in FLAC, 256kbps VBR MP3 is Good Enough for me. (And plays without being messed around with in iTunes.) If you just want to use up space, go for WAV, since that's completely uncompressed.

[RobbieThe1st]

FLAC is probably best.

Even given the option though, I tend not to download music in FLAC, 256kbps VBR MP3 is Good Enough for me. (And plays without being messed around with in iTunes.) If you just want to use up space, go for WAV, since that's completely uncompressed.

FLAC's the best. It's free(for media players/encoders to implement), lossless, and compressed.

Of course, *most* people can't really tell anything better than 128kbps MP3(especially on the dynamically compressed crap that most music is these days...), and 256kbps mp3 is about the limit for audiophiles.

[Ryusen]

There are two types of audio compression you might come across - those are the "lossy" type files, and the "lossless" type files.

Your standard MP3 is a lossy type file. This means that there is some data loss during the process, usually cutting off the very high and very low frequencies (the least important information). You get a very small file size, but you also lose a portion of your signal. Lossless audio files, during compression, lose none of the signal. What you hear in a lossless file, such as FLAC, is identical, in terms of information, to the original. Any lossless file will give you the same information (FLAC, Apple Lossless, WAV, etc).

One benefit to using lossless music is that you can always "downgrade" your music to MP3 if you need to store it on a small device, but you cannot "upgrade" an MP3 to lossless because the information was never there to begin with. But since most of us have hard drives in the hundreds of gigabytes, we don't necessarily need to store our music in the MP3 format any more. The difference between a 3MB MP3 and a 30MB FLAC, especially with today's storage, is nothing to worry about.

...and 256kbps mp3 is about the limit for audiophiles.

Don't let the guys over at Head-Fi hear you say that . While most people would have a hard time differentiating between a 256kbps MP3 and a 1410kbps FLAC, many high-fidelity audiophile setups are able to give that level of distinction. As you listen to music, you will gradually pick up on those little details that aren't present in lower quality recordings, and you'll notice something ... lacking if you play the same recording in a lower format. Maybe the bass won't be quite as tight, or the highs aren't as forthcoming as the used to be, or maybe your strings section has lost its oomph. Not to say everyone should always go strait to lossless (well, maybe I am), but for you average listener, while 256kbps would be enough, the same can't be said for audiophiles.

[SirSlaughter]

Ah, thanks alot you guys, Now I have anotehr question, I know that there si software and soundcard upgrades you can get for desktops and such. what do they do in terms of sound, Will they make my FLAC sound even better? I have a good sound setup and all but I am totally going all the way for this. So I know FLAC is teh best, But In terms of Itunes, Will it screw with the format in any way? I saw Robbie say that 256 does not get screwed with in Itunes, Should I be worried about that? If so do the other formats come out better in Itunes than a FLAC file?

And one last thing, I know alot about this already but I want to be sure that I am not wrong: What kind of cables should I look for? I know gold plated are better receptors and they do not corrode like Nickel plated, but they are not made to be plugged in and unplugged constantly. But nickel can handle that but the reception is not best and after a while it dies. Is this true? I'm a tech junkie but I just wanna get ALL my [censored] straight before I continue with that presumption.

[Ryusen]

Ah, thanks alot you guys, Now I have anotehr question, I know that there si software and soundcard upgrades you can get for desktops and such. what do they do in terms of sound, Will they make my FLAC sound even better? I have a good sound setup and all but I am totally going all the way for this.

An audio setup will look something like this:

Source -> DAC -> Amp -> Headphone

All computers come with some sort of DAC (Digital-to-Analog Converter) and amp, so you technically have everything you need to play music. Adding additional equipment, such as a sound card, will allow the music to be processed by a more elegant DAC (which will bring more detail to notice), and provide more current to the headphones (both making them louder and driving them better). Some soundcards have different outputs (S/PDIF optical, etc) that can carry information at a much better rate than a simple USB interface (for external systems. A sound card can also output to a 1/4" headphone jack and go strait to your headphones).

What usually happens is the music is played out of a program (Winamp, for example), gets sent out of the soundcard with a high-quality output, then to an external DAC device, feeding into an amplifier, and finally ending in a pair of headphones. If you're looking to buy *just* a sound card, make sure it has enough amplification to drive your cans, as many high-impedance headphones cannot be properly driven off a dinky little card. You'll get sound, but it will sound muddy and veiled. Getting a pair of 300ohm headphones (a rather high resistance) will mean you need to invest in an external amplifier to help you sound card along. A pair of 30ohm headphones, not so much.

The source is, quite literally, the source of your music. In your case, that may be FLAC files. Increasing the quality of your music is the quickest, easiest, and most effective way of getting a "better" music system.

The DAC is what does the decoding of your music (remember, digital music is just a stream of 1's and 0's) to an analog waveform your headphone can understand. A high quality DAC is crucial to bringing our the most in your music. You'll start to hear details you never knew existed, and it will be like hearing a song for the first time - so many things have changed. The DAC, once its job is done, feeds into the ...

The amplifier. An external amp is required to fully drive most demanding headphones. If you invest in a good pair of headphones, be prepared to invest in an equally expensive (if not more so) amplifier. It provides the power (literally - watts) that will drive your headphones. A larger transducer will possess more accurate sound properties, but will also require more power to drive. The bigger the 'phones, the bigger the amp. There are two main types - a solid state amp, and a tube amp.

Finally, the amp feeds to your headphones. If you've done everything correctly, you will have a purty sound.

So I know FLAC is teh best, But In terms of Itunes, Will it screw with the format in any way? I saw Robbie say that 256 does not get screwed with in Itunes, Should I be worried about that? If so do the other formats come out better in Itunes than a FLAC file?

iTunes does not recognize FLAC files. If you want to put a lossless file onto an apple product, you need to use the Apple Lossless file format. If you just want to play music strait from your computer to your headphones, like I do, then you can get another type of music player. There are several of them out there, but I prefer Winamp. Look around and see what you like.

What kind of cables should I look for? I know gold plated are better receptors and they do not corrode like Nickel plated, but they are not made to be plugged in and unplugged constantly. But nickel can handle that but the reception is not best and after a while it dies. Is this true? I'm a tech junkie but I just wanna get ALL my [censored] straight before I continue with that presumption.

Cables. Oh cables, you are so silly. There is a lot of misinformation out there concerning changing cables, impedance matching, blah blah blah. Most any cable will work for you - if it fits in the socket, it will do it's job. Kind of like the Monster HDMI cable scam - just because you can spend $200 on something doesn't make it any better than a $2 cable from Wal-mart. Just get something that's sturdy, durable, and long enough to fit your needs. Even audiophiles can't quite agree on the usefulness of upgrading cables, so an average user will have no need to spluge on a huge, expensive one. Just put that money towards a better pair of headphones, or go and buy some more CDs!

[SirSlaughter]

Ok aweet this is all good to know.

Now it gives me the options of these formats

Standard high quality: MP3 320K

Audiophiles and Nerds: (yes it actually said that on teh screen)

FLAC
MP3 VBR (VO)
AAC
Ogg Vorbis
ALAC

Now judging by the file size of these formats, I have concluded (and based off of your teachings) that the FLAC is best, but I noticed that the ALAC is ever so slightly more space. Now when you say Apple lossless Format, Which one of these is it? I want quality, but I listen to my Ipod alot so I want it to play off of it. And If I could, could I just buy the FLAC put it on an FLAC compaitble program and just downgrade to the Apple lossless and shove it on Itunes and keep 2 copies? 1 for Computer use with my Speakers and 1 for my Ipod?

(sorry if I am asking so many quetsions and possibly missing the point of what you are saying..I fail at life and I know it)

[avwolf]

Apple Lossless is almost certainly ALAC (for "Apple Lossless Audio Codec"). Don't know that for absolute certain, but that's what my instincts say.

[Ryusen]

Now judging by the file size of these formats, I have concluded (and based off of your teachings) that the FLAC is best, but I noticed that the ALAC is ever so slightly more space. Now when you say Apple lossless Format, Which one of these is it? I want quality, but I listen to my Ipod alot so I want it to play off of it. And If I could, could I just buy the FLAC put it on an FLAC compaitble program and just downgrade to the Apple lossless and shove it on Itunes and keep 2 copies? 1 for Computer use with my Speakers and 1 for my Ipod?

(sorry if I am asking so many quetsions and possibly missing the point of what you are saying..I fail at life and I know it)

Avwolf is right, ALAC is the lossless Apple format (sometimes written as ALE, Apple Lossless Encoder). I suppose you could burn two different copies - one FLAC for your speaker use, and one MP3 for your iPod. I'd recommend using a high-quality MP3 as opposed to ALAC, simply because it takes up less memory, and I doubt you will be using portable headphones that can actually discern a difference. Something like 256kbps or 320kbps would be more than enough, and would most likely sound the same through those little white IEMs as any lossless file.

And If I could, could I just buy the FLAC put it on an FLAC compaitble program and just downgrade to the Apple lossless...

A lossless file is a lossless file. Whether you use FLAC, WAV, or ALAC, you will have exactly the same information encoded. You could rip a song in FLAC, change it into a WAV, and once more into an ALAC, and it would sound identical each and every time. In fact, if you were to go in and look at the individual data points, they would all be the same amplitudes, frequencies, etc. There is no superior lossless format, as they are all mirror images (so to speak) of the 16 bit CD. The different file types are mostly a compensation of size vs speed. WAV files are not compressed at all, and thus tend to be slightly quicker to burn. FLAC is something like 68% compression, IIRC, and so it takes a little more time to burn, but the end result is the same.

[RobbieThe1st]

I saw Robbie say that 256 does not get screwed with in Itunes, Should I be worried about that? If so do the other formats come out better in Itunes than a FLAC file?

I didn't say anything about Itunes. I don't use it; it's a horribly slow, bloated program IMHO. It's also not fully cross-platform, so it wouldn't work for me anyway. I use a winamp equivalent program(Audacious) myself.

And one last thing, I know alot about this already but I want to be sure that I am not wrong: What kind of cables should I look for? I know gold plated are better receptors and they do not corrode like Nickel plated, but they are not made to be plugged in and unplugged constantly. But nickel can handle that but the reception is not best and after a while it dies. Is this true? I'm a tech junkie but I just wanna get ALL my [censored] straight before I continue with that presumption.

Honestly, ignore that. In some double-blind tests(I think over at DansData was where I found it), they did some tests using tied together wire coat-hangers, versus the best Monster(or w/e) cables. There was no descernable difference.
Find good quality speakers or headphones; don't worry about the cables or jacks.
Honestly, what will happen if you get major corrosion(or a bad connection) is that the speaker will sound weaker than normal, or the volume will change signifigantly as you rotate the connector in the socket. If that happens, might want to replace it. But it won't affect the frequency response, or the actual sound. Just the loudness.

What usually happens is the music is played out of a program (Winamp, for example), gets sent out of the soundcard with a high-quality output, then to an external DAC device, feeding into an amplifier, and finally ending in a pair of headphones. If you're looking to buy *just* a sound card, make sure it has enough amplification to drive your cans, as many high-impedance headphones cannot be properly driven off a dinky little card. You'll get sound, but it will sound muddy and veiled. Getting a pair of 300ohm headphones (a rather high resistance) will mean you need to invest in an external amplifier to help you sound card along. A pair of 30ohm headphones, not so much.

Not sure why you'd end up with 300ohm headphones; Most are 32-ohm or so.

I'd suggest looking at Sennheiser's HD 280's for a relatively inexpensive($50-100) set of good headphones. Review: http://www.dansdata.com/hd280.htm

The source is, quite literally, the source of your music. In your case, that may be FLAC files. Increasing the quality of your music is the quickest, easiest, and most effective way of getting a "better" music system.

And this is true, up to a point: For a lot of music, you can't *get* high quality encoding. It may be a 320kbps MP3, or uncompressed audio CD, but thanks to the Loudness War, the sound is compressed down to 10DB or so by the mastering engineer, and as such it won't really do any good to get better quality encoded files: the underlying source is crap. In fact, it may be entirely the opposite: On a cheap set of crappy headphones, it may sound *better*, because you can't hear some of the artifacts; it's too murky.
So, if you are listening to, say, a Symphony Orchestra, that extra quality will mean something. Metallica? Won't help a bit. Even 128kbps is plenty for that.

Really, your upgrade path should be:
1. Better headphones.
2. Better soundcard.
3. Better media player - Once you've eliminated the headphones and soundcard, you are going to want to tweak a graphical equalizer to "improve" the output sound, or at least tweak it for your setup: Add bass if it's not enough, reduce it if it's too much. Etc.

[Ryusen]

Not sure why you'd end up with 300ohm headphones; Most are 32-ohm or so.

Many audiophile-level headphones are in the several-hundred-ohm level. My HD650s have a resistance of 300 ohms, as do many others, and some headphones go up to 600 ohms+. It's at this level when you really need to have a decent amp.

So, if you are listening to, say, a Symphony Orchestra, that extra quality will mean something. Metallica? Won't help a bit. Even 128kbps is plenty for that.

I have to disagree. Sure, on some cheap headphones, you wouldn't be able to tell a difference. But on most higher quality setups (especially mine), there is quite a noticeable difference between a 128kbps MP3 and even a 320kbps MP3, to say nothing of FLAC. Once you've heard the song in high detail, and know when certain instruments/vocals enter and exit, have heard a large soundstage, and properly driven headphones, you will notice things that just seem to be ... missing from those low quality MP3s. Sure, most of the sound is there, but it may sound a little flat, and some of the dynamic range has disappeared.

Can you still enjoy it? Certainly. But there will be that little voice in the back of your head, reminding you about all those little, minute details that just aren't there anymore.

[RobbieThe1st]

I have to disagree. Sure, on some cheap headphones, you wouldn't be able to tell a difference. But on most higher quality setups (especially mine), there is quite a noticeable difference between a 128kbps MP3 and even a 320kbps MP3, to say nothing of FLAC. Once you've heard the song in high detail, and know when certain instruments/vocals enter and exit, have heard a large soundstage, and properly driven headphones, you will notice things that just seem to be ... missing from those low quality MP3s. Sure, most of the sound is there, but it may sound a little flat, and some of the dynamic range has disappeared.

Are you sure about that? With a highly compressed original source - which has already stripped out all of the fine details - I don't see how you're going to get better sound out of a higher quality rendition of what's originally crap in the first place.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Magn ... production for an example.
I'd be *really* surprised if you(or anyone else) could tell the difference between 128kbps and say 320kbps given the poor input source. Fortunately, I happen to have both for you to try:
128: http://robbiethe1st.afraid.org/files/lo ... %20III.mp3
320: http://robbiethe1st.afraid.org/files/07 ... %20III.mp3
The only difference between these is the bitrate: I originally ripped the 320kbps one from my CD a few years ago and encoded it with LAME, on the best settings I knew. I now just re-encoded it as 128kbps, and I cannot personally tell any difference. It's not like This site's clips, which has a small but measurable difference, that's audible on high quality setups, with trained ears. This is a *horribly* over-dynamically-compressed piece, straight from the factory.

[Ryusen]

128: http://robbiethe1st.afraid.org/files/lo ... %20III.mp3
320: http://robbiethe1st.afraid.org/files/07 ... %20III.mp3

Pay attention when the cello first enters. On the 128 recording, you hear a small amount of noise in the background that's absent in the 320. As I listen to it more, I can tell that when more instruments enter (violin, french horn, strings section), it can be heard there as well. The cymbals sound cleaner on the 320, as well.

If I had to summarize, I can only really hear a difference in two places. The first is in the low, low bass. Like I said earlier, MP3s tend to cut off the lowest and highest frequencies, so there is less information missing in the 320. Secondly, when several instruments enter, the 320, at least to me, seems to do a better job at keeping a soundstage, instead of just jumbling all the music together like a ball of yarn.

EDIT: I was listening critically to each track and trying to find flaws. If I just had them on in the background while working, I doubt I would have noticed much, if any difference. I won't say the 128 tanked by any means, just that someone with the correct equipment could find a difference. Most people (well, normal people) either wouldn't be bothered by it, or wouldn't notice it at all. Just because I can be anal about it doesn't mean it's a bad format .