MP3 lossless sound

Hootsmon

what is this lossless sound the newer MP3s have....it's still a MP3 file ,yeah?

does "lossless" sound mean less room for CD uploads tae MP3 player due to higher quality tracks?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B072V1G2HM/ref=twister_B074MPYW91?_encoding=UTF8&th=1

Winny_Pooh

Lossless is usually FLAC. FWIW a 16gb music player will hold relatively little mp3s not to mention lossless files. Rip at 256kbps as blind testing proves that almost no one can tell the difference anyway. AAC apparently has better quality sound vs mp3 at lower bit rates.

P.s don't buy that mp3 player.

Hootsmon

Winny

I was gonna get the 64 disc tae go along with...

is the 256 you mention run of the mill Mp3 speeds?  and could I choose MP3 256 on the gizmo above over FLAC?

Grunfeld

hootsmon said:

is the 256 you mention run of the mill Mp3 speeds?  and could I choose MP3 256 on the gizmo above over FLAC?

It will play anything basically.  So it will automatically play mp3, FLAC, ape, and loads of other file formats.  You don't have to choose anything -- it will work it out.
As for quality, even mp3 encoded at 192mbps is very, very good and for all intents and purposes indistinguishable from lossless for most genres if you're playing it back on typical systems.  Personally I've got all my pop and rock stuff as 192.  For some genres which are quieter, more dynamic, I choose 320mbps.  And for classical I'll usually go with FLAC (but I could still probably have ripped it at 192 and not know the difference). 

english_bob

If you were to make a file on your computer that was a direct copy of the information stored on a CD (called .wav format) it would be huge, and you wouldn't be able to fit very many tracks on a small-ish capacity portable player like the one you linked to. To make music files more portable they're compressed, which means that each file takes up less space on your device and you can fit more in.

MP3 is probably the most common type of audio compression- it's "lossy", which means that it achieves compression by taking out information stored on the CD, starting with stuff that most people can't hear (eg. frequencies too low or too high for the human ear), and moving on to stuff that some people can hear. How much information is taken out depends on how compressed the MP3 is (if you rip your own CDs you can set the level of compression on the software you use. If you get them from somewhere else you're stuck with whatever level of compression they chose). More compression means smaller files, but worse sound quality.

The level of compression is expressed as a kilobits per second (kbps) bitrate- the amount of data required for each second of music. The bigger the number, the less compressed the file is (for MP3, 320kbps is the least compressed, best sounding, but the largest file size; 64kbps is the smallest file but the worst sound quality). You'll almost certainly be able to tell the difference between 64kbps and 320k, but maybe not between 320kbps and 192kbps. 128kbps used to be standard for iTunes and other download sites, but it's crept up over time and now places like Amazon use 256kbps as standard.

Modern MP3 encoders muddy the waters a bit by having the option of variable bitrate compression- the bits of the music where it's possible to take more information out without making much noticeable difference to sound quality are heavily compressed, whereas the bits that require more information to reproduce properly are lightly compressed, meaning you can have the sound quality of high bitrate MP3s without them taking up quite so much space.

Lossless audio files (FLAC is the most widely used format) are still compressed, but players that can play lossless files are able to put back whatever information was removed so that what you hear is exactly like what was on the CD. They aren't as small as MP3 files (they're a LOT bigger, but still much smaller than those exact copy .wav files), so you can't fit as many on to your player at one time, but if you have a player with a large storage capacity that might not be a problem.

Is lossless worth it? It depends. If you want to convert all your CDs to purely electronic formats and listen to them on a good amp and a good pair of speakers in silence at home, probably yes. If you want to cram a ton of music on to your phone and listen to it on cheap headphones while you commute to work on the train, probably no. What you gain in sound quality (in settings where you can actually appreciate it) you lose in the ability to carry a lot of music around with you.

If you're after a player that can reproduce FLAC for not silly money, the Fiio M3 or the XDuoo X3 are worth a look.

Drew_TNBD

@Rocker might have something worthwhile to say about this.

notanon

Lossless sound ain't gonna work very well with lossy speakers or headphones which I suspect a large number of people will use. Still, good to have better 'master' copies.

Drew_TNBD

notanon said:

Lossless sound ain't gonna work very well with lossy speakers or headphones which I suspect a large number of people will use. Still, good to have better 'master' copies.

Lossy versus lossless tends to only refer to digital formats. Analog reproduction systems like headphones and speakers can't accurately be described as lossy.

They do have frequency responses which vary, although they tend to vary within a margin.

Some speakers that are too small struggle to reproduce low frequencies for example, but this isn't the same thing as losing or smearing frequencies due to low bitrates like you experience with the mp3 format.

notanon

Erm . . . I forgot the joke alert I work in IT so familiar with concepts such as discreet cosine transforms, was just jesting

Rocker

Lossless means what it suggests: similar to what is on a CD.

Lossy means something less than lossless. Some part of the file has been electronically removed. Is this important? Depends on your replay equipment. Using a phone and a pair of earbuds; no difference. For portable use (train commutes, gym, etc) lossy is good enough and the replay equipment is compact.

To exploit the benefits of lossless, better replay kit is needed. Decent headphones, probably an external amplifier and, of course, the use of lossless files. 

funkyfraz

I did a bit of testing before I ripped my 400 odd cds and concluded 256 was the lowest mp3 bit rate without hearing any loss. 

ICBM

Rocker said:

Lossless means what it suggests: similar to what is on a CD.

Not quite. Lossless means *identical* to what it is on a CD. The files are exactly the same once restored.

For what it's worth, having used mp3 for years and years - because originally it was the only compressed format with universal compatibility, and I prefer to future-proof stuff as much as possible - I've recently swapped to using AAC, and even at 128kbps the improvement is noticeable.

The only problem is that I will eventually have to re-rip my whole library manually from CD since I don't store it as AIF...

Gassage

Get FLAC.

Hootsmon

Guys and BOB...thanks very much 

Rocker

Another vote for FLAC @ICBM.

It is a slow job, around 6 to 7 minutes per disk, so something do do over the winter months....

ICBM

Rocker said:

Another vote for FLAC @ICBM.

It is a slow job, around 6 to 7 minutes per disk, so something do do over the winter months....

Once I get a new computer (hopefully soon) with a larger hard drive it will become an option. I know I could get an outboard drive now, but it becomes more of a faff to manage because then I would need a backup one kept elsewhere and swapped regularly and all that... but it would be good to not have to worry about re-ripping again, I have over 2,000 albums!

I can then go to 128kbps AAC for portability with no difficulty, in fact I think there's an automatic option in iTunes for it.

57Deluxe

is this a Scottish thing?