@lewislink wrote:
The only issue I’m seeing with EAC, unless I don’t have it set right, is that it won’t convert FLAC files. In fact, it will give an error message stating the file is not uncompressed WAV if any format beyond WAV is used.
Are you trying to transcode from flac to something else? I’m not sure EAC does that, although I know it can create flac, ogg, mp3 simultaneously at rip time. I just use foobar2k for transcoding, it’s quite easy, I think.
@tenzip wrote:
@lewislink wrote:
The only issue I’m seeing with EAC, unless I don’t have it set right, is that it won’t convert FLAC files. In fact, it will give an error message stating the file is not uncompressed WAV if any format beyond WAV is used.
Are you trying to transcode from flac to something else? I’m not sure EAC does that, although I know it can create flac, ogg, mp3 simultaneously at rip time. I just use foobar2k for transcoding, it’s quite easy, I think.
Yup… EAC is designed to make files of your chosen format during the ripping process. You even have the option of saving the original wav file if so desired…But, unless I missed an option over the years in using it, it doesn’t convert once a file is generated.
Comparing ogg (vorbis) vs mp3 doesn’t help much unless you indicate the encoder. There are different encoders available for each, some better than others. The best of both have improved a lot over the years, so make sure you are using a recent release.
One thing for sure, Microsoft banks on the myth that low bitrate WMA sounds equal or better than 2x higher bitrate mp3, so they have incentive to use a lousy mp3 encoder for Windows Media Player that will “make it so.”
Hydrogenaudio.org has links to a lot of statistically analyzed double-blind listening surveys from which one can conclude:
The best encoders for mp3 are Lame and Helix. Best for Ogg/vorbis is aoTuV. (most recent release for all)
WMA standard is totally out of the running. WMA Pro is a bit better, but AFAIK won’t play on any portable except Zune.
I suggest at least reading through the results, and possibly running some ABX tests yourself.
@donp wrote:
Comparing ogg (vorbis) vs mp3 doesn’t help much unless you indicate the encoder. There are different encoders available for each, some better than others. The best of both have improved a lot over the years, so make sure you are using a recent release.
One thing for sure, Microsoft banks on the myth that low bitrate WMA sounds equal or better than 2x higher bitrate mp3, so they have incentive to use a lousy mp3 encoder for Windows Media Player that will “make it so.”
Hydrogenaudio.org has links to a lot of statistically analyzed double-blind listening surveys from which one can conclude:
The best encoders for mp3 are Lame and Helix. Best for Ogg/vorbis is aoTuV. (most recent release for all)
WMA standard is totally out of the running. WMA Pro is a bit better, but AFAIK won’t play on any portable except Zune.
I suggest at least reading through the results, and possibly running some ABX tests yourself.
??? !!!
I’m sorry, but I come into this topic with a ton of bias. I have done clinical testing of my own for clients comparing the various encoders. And what conclusions have I drawn from all my testing? The only sure way to judge the value and merit of any compression scheme is to listen to the various methods for yourself and let your ears be the judge.
No two people hear things the same, and the various encoders use differing methods for reducing file size. Some think MP3 is better than ogg vorbis, some vice versa. Program material is also crucial.
In my mind the only true way you are going to find out which encoder works the best for you, is to listen and make your own conclusions.
Yes, running your own ABX tests would be best, but pretty time consuming if you’re comparing a dozen encoders at 5 or 6 different settngs each across a variety of songs. Blind testing is most useful when you come in with a ton of bias.
Doing at least SOME ABX testing can be a very humbling experience if you go in SURE that the difference between various bitrates (say, 192 vs 320) will be obvious. Most find that either they can’t tell the difference, or that they can, but it requires more concentration and work than they care to put in when trying to enjoy the music. For instance, you might need to play a critical few seconds of a song several times for each bitrate to tell the difference.
@donp wrote:
Yes, running your own ABX tests would be best, but pretty time consuming if you’re comparing a dozen encoders at 5 or 6 different settngs each across a variety of songs. Blind testing is most useful when you come in with a ton of bias.
Doing at least SOME ABX testing can be a very humbling experience if you go in SURE that the difference between various bitrates (say, 192 vs 320) will be obvious. Most find that either they can’t tell the difference, or that they can, but it requires more concentration and work than they care to put in when trying to enjoy the music. For instance, you might need to play a critical few seconds of a song several times for each bitrate to tell the difference.
I think you misunderstood my point. I don’t come with a ton of bias for the encoders, but because I have performed similar testing programs myself. In fact, I dispute many of the claims that these so-called “tests” are supposed to prove. I claim that these test were not unbiased and not real world situations. That was my point. I would never recommend to base my encoder choice by someone else’s test… which I believe was flawed.
The time factor is subjective. Does a person want to take a few minutes and chose the right encoder for them or do they just want “pretty good” results, to get up and running right away? Only the individual can answer that for themselves.
I’ve been in audio for the better part of 35 years and if someone thinks they are going to find a “perfect encoder” and setting and never have to revisit their collection, is living in a fantasy. As technology evolves, we will all have to re-rip, re-encode, re-record, re-restore and so on to take advantage of the new advances that will ultimately come for compressing or archiving music.
I don’t get on my soapbox too often, but this topic hits a nerve. Sorry for my on-going debate on this issue. Do what you think is best for your situation.
I just know that I am extremely confident in my findings and take solace in the fact that I am encoding my music in the best format for my ears. I repeat, there is no “one-size fits all” solution for music encoding.
I know we’ve squabbled, fuze owner-GB, but I agree with you on this.
Audiophiles will forever be searching for the ultimate format/encoder/playback chemistry and hearing the kind of details that they appreciate–and they take great pleasure in it. Other people will be satisfied with pretty good fidelity. Each listener has to make an individual decision about how much time (and storage capacity) to devote to sound quality.
The important thing is to understand technological concepts that can be confusing–formats, bitrates, compression vs. lossless–and, as you said, to trust your own ears. ABX testing, for those who have the time, is a great antidote to the placebo effects of numbers and ideological considerations.
I do think there is a one-size-fits- most solution–which for me is mp3 via LAME at 256 kbps.
It will sound good-to-excellent and play back on everyone’s players. In the contexts where most portable players are used–usually while doing something else, like traveling or exercising or working, rather than concentrating on the music–it’s fully enjoyable. It’s a vast improvement on the mystery-encoded 128 kbps that is foisted on most music buyers.
No, it’s not lossless perfection. But for people who are just realizing that music can sound richer and more nuanced than what they’ve been tolerating, it’s an upgrade–and one that can open ears to the ultra-hi-fi possibilities.
@black_rectangle wrote:
I know we’ve squabbled, fuze owner-GB, but I agree with you on this.
Audiophiles will forever be searching for the ultimate format/encoder/playback chemistry and hearing the kind of details that they appreciate–and they take great pleasure in it. Other people will be satisfied with pretty good fidelity. Each listener has to make an individual decision about how much time (and storage capacity) to devote to sound quality.
The important thing is to understand technological concepts that can be confusing–formats, bitrates, compression vs. lossless–and, as you said, to trust your own ears. ABX testing, for those who have the time, is a great antidote to the placebo effects of numbers and ideological considerations.
I do think there is a one-size-fits- most solution–which for me is mp3 via LAME at 256 kbps.
It will sound good-to-excellent and play back on everyone’s players. In the contexts where most portable players are used–usually while doing something else, like traveling or exercising or working, rather than concentrating on the music–it’s fully enjoyable. It’s a vast improvement on the mystery-encoded 128 kbps that is foisted on most music buyers.
No, it’s not lossless perfection. But for people who are just realizing that music can sound richer and more nuanced than what they’ve been tolerating, it’s an upgrade–and one that can open ears to the ultra-hi-fi possibilities.
No worries and very well said.
Question…Do you encode 256kbps in constant mode?
I know it’s subtle, but to my ears and read-out charts, VBR (with 256 being the “sweet spot”) seems to sound a touch better with slightly smaller file size.
No big deal; just curious…
fuze_owner-GB wrote:
In fact, I dispute many of the claims that these so-called “tests” are supposed to prove. I claim that these test were not unbiased and not real world situations.
I have my own opinions on their imperfections, but would you care to share what biases they have and why they deserve the appellation “so-called”?
Edit: I know you already read these for the basis of your view, but for others the tests’ information is here:
Message Edited by donp on 04-11-2009 03:26 PM
@donp wrote:
fuze_owner-GB wrote:
In fact, I dispute many of the claims that these so-called “tests” are supposed to prove. I claim that these test were not unbiased and not real world situations.
I have my own opinions on their imperfections, but would you care to share what biases they have and why they deserve the appellation “so-called”?
Edit: I know you already read these for the basis of your view, but for others the tests’ information is here:
Message Edited by donp on 04-11-2009 03:26 PM
I’ve probably said too much already… Sorry for the rant.
I work in audio for a living, so it hit pretty close to home. The tests are not without merit, but are flawed (in my humble opinion). But for the average person, they are a probably a good place to start…and start is the key word. To get the best possible match of hearing capabilities and encoders, there is no substitute for your own personal listening tests.
That’s all I’ll say on the topic. Again, my sincere apologies for my outburst.
Time for a bit of wine and some listening tests of my own:wink:
It will convert an already ripped WAV file. If the file is WAV…converted to WAV by another program…EAC will use it to convert it to whatever codec you desire, so long as you have the encoder on hand…somewhere on your computer. However, some encoders will crash for whatever reason. Ogg…yes, I know, Vorbis…sheesh!..is one that crashes all the time.
Message Edited by lewislink on 04-11-2009 04:38 PM
@fuze_owner_gb wrote:
@tenzip wrote:
@lewislink wrote:
The only issue I’m seeing with EAC, unless I don’t have it set right, is that it won’t convert FLAC files. In fact, it will give an error message stating the file is not uncompressed WAV if any format beyond WAV is used.
Are you trying to transcode from flac to something else? I’m not sure EAC does that, although I know it can create flac, ogg, mp3 simultaneously at rip time. I just use foobar2k for transcoding, it’s quite easy, I think.
Yup… EAC is designed to make files of your chosen format during the ripping process. You even have the option of saving the original wav file if so desired…But, unless I missed an option over the years in using it, it doesn’t convert once a file is generated.
I believe the REACT add-on is required for EAC to rip to multiple formats at the same time. EAC can encode from WAVs, but not transcode between different formats.
Winamp has an excellent transcoder. It can transcode from any format/bitrate to any format/bitrate. However, the Pro version is required to encode MP3. But if you’re just dealing with Ogg/FLAC, the free version will handle it.
Message Edited by Skinjob on 04-13-2009 05:58 PM
Method 1 Convert FLAC to Windows Media Player
iDealshare VideoGo can fast and batch convert FLAC to Windows Media Player supported lossless audio format like WAV or lossy audio format like WMA, MP3. It also helps to convert FLAC to AIFF, AU, RA, AAC, AC3, DTS and etc. It even supports converting OGG, APE, Opus, MP4, M4A, MP4, MOV, MKV, FLV and etc to Windows Media Player.
Method 2 Install FLAC codec for Windows Media Player
Here we will provide two options for FLAC codec, and you just need to install one of them and then can enable Windows Media Player play FLAC files.
Option 1: Install a DirectShow Filter
Option 2: Intall Media Foundation FLAC Codec
Method 1 Convert FLAC to Windows Media Player
iDealshare VideoGo can fast and batch convert FLAC to Windows Media Player supported lossless audio format like WAV or lossy audio format like WMA, MP3. It also helps to convert FLAC to AIFF, AU, RA, AAC, AC3, DTS and etc. It even supports converting OGG, APE, Opus, MP4, M4A, MP4, MOV, MKV, FLV and etc to Windows Media Player.
Method 2 Install FLAC codec for Windows Media Player
Here we will provide two options for FLAC codec, and you just need to install one of them and then can enable Windows Media Player play FLAC files.
Option 1: Install a DirectShow Filter
Option 2: Intall Media Foundation FLAC Codec
Method 1 Convert FLAC to Windows Media Player
iDealshare VideoGo can fast and batch convert FLAC to Windows Media Player supported lossless audio format like WAV or lossy audio format like WMA, MP3. It also helps to convert FLAC to AIFF, AU, RA, AAC, AC3, DTS and etc. It even supports converting OGG, APE, Opus, MP4, M4A, MP4, MOV, MKV, FLV and etc to Windows Media Player.
Method 2 Install FLAC codec for Windows Media Player
Here we will provide two options for FLAC codec, and you just need to install one of them and then can enable Windows Media Player play FLAC files.
Option 1: Install a DirectShow Filter
Option 2: Intall Media Foundation FLAC Codec
| Legal | Terms of Use | Privacy Statement | Forum Terms of Service |
|
| © 2025 Sandisk Corporation or its affiliates. All rights reserved. |