VBR vs. CBR

CDex
Lame V1.32
44khz

WAV file - 88.3mb

min:96kb/s
max:160kb/s
q=0
VBR 0
9.9mb
VBR 5
9.5mb
VBR 6
7.3mb - good quality, low file size.
VBR 9
5.9mb - sound was dull, cracks, low treble/high bass

CBR 160kbs
10mb - 1/9th
CBR 128kbs
8mb - small size, 1/11th, good sound.
CBR takes 3x longer to convert.

ABR at 160kbs took 4.5mins; useless.

I want to make lossless back-ups of my CDs.
WAV is standard, but files are large.
FLAC I found to be useless. It reduced by only 30%, by going down to 936kpbs. I get the same compression ratios using Winrar set to best&solid. Yes, you could listen to FLAC files, but MP3 players, DVD and CD players dont play them. Low user base concerns me as well.

WMP set to lossless, WMA file was 40% less. However, again, file size was not much smaller than Winrar set to best&solid, and WMA is proprietary. Why would 880kpbs VBR be considered lossless at all? But MP3 file made from a WMA file was 1mb smaller than an MP3 made from a WAV file.
Anything that reduces kpbs cannot be considered lossless.

Also, I dont get the difference between stereo and j-stereo.

difference between stereo and j-stereo

Stereo encodes the two channels separately, using up bits even for the stuff that’s common to both channels. Joint Stereo uses more bits for the stuff that’s common to both channels and encodes the stuff that’s different between the channels separately. As an extreme example, if you encode a mono signal using Stereo mode, you would have to use twice as many bits than if you encoded it Joint Stereo (for the same audio quality), as Joint Stereo wouldn’t have to encode any ‘difference’ signal

Try using TaK - it’s newer than FLAC and compresses slightly more efficiently. It’s also a bit faster and can be used within Foobar2000.

[QUOTE=Romphotog;2435492]Anything that reduces kpbs cannot be considered lossless.[/QUOTE] Incorrect.

Lossless compression/encoding means that the encoded format can be decoded back to the original format with no loss of information - i.e. the original and a losslessly encoded/decoded copy are bit-for-bit identical.

A lossy compression/encoding on the other hand cannot be decoded back to the original without loss of information - it may look or sound very close to the original but it will not be bit-for-bit identical.

Romhotog wrote:

FLAC I found to be useless

Maybe it’s useless for you…Cuz you haven’t a clue…:rolleyes:

Yes, you could listen to FLAC files, but MP3 players, DVD and CD players dont play them. Low user base concerns me as well.

Not everyone will carry around wav(s) or lossless files on their portables…Don’t be concerned with “Low user base”, b/c it’s BS…

Anything that reduces kpbs cannot be considered lossless.

Then you have no idea what a zip file is…lossless [I]is[/I] LOSSLESS…

[QUOTE=t0nee1;2435647]Then you have no idea what a zip file is…lossless [I]is[/I] LOSSLESS…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless_data_compression[/QUOTE]

read my entire post. I was comparing FLAC to Winrar;therefore, I am well aware what a zip file is. BTW, Winzip is worse than Winrar on WAVs.

Again, if the KBPS are reduced, how could FLAC be lossless? Winzip/Winrar are indeed lossless as the original file’s KBPS remains unchanged.
If you lose bits, then it aint lossless.

Again, if the KBPS are reduced, how could FLAC be lossless? Winzip/Winrar are indeed lossless as the original file’s KBPS remains unchanged.
If you lose bits, then it aint lossless.

The way most lossless compression is performed is by eliminating redundant information. Consider this: 166356 + 166356 + 166356 + 166356 + 166356 = -vs- 5 * 166356 = -vs- 5(166356)=. All three have the same information, yet which one is smaller and would use less bandwidth to send through the internet?

[QUOTE=Romphotog;2435763]Again, if the KBPS are reduced, how could FLAC be lossless? Winzip/Winrar are indeed lossless as the original file’s KBPS remains unchanged.
If you lose bits, then it aint lossless.[/QUOTE] Did you read the posted Wikipedia link?

Lossless compression takes advantage of redundant information in the source data to make a smaller version of the data that can still be uncompressed (decoded) to the original data. Same principle as Zip or RAR compression, but using algorithms specific to audio instead of algorithms for general data.

[QUOTE=Romphotog;2435763]read my entire post. I was comparing FLAC to Winrar;therefore, I am well aware what a zip file is. BTW, Winzip is worse than Winrar on WAVs.

Again, if the KBPS are reduced, how could FLAC be lossless? Winzip/Winrar are indeed lossless as the original file’s KBPS remains unchanged.
If you lose bits, then it aint lossless.[/QUOTE]

FLAC is lossless whether you want to admit or not. It is lossless “packing” and when unpacked it is bit for bit identical to the source file. It’s the exact same type scheme as MLP, Dolby TrueHD and DTS-MA. You don’t “play” a flac file as it is, it gets unpacked then played.

read my entire post. I was comparing FLAC to Winrar;therefore, I am well aware what a zip file is.

I read it—borrrrring!..Hence my, “you haven’t a clue” comment…
The sooner you grasp the concept, the sooner you’ll stop making blind statements like " Anything that reduces kpbs cannot be considered lossless."…

Again, borrrrrring!..

[QUOTE=Romphotog;2435492]

[B][B]I want to make lossless back-ups of my CDs.[/B][/B]
WAV is standard, but files are large.
FLAC I found to be useless. It reduced by only 30%, by going down to 936kpbs. I get the same compression ratios using Winrar set to best&solid. Yes, you could listen to FLAC files, but MP3 players, DVD and CD players dont play them. Low user base concerns me as well.

[/QUOTE]

LOL, can only agree with the other posters.

You first have to realize that mp3’ing never ever can be “losless”.
Point.

[QUOTE=olyteddy;2435771]Consider this: 166356 + 166356 + 166356 + 166356 + 166356 = -vs- 5 * 166356 = -vs- 5(166356)=. All three have the same information, yet which one is smaller and would use less bandwidth to send through the internet?[/QUOTE]

got it. so 2+2+2 = 3*2.
However, if it were true or that simple, why dont the studios release audio CDs in lossless WMA or FLAC format?

Again, using Winrar maintains the original file without removing reduntant bits or lowering the KBPS, and the compresses file is the same size as a lossless FLAC or WMA.

You don’t seem to get the fact that decoded FLAC results in a WAV file identical* to the source WAV.

*: some minor changes to RIFF Chunk padding may occur.

… and studios will not release FLAC files until they have truly given up on DRM - as FLAC does not include any mechanism to enable DRM.

However, if it were true or that simple, why dont the studios release audio CDs in lossless WMA or FLAC format?

Because of the large base of existing CD players. When first conceived the CD players could only spin at 1X and had the processing power of a wristwatch…

I’m just wondring what compression software your using that takes
4.5minutes to compress a single wav file to a 160kBit/sec mp3 file

Not to mention CBR usually takes LESS time to create than VBR.

I know compressing a single file that size about an 8min wav
takes my software (NCH-Switch sound) on my old P4-2.4
with Win2k takes exactly 33seconds.

To create an identical 320k mp3 takes 22seconds.

I’m not invested enough in this discussion to bother creating any
VBR files, but I know from experience making them takes longer.

I used the Metallica song “The Fixxer” (last track on “Reload”)
as a test file it’s 87.4mb

So I wonder what your using to have it take around NINE times as long…

as for WAV Vs. FLAC?

I couldn’t be bothered to take the time to create FLAC files
I have sufficient HDD space to archive wavs.

I don’t have time to waste on the seperate operation of creating FLAC for archives
when the WAV files can be used directly if I want to make a CD or create an mp3 in
another bitrate for some future purpose.

But then again I have ALL the original discs as an “ultimate” archive
so the only purpose my extensive wav archive serves
is to save me extraction time.

AD

To add to WAV vs FLAC debate:

WAV has no error checking - FLAC has;

WAV can be tagged, but there is no standard - FLAC has tagging capability as standard;

Copying WAV takes longer than copying FLAC;

Reading less data when transcoding will usually result in a transcode from FLAC > MP3 being quicker than WAV > MP3.

p.s. In the above, for FLAC read any mature lossless audio codec.

as for WAV Vs. FLAC?

I couldn’t be bothered to take the time to create FLAC files
I have sufficient HDD space to archive wavs.

I don’t have time to waste on the seperate operation of creating FLAC for archives
when the WAV files can be used directly if I want to make a CD or create an mp3 in
another bitrate for some future purpose.

But then again I have ALL the original discs as an “ultimate” archive
so the only purpose my extensive wav archive serves
is to save me extraction time.

Yaaawn!

Ok, I just converted from WAV to WMA lossless, and back to WAV. The file
was the same size as before. However, WMA lossless file is 6.5% smaller than FLAC.

I am still not sure whether to go with lossy WMA or MP3.
WMA 96kbps sounds the same as an MP3 at 128kbps, but is 20% smaller.

[QUOTE=AllanDeGroot;2436611]I’m just wondring what compression software your using that takes 4.5minutes to compress a single wav file to a 160kBit/sec mp3 file.
Not to mention CBR usually takes LESS time to create than VBR.
[/QUOTE]

Logically, CBR should take less time than VBR, but using CDex and CD-DA(poikosoft.com) that’s not what happens.
I am using Led Zep’s Kashmir as a test file.