MP3's

[Geebster]

Yes, I know about Monkey's Audio format. We had a lengthy thread going about it about a year or so ago. It is also supported by a couple of the popular media players, in that it (the media player) will decompress and play it on the fly.

I also knew that MS had a non-lossy format too, but I don't use their file extension format all that much.

I've used the monkey's audio program more on a 'test' basis than for everyday use. It seems to do everything it claims and have never had a problem with it. That my be my ultimate solution. Use a non-lossy format, where I can store more data but not lose anything in the translation.

The .ape format also has the advantage that is also supported by a couple of the file conversion programs out there where you can 'compress' your file without even having to open the Monkey's Audio program.

Sorry, I really didn't mean for this to turn into an advertisement. Please Note: These are my opinions only, and I in no way endorse the Monkey's Audio product.

GB.

[Dan McDonald]

flac is another non-lossy compression scheme that is widely used.

The crewcut look is one of the things that people look for when they're trying to determine if something was sourced from mp3 and upconverted to a wav format. It's a 'no-no' in most music trading circles where they objective is to keep the files at the highest quality possible over multiple copies, etc.

Dan

[Craig Maier]

DC Mentor / Non-Lossy Compression

I spoke with Rick and he pointed out that DC Audio Mentor not only supports lossy compression formats (encoding and decoding) like MP3 and WMA, but also the non-lossy compression associated with WMA.

keywords: Diamond Cut Non Lossy Compression, Encoding MP3, Decoding MP3, Encoding WMA, Decoding WMA

[Geebster]

flac is another non-lossy compression scheme that is widely used.

The crewcut look is one of the things that people look for when they're trying to determine if something was sourced from mp3 and upconverted to a wav format. It's a 'no-no' in most music trading circles where they objective is to keep the files at the highest quality possible over multiple copies, etc.

Dan

Hey, thanks for the mental "nudge" Dan. I had forgotten about flac. I have a converstion program that supports it; I'll have to play around with it some and see how it does in comparison with .ape.

GB

[Geebster]

I am sure there is no real need to do this, but I am going to do another experiment for my own peace of mind.

Not that I have any reason to distrust their claims, but I want to prove to myself that both flac and .ape are non-lossy formats.

I am going to repeat my earlier test using flac and .ape to find out their appoximate compression ratios and see if there is any differences in the files after compression/decompression.

GB

[Geebster]

Further Tests.

I performed a few more tests and found out, using the spectrogram in Live/Forensics 6, that both .flac and .ape are non-lossy formats as advertised.

Then I ran a fairly large file through the various conversion routines and the compression results are listed below.

The original file was the complete album of Blue Oyster Cult's "Cultosaurus Erectus" (Columbia JC36550) LP that was recorded in .wav format using DC 6.

Original File .wav format... 438,897KB
Non-loss .flac format... 136,877KB
Non-loss .ape format... 129,350KB
Lossy format 320 bit MP3...99,527KB
Lossy format 192 bit MP3...59,716KB
Lossy format 128 bit MP3...39,741KB

I used the highest compression available for both the .flac and .ape conversions.

It seems to me that the non-lossy formats are the way to go if you must compress a file. As my earlier tests identified, even at the highest bit rate possible using the MP3 format, there was a noticeable degrading of the file.

Thought some of you might find this interesting.

GB

PS. The conversion time for all of the formats was pretty uniform; it took approximately 3 minutes to compress the original .wav file into the various other formats.

[Craig Maier]

Interesting results. I wonder how non-lossy .wma (ala DC Mentor or something similar) stacks up.

[Geebster]

RE: Test Results.

Sorry, Craig. I forgot about the .wma format! I personally don't use it much, so it never crossed my mind. Here is the result for the .wma lossless file from the original 438,897KB file in my earlier test:

.wma lossless compression ... 132,596KB

It fell right in the middle between .ape and .flac, but has the added benefit that it was MUCH faster in it's compression. The above file only took about 1 minute to compress.

GB

PS. I didn't document it in my original test, but I tried a variety of files and sizes between .flac and .ape. .Ape format always compressed the files slighty more than .flac.

[Geebster]

Looking at these test results reminds me of the old videotape wars when home video taping come into being. VHS ultimately won out over BETA, even though it was technically inferior.

It appears a similar thing has happened with compressed audio. For the relatively small size advantage MP3 gives you over the non-loss formats, I can't understand why it has become the norm.

It is probably because MP3 became popular before Broadband internet was almost the standard and even a few KB savings was more important than sound quality.

GB

[Craig Maier]

Yeah, it is interesting. Certainly as bandwidth and storage become almost for free, there is no real reason to use lossy compression on our audio. But, it is a format that everyone is familiar with, so it seems to persist.

I suspect that in the next two years, there will be no practical reason to use it (lossy compression). Let's see if it survives in the market.

And, thanks for the analysis. I am pretty sure that it will be useful to most everyone on the forum.

[Geebster]

At least in my searches on the internet, it appears that .flac is making some progress into the marketplace. I'm seeing more and more music available for high quality download in that format.

Yes, I really enjoyed doing the tests. It's one thing to talk about it, but another to actually see the results unfolding before your own eyes. Before this series of tests, I really didn't even think about the audio consequences in using MP3 for my emergency files. After doing these tests, I don't think I would even consider it.

Depending on size, fitting 5 or 6 albums onto one CD is pretty good, and you won't lose any musical information in the process.

GB

[Dan McDonald]

A lot of bands who make their music available for download at cost or for free make it available in flac format. Shorten used to be the standard for music trading, but there were hardly any plugins available for it (maybe 1 or 2) so you had to uncompress before you played it. Shorten is still used quite a bit among people who share/trade music, but flac is easier to use and has a lot more plugins, and a lot of commercial users. Both are free to use, so that's kind of nice. I've never tried Monkey's audio beause I used to use shorten and now I use flac.

Dan

[Geebster]

I've tried all of them and (my opinion here) I prefer Monkey's Audio. It's been around for long enough to be proven, it compresses the most of all of them and they (Monkey's Audio) have a support BBS similar to this; in the unlikely event you run into difficulty with it.

Side benefit....FREE

GB


PS. I usually have no need to compress the music I make myself. Some of the musicians I hang around with use .flac to a limited degree. But for my vast music archive, I think I will be using .ape.

[Craig Maier]

One question that you should ask yourself is "which file format will stand the test of time?" That is why I would opt for Microsofts WMA; it will be around.

[Geebster]

One question that you should ask yourself is "which file format will stand the test of time?" That is why I would opt for Microsofts WMA; it will be around.

Please, don't get me started! I've been trying to skirt the issue regarding MS, but since you brought it up.....

I don't like the way MS conducts it's business, especially in regards to it's media devices. I don't want to get into specifics, but I try any means to avoid their media player and products.... (I do NOT want to get sued by them!)

You can use .wma if you want to, but I will avoid it at all costs, thank you very much.

In the event that Monkey's Audio or .flac no longer are viable options, I'm sure another compression scheme will emerge. It's really no different than the evolution from cylinders to records to CD's. Technology doesn't stand still. I'm not going to use a compression scheme that is against my very moral fibre, just because it will be around.

I will use .ape as long as it works for me. When and if it isn't a good alternative, I will move on.

Please, don't think you shouldn't use .wma, if YOU think it is right for you... I just know far too much information (that I'm not at liberty to discuss) about MS's media division and prefer to use ANYTHING BUT their product.

GB