Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Is lossless codec some sort of personal taste?
Hydrogenaudio Forums > Lossless Audio Compression > Lossless / Other Codecs
Snire
I have my entire cd collection on my hd in wav format. And have desided to use lossless compression. I have read many posts here about lossless codecs, and wonder:
Will the codeks all sound similar?
Is it only how fast and how good they compress (I know some supports tagging ande some do not) that makes the difference?
I am very sceptical to compress all my wav's into a format that removes 40-50% in filesize and still "sounds like wav". But if it does I am glad to put even more on my hd.
Hope someone here can clear things up for me.

Happy new year to you all.
Snire
Jojo
QUOTE(Snire @ Dec 31 2004, 07:17 AM)
Will the codeks all sound similar?
Is it only how fast and how good they compress (I know some supports tagging ande some do not) that makes the difference?
*

yes, the sound will be exactly the same as your original wav file - no matter what lossless format and setting you choose smile.gif
jsheridan
QUOTE(Snire @ Dec 31 2004, 07:17 AM)
I am very sceptical to compress all my wav's into a format that removes 40-50% in filesize and still "sounds like wav". But if it does I am glad to put even more on my hd.
*


Works the same way as ZIP, learn math and compression algorithms if you want to learn more.
guruboolez
QUOTE(Snire @ Dec 31 2004, 04:17 PM)
I have my entire cd collection on my hd in wav format. And have desided to use lossless compression. I have read many posts here about lossless codecs, and wonder:
Will the codeks all sound similar?

Not "similar". There's a perfect identity.

QUOTE
Is it only how fast and how good they compress (I know some supports tagging ande some do not) that makes the difference?

Yes. There are others important things (depending on users):
- decoding speed
- seeking abilities and speed
- compatibility with advanced multimedia containers (ogg, matroska, mp4...)
- Linux, Mac... compatibility
- robustness against errors
etc...

QUOTE
I am very sceptical to compress all my wav's into a format that removes 40-50% in filesize and still "sounds like wav". But if it does I am glad to put even more on my hd.

Use a bit to bit comparator to be convinced (EAC, foobar2000).


And for you:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=29655
Snire
Thank you all for the answers. Then I set my pc to work with some lossless stuff next year.

Snire
krmathis
guruboolez pretty much nailed the differences between the codecs.

But imo there are one thing that is very important as well, hardware compatibility.
Example: Apple iPod supports Apple Lossless, Rio Karma supports FLAC etc...

You must decide whats most important, then select a couple of codecs to find your favorite. smile.gif
JeanLuc
The best thing about lossless codecs (besides the quality aspects) IMO is the ability to easily transcode between formats without any transcoding quality loss.

You have FLAC and want Apple Lossless for some reason ? No problem.

You have APE and need Musepack ? No problem either ...

Of course you could achieve all that with uncompressed PCM, too ... but HDD storage still costs money and filesize reduction thus is always welcome.
jokull
A decisive factor for me was the excellent FLACattack which makes the cd->backup process a matter of 2-3 clicks. If you are concerned with hardware support you should do some research.
Snire
Now I have converted all my albums to Monkey's audio. It is 146 albums and I got 30 Gb of harddiskspace back. Nice. The job took only 4 hours on my Dell 3Ghz ht with 2 Gb ram.
And best of all: Monkey's tagged all the files from the filenames.

Snire. biggrin.gif
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.