Click to view our Accessibility Statement or contact us with accessibility-related questions
jamesagain
15
Feb 4, 2018
I buy cd's because they are uncompressed and I can rip them to FLAC. Actually, if you hit thrift stores and pawn shops you'd end up with a pretty decent sized FLAC collection fairly quickly, pretty cheaply.
smallbit
1328
Feb 7, 2018
jamesagainThat is entirely inaccurate. Average cd runs about 128kbps and thats how they were recorded. That bitrate does not change. Might get 192 but that is still a very long way off from flac or hd. Now there is some misinformation out there about cds that they are 1400 but that is completely wrong as well because it is all about what it was transcoded to the cd @. IMO there aren't enough landfills in the world for all the cd's aol made let alone Britney Spears. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2909873/how-to-detect-generation-loss-of-a-transcoded-audio
jamesagain
15
Feb 8, 2018
smallbitLearned something new.
MrSharkbait
479
Feb 8, 2018
smallbitNo @smallbit it is you who is making an entirely inaccurate claim about CD bitrates. Audio CD uses PCM, and as used in CD, has a fixed bit rate of 1411 kbps. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_rate
smallbit
1328
Feb 8, 2018
MrSharkbaitYou didn't go to my link obviously or read what I wrote. PCM just explains why you would see a modulation between 128 and 136 and 192 kbps during a single cd recording. You can detect that generation loss which is what I linked.
DeepSpace
15
Feb 9, 2018
smallbitI'm no expert, but what I read in that link was a discussion about taking a low bit rate lossy (compressed) audio file and transcoding it to a higher bit rate lossy file. It is not a discussion about legitimate source material on a CD. I suppose if you were talking about a bootleg CD bought from a street vendor, then OK. But I think it is fairly common knowledge, at least from anyone who cares about audio quality, that a legitimate CD contains lossless (uncompressed) audio with a bit rate of 1411kbps. A simple Google search turns up scores of articles from reputable sources.
smallbit
1328
Feb 9, 2018
DeepSpace" One way to do it is to analyze spectrum of the signal. I'm not sure if it's possible to determine the exact original rate, but you can definitely tell between a real 320 kbps mp3 and the transcoded 96 -> 320 kbps. The 96 kbps mp3 will have higher frequencies cut at 15 kHz or so. The 320 kbps should have non-zero at around 18-20 kHz or even higher (that depends on the encoder). " was applicable. Helped me to understand. mp3 conversion from bootleg of course going to run 128kbps or 96 even sometimes ewww. But even legitimate sources were running higher compression specifically to fit more content on the discs. This was grossly prevalent in the 90s especially when the labels were like "put our cd in your computer for the extra content" and such. I mean besides the size of a flac wav being huge if they were transcoding 1411kbps and them only being 700mb discs. "Not really flac but close" torrents of popular albums like rage against the machine are almost a gigabyte but were single discs so how does that work? I dunno if what you guys are saying is correct. How would it fit?
edit: Didn't winamp have a kbps readout? I feel like this would be easy to test... I don't have any cd's though obviously.
edit2 **shittyMATHedition**: this is bugging me now. so if you had 1440kbps x 60seconds in a minute for kbpm conversion =86,400kbpm x3.5 minute song = 302,400kb? So 2 x 302megabyte average length 3.5 minute pop songs per CD at true lossless from the master?
edit3: I dont even know anymore because it could be lossless with pcm but would it be lossless at that point? I do more googleys when I have time.
MrSharkbait
479
Feb 9, 2018
smallbitkbps = kilo bits per second. There are 8 bits to one byte. So, your math actually makes sense , once you multiply by 8.
There seems to be a point of confusion here about transcoding between formats. MP3 is lossy. Once you use LAME or whatever converter to go from PCM to MP3, you end up with a lossy file forever, regardless of how high a bitrate you use. You cannot re-convert back into PCM (i.e. burn MP3 to CD) and expect the sound to be the same as the original. What I read in SO (btw I had no idea which post was yours) that you linked may be an intellectually stimulating and interesting exercise in digital audio processing, but why would anyone want to convert a song encoded in a lower bit rate to a higher one? It is a one way street, you will never recover any lost detail from a low bit rate signal by transcoding to a higher bit rate.
Back to the original topic. These days I collect from any source I can find. CD format is still the most practical format for collecting high quality sound. There is music available in higher sampling rates like 24-bit/96kHz sampling and even higher, but that is not “common”. With all this digital talk you may think I really like CDs, but I prefer vinyl. What is most important is the music itself, reagrdless of how I listen to it.
smallbit
1328
Feb 9, 2018
MrSharkbaitBowie would be a good example of converting from 96kbps up. His early work was pretty low-fi. Anything from the 60's really and most of the 70's.
PRODUCTS YOU MAY LIKE
Trending Posts in Audiophile