CDs are different to the Downloads

[imc]

FLAC is a true lossless compression format, it is a way of encoding the audio in a way that allows it to be decoded back to the original samples without any deterioration in sound whatsoever. Boray's example of Zipping up a program is a good one, if that process was lossy then nothing coming out of a zip file would work again properly.

[bakersfieldpethead]

I think when I can afford it I'm going to buy a couple of 3tb external Hard Drivers and re-rip all my CDs again in Wav format instead of WMA or MP3.

Then you should try FLAC instead of WAV:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Lossless_Audio_Codec

It compresses the data to about 75% of the original, but uses a completely undestructive compression.

(My latest songs are available in 24 bit flac by the way: http://user.tninet.se/~hlw771b/boray_music.html )

Sorry. If I compress in ANY format, and then open it up in ProTools next to the original wav, which is the native file format that the majority record with, and I invert the polarity of one, play them at the same time, they do not cancel out. There are still differences. ANY reduction of data is no good. If you can listen in wav, which is what the artist recorded, the wav is your best bet.

That is nonsense, Brent! Have you tried that with Flac? I just did, and... total silence! Do you believe a wav file gets worse by zipping it and unzipping it too? Then how do you think an unzipped program can run without errors?

I have to agree with Brent. The proof is in the pudding. Once you’ve worked in an environment where quality is of the utmost priority, you develop an ear for this sort of thing. For the average listener I’m sure flac or mp3 for that fact will be just fine. But for those of us that can hear the difference its better just to use the wav format, or just listen to the CD if at all possible.

This is why it saddens me when bands decide to just go all digital downloads instead of making CDs, I understand it’s cheaper for them to do this, but there are other options out there.

[Boray]

I have to agree with Brent. The proof is in the pudding. Once you’ve worked in an environment where quality is of the utmost priority, you develop an ear for this sort of thing. For the average listener I’m sure flac or mp3 for that fact will be just fine. But for those of us that can hear the difference its better just to use the wav format, or just listen to the CD if at all possible.

This is why it saddens me when bands decide to just go all digital downloads instead of making CDs, I understand it’s cheaper for them to do this, but there are other options out there.

Well, I guess it's up to you if you want to waste disk space or not.

"FLAC employs a lossless data compression algorithm; a digital audio recording compressed by FLAC can be decompressed into an identical copy of the original audio data. Audio sources encoded to FLAC are typically reduced to 50–60% of their original size."
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Lossless_Audio_Codec

Mp3 or other lossy compression algorithms is a completely different matter. The audio will get changed there...

You can compare it to picture formats: mp3 is like jpeg while flac is like png.

[Boray]

Once you’ve worked in an environment where quality is of the utmost priority, you develop an ear for this sort of thing. For the average listener I’m sure flac or mp3 for that fact will be just fine. But for those of us that can hear the difference its better just to use the wav format, or just listen to the CD if at all possible.

If you can hear a difference between flac and wav, then there must be something wrong somewhere. If you believe that one audio source is of worse quality, then your mind will tell you that it is so even if it's in fact an identical sound. That is why these kind of tests always has to be blind tests where you don't know which is which.

[bakersfieldpethead]

We're all human boray, we do make mistakes. But studio engineers learn to trust their ears; they make their money by trusting their ears.

As Brent said

If I compress in ANY format, and then open it up in ProTools next to the original wav, which is the native file format that the majority record with, and I invert the polarity of one, play them at the same time, they do not cancel out. There are still differences. ANY reduction of data is no good. If you can listen in wav, which is what the artist recorded, the wav is your best bet.

So by testing it this way, you can tell the difference with any compressed format.

[Boray]

Have you tried that with Flac? I just did, and... total silence!

I tried it in Reaper which can both render and import Flac.

[brent]

Reaper has huge aliasing issues. It cannot do a true fade. It also has some of the worst SRC in the industry. I don't use it. I would not recommend it.

[Boray]

Reaper has huge aliasing issues. It cannot do a true fade. It also has some of the worst SRC in the industry. I don't use it. I would not recommend it.

Aliasing issues? Where and when?

I've never tried any sample rate conversions.

In what way can't it do a real fade? You can automate anything. Just put two envelope points on the volume and it will fade between them.

My biggest issue with Reaper is that it doesn't do real pans, it just changes the volume of right and left channel.

Anyway, Reaper having issues doesn't make you right about Flac compression...

[brent]

Reaper has huge aliasing issues. It cannot do a true fade. It also has some of the worst SRC in the industry. I don't use it. I would not recommend it.

Aliasing issues? Where and when?

I've never tried any sample rate conversions.

In what way can't it do a real fade? You can automate anything. Just put two envelope points on the volume and it will fade between them.

My biggest issue with Reaper is that it doesn't do real pans, it just changes the volume of right and left channel.

Anyway, Reaper having issues doesn't make you right about Flac compression...

When you do a fade in Reaper, it does not fade smoothly to zero and it never truely goes to zero when it says you are at zero graphically. Check out the forums. I am not the only one that has found this to be true.

There are a couple of SRC comparison blogs, one by a dude at Berkley. ALL DAWs and SRC apps are compared. Logic is worse than Reaper, so you have that to brag about. ProTools and Weiss Digital were the best by far.

[Boray]

....and it never truely goes to zero when it says you are at zero graphically. Check out the forums.

I checked it myself instead by doing an automated fade on the master track and then turned up my monitoring volume. Total silence... So I guess they have fixed this in one of their many updates...

[executioner]

After listening to the CD several times now this thing is really high quality production. The cd is just so much richer and fuller than the downloads.

[Boray]

After listening to the CD several times now this thing is really high quality production. The cd is just so much richer and fuller than the downloads.

Maybe they are mastered differently? The songs available at Groveshark.com has too little treble in my opinion. If I EQ it a bit, it sounds fine. Could anyone confirm that? Does the downloads sound better than on Groveshark?

But I begin to suspect that the songs on Groveshark are actually the pre-mastered versions. That not all of the songs are available there, and that Petra have said that the album will be available to the rest of the world in January makes me seriously think Groveshark isn't a bit legal.

[Jonathan]

OK, bottom line, is this a CD I can pop into my car stereo, crank it up, roll down the windows and go for a drive?

Stop taking all the fun out of rock n roll, you audiophiles, or I will confiscate your internetz.

[Boray]

There are car stereos with USB too you know... Should be more reliable too if you drive on a bumpy road.

[Jonathan]

I choose to perceive that as a personal attack. I am leaving the Petra Zone and starting my own board.