2020. 1. 25. 05:24ㆍ카테고리 없음
Most of my music is at 320, but some is at 256kbps. The difference is minimal, but most of my MP3 files are transferred from store bought CDs. You can definitely hear the difference when you go down to 128.
ACC, Lossless, MP3 You are going to get all sorts of responses (as you have seen).here's my two cents - When possible, best to have 'master' copies that are the highest bitrate possible. Lossless is ideal and given a choice between AAC 256 and mp3 320, I'd take AAC 256 as I can tell on some files a difference.
Mostly in the high frequencies that get all wishy washy. I can't stand that ultra compressed sound personally, BUT for a new DJ playing through some Mr. DJ of Pyle Pro speakers, the difference won't be as noticeable as it will sound like crap either way.
Simply slightly different flavors of crap.:-) If you're using good quality speakers OTOH, the lower bitrate tracks will be even more obvious.Al. Although 128 can be horrible, a lot of 192 files are decent-good.every song is different.
Nowadays, a lot of hit songs aren't even mixed and mastered properly, so even the 320 versions don't sound all that good. While some songs were mixed GREAT and polished.so the 192 versions sound decent. But still, when you're in a club with a strong system, you can tell the difference much more than you can through speakers at home or regular headphones.mainly because the bass is similar. The highs on 128 definitely aren't as sharp. Quote:This topic really belongs in 2002.The conversation in 2014 should be about moving away from lossy audio formats entirely.Agreed. The problem is lack of bandwidth for all, and lack of uniformity.
Does iOS currently support FLAC? Also, these aren't small. Remember that these are effectively CDs (and, quite large, depending on your level of compression). One CD Single can be over 120MB.
(Sadly) not everyone has that kind of bandwidth.Well, I don't know about that. I mean, there are plenty of people doing video and each video is around 120MB's each too. So, I don't think space is currently a problem. Quote:This topic really belongs in 2002.The conversation in 2014 should be about moving away from lossy audio formats entirely.Agreed. The problem is lack of bandwidth for all, and lack of uniformity. Does iOS currently support FLAC? Also, these aren't small.
Remember that these are effectively CDs (and, quite large, depending on your level of compression). One CD Single can be over 120MB. (Sadly) not everyone has that kind of bandwidth.Well, I don't know about that.
I mean, there are plenty of people doing video and each video is around 120MB's each too. So, I don't think space is currently a problem. LolnmNot space, bandwidth.
I personally use neither a Mac, nor iTunes (HATE), nor iOS so FLAC works for me fine, and it's supported in Serato ITCH 2.2.2 and Serato DJ. I'm quite satisfied. I've used FLAC for the better part of a decade in my personal collection without issue.The advantage FLAC has had over ALAC is that it was open-source, and royalty free. Till 2011, ALAC was not. You can imagine which one the significant majority was quicker to adopt.FLAC, in and of itself, is technically superior to ALAC, but lacks native support on Apple devices or operating systems. So, if you're tied down to Apple, I suppose ALAC would be the route for you to take.
If not, FLAC is far more widely supported by a myriad of devices (though neither format has the support that MP3 carries).It also sees much higher broader usage than ALAC (2011:, 2009: ), but this may be an effect of user adoption, device support, and market share of Apple PC's. I'm sure a user is more likely to use ALAC if they own a Mac as opposed to FLAC. 320Kbps should be the industry standard. Apple lossless is not that bad either. Sometimes it's hard to find classics at 320, so i prefer to buy it at the itunes store (sadly it's 256Kbps but alot of times it comes out sounding great).And I agree with everyone else. Flac is the way to go.
Compare the wave form in serato for a FLAC vs any MP3, AAC, Or WAV file. You'll see a difference.If you want the best out of Flac, RIP IT YOURSELF! I find that people that share Flac on the internet rip it to 'Low Flac Quality' at 28MB (700Kbps average according to serato), while the actual HIGH quality flac usually comes to about 36MB (1072Kbps). You'll definetely see the difference! Don't play distorted 128Kbps crap! 320 mp3 should be the minimum you compress your original lossless file for practical space savings on your portable hard drive. The problem for most of is we are DJs that use record pools.
So, they hopefully are doing this for us. The problem came in where crap duplicates started replacing original files. Unless i personally rip music myself i can't trust the original was truly lossless. MY POINT.i'll take my chances hoping my reputable sources are giving my quality files between 320 & bare minimum 192 in a pinch.
Everything has sounded great so far.so i'm satisfied with that. Quote:And I agree with everyone else.
Flac is the way to go. Compare the wave form in serato for a FLAC vs any MP3, AAC, Or WAV file. You'll see a difference.Again,??What exactly are you seeing that's different.
The waveforms will look virtually identical between formats. You should be listening to the audio files, not looking at them.And even if they did look different, how on earth can a FLAC look different than a WAV? They are bit identical.Sorry bout the late response, but maybe this will help answer your questions.So i took the song 'No scrubs - TLC' in 3 different bitrates, and 2 different formats to compare them.First one is.MP3 at 128KBPS:user=140947617&filtersrecent=1&sort=1&o=0as you can see its a very thin wave form, its also very distorted and seems to have little bits of drop outs through out the track, but not many people will notice this.
The track itself is not very loud, i have to CRANK up the gain on that track to make it loud enough if i were to ever make people dance. Maybe it was a poorly ripped/compressed file? I've noticed A LOT of DJs that are starting out that play 128kbps files with distortion and thin wave lengths tend to crank up the gain - which they don't realize it also results in the track clipping - thus sounding like shit.
But.Second one is also.Mp3 at 320kbpsuser=140947617&filtersrecent=1&sort=1&o=0Wave form shows barely any distortion, barely any drop outs, it's definitely thicker, and more colorful. Why does colorful matter? I'll show you in a sec but first.Here's a FLAC version of TLC no scrubs:user=140947617&filtersrecent=1&sort=1&o=0Alot thicker than the 128kbps, alot louder which means we don't have to crank up the GAIN which results in clipping, and definitely no distortion!I always make sure i have Lossless formats, Or if i have to buy/download tracks online, I make sure their minimum 320kbps. 256Kbps is acceptable at times.
Make sure you always open up the track with serato to see what it looks like as well and what it sounds like before you play it.Hopefully that helps. All i gotta say is though - if you're a working DJ, you should consider using some of that money and buying your music. If you have an entire library of 128kbps, it sounds like to me that your downloading for free. Pay your dues my friend! Quote:Sorry bout the late response, but maybe this will help answer your questions.So i took the song 'No scrubs - TLC' in 3 different bitrates, and 2 different formats to compare them.All 3 of those tracks have different durations.
Clearly, they're 3 different rips that could be from anywhere. Vinyl, Radio, YouTube, Soundcloud, CD, Web. Who the hell knows.How bout you grab the FLAC version, convert that to 320 and to 128 and see how different they look. I'm willing to bet they'll look almost identical.;).
It wasn't directed at you Forty, it was directed at the guy that started the thread.I'm not hating on people that are playing 128kbps, i'm just saying that alot of the content you find online that are 128kbps, are generally are poorly ripped files, and i wouldn't reccomend playing em.But hey man, at the end of the day, if it makes you feel good that you play 128kbps files that are properly ripped without any distortion, then good on ya! I guess i'm one of those DJ's that love to buy and CD rip my own content:). Quote:it wasn't directed at you Forty, it was directed at the guy that started the thread.I'm not hating on people that are playing 128kbps, i'm just saying that alot of the content you find online that are 128kbps, are generally are poorly ripped files, and i wouldn't reccomend playing em.But hey man, at the end of the day, if it makes you feel good that you play 128kbps files that are properly ripped without any distortion, then good on ya! I guess i'm one of those DJ's that love to buy and CD rip my own content:)As Forty alluded to, it all depends on the source rip.
If you save to to 128 from a good lossless source it will be much better. Quote:FLAC, in and of itself, is technically superior to ALACCare to elaborate on this Midnight?Technologically, FLAC is functionally superior to ALAC.As an example, you cannot transcode a 24-bit ALAC file to another format without it being truncated to 16-bit regardless of the project bit-depth, or bit-depth of the recipient codec while using anything that makes use of Apple's CoreAudio engine.FLAC can also compress significantly better than ALAC without loss.
The difference here is that FLAC offers compression parameters across 8 levels (actually, 9 if you count uncompressed FLAC audio) while ALAC offers no compression parameters.Probably the most important is FLAC's Cyclic-Reduancy-Checking. FLAC performs Frame Header CRC, Frame CRC (of the entire Frame), and a hash check of the entire stream itself. This is good for detecting for file truncation, and bit checking (down to the single bit); and it can be verified in batches as a bonus. ALAC (unless something has recently changed) offers no CRC of any kind (whether it be frame or stream verification). It might potentially detect a premature ending of the mdat atom , but you're really relying on the decoder to trigger an error.
Quote:And I agree with everyone else. Flac is the way to go. Compare the wave form in serato for a FLAC vs any MP3, AAC, Or WAV file.
You'll see a difference.Again,??What exactly are you seeing that's different. The waveforms will look virtually identical between formats. You should be listening to the audio files, not looking at them.And even if they did look different, how on earth can a FLAC look different than a WAV? They are bit identical.There are inaccuracies in both post here. Unless there is a difference in bit-rate and bit-depth, there should be no visual or audible difference between FLAC and PCM audio (WAV is just a container, people). MP3 and AAC, however, are lossy codecs and would show a visual difference and a significantly audible difference than that of a lossless file that was not transcoded from a lossy source.This discussion is really familiar. Quote:How bout you grab the FLAC version, convert that to 320 and to 128 and see how different they look.
I'm willing to bet they'll look almost identical.;).and I'm willing to tell you openly that they will not. As I described in my last go around, I did a comparison of a lossless FLAC which was peaks at 4.6Mbit/s (96KHz) - I transcoded it down to 1.4Mbit/s (44.1KHz - FLAC) and 320kbit/s (44.1KHz - MP3). As more compression is applied, increasing amounts of artifacting becomes prevalent as does clipping from the compressed waveform. 128Kbit/s will just increase significantly more.I'll quote my post from there herein.
Quote:Format: MPEG AudioFormat version: Version 1Format profile: Layer 3Mode: Joint stereoDuration: 4mn 39sBit rate mode: ConstantBit rate: 320 KbpsChannel(s): 2 channelsSampling rate: 44.1 KHzCompression mode: LossyStream size: 10.7 MiB (89%)Writing library: LAME3.98rOf course, with lower bit-rates, and compression comes more artifacting as well; and then there's the discussion to be had about loudness wars and the absolutely abhorent abuse of compression.As a visual comparison, here's a screenshot of the waveform of each of these files together as viewed in Audacity. Red indicates where the audio clips. No edits have been made to any of these files beyond their form as they are presented at the time of purchase. The 'HD' file (top) is as it is provided from the online store , the CD File (middle) is at is when ripped from the CD (and transcoded into another lossless format, and the MP3 file (last) is a 320Kbps transcode of the CD Audio:Given the option, I'll take the first one any day of the week.
Quote:As an example, you cannot transcode a 24-bit ALAC file to another format without it being truncated to 16-bit regardless of the project bit-depth, or bit-depth of the recipient codec while using anything that makes use of Apple's CoreAudio engine.so what happens with 'afconvert -f 'WAVE' -d LEI24@44100 file.m4a' then?Without much knowledge on afconvert (OS X is admittedly not my primary OS), ideally, nothing more than a transcode to LPCM and package into the WAV container.This isn't the problem though. The problem is with using a program such as iTunes to do it as it will convert them to 16-bit (though it will maintain the same sample rate of the input - i.e.: 96/24 - 96/16). With that in mind, something such as XLD should be used.Admittedly, it's been quite some time since I last worked with ALAC so my information may be dated regarding it's handling of retaining bit-depth when transcoding from other formats.
But if I am incorrect, please let me know. Accurate information helps everyone! Quote:ALAC's main advantage over FLAC is that iTunes handles it natively, including tagging, etc.
And will copy the tags when transcoding. This is important only because iTunes is probably the way the majority of people manage their libraries.Fair enough; however, that assumes someone is using OS X as their primary OS, and/or is using iTunes to manage their library. Personally, I would never let iTunes near my library even if OS X was my primary OS. That said, that is my own opinion.Personally, I recommend FLAC and will continue to make the recommendation of it. That is with the caveat, though, that if you're an OS X user and find yourself primarily using Apple devices, ALAC is the way to go for you.Regarding tags, I use dbPowerAmp to manage most of my conversion (especially for batch conversion) and it does an exemplary job of retaining tags and file properties across formats.
320 Mp3 Downloader
I also use MP3Tag for tagging in general. Quote:Coming from a CD, there should be no difference.Well I have a CD for the artist 'SNOW', called '12 Inches of Snow', and their's a single on there called 'Informer' (i'm sure everyone's obviously heard that hit song).I converted mine to ALAC, and i also found a 'FLAC' Rip online. My CD rip came to about 950kbps, and the FLAC rip was at about 1024kbps, and it sounds alot louder, clearer, better, plus the wave form in serato is alot more thicker, and colorful.Could this be they have a different CD rip than i have? I'm aware that sometimes there are songs on 'greatest hits' albums that generally have better rips than the original albums do since they're remastered.Or does FLAC just have better parameters when you rip em? Quote:Format: FLACFormat/Info: Free Lossless Audio CodecFile size: 41.0 MiBDuration: 5mn 43sOverall bit rate mode: VariableOverall bit rate: 1 003 KbpsBit rate: 976 KbpsChannel(s): 2 channelsSampling rate: 44.1 KHzBit depth: 16 bitsStream size: 40.0 MiB (97%)Writing library: libFLAC 1.2.1 (UTC 2007-09-17)Here's the waveform of both. Top is 'Straight Outta Compton', and the bottom is 'Greatest Hits':On sight, I can tell that compression has been applied across the board to the 'Greatest Hits' release (and it's quite audible as well). It was actually a pretty decently balanced approach (I'm looking at you, 'Death Magnetic') so no problem there.
Ok first there is a LOT of excellent information in this string. I'll try to simplify it.128 kbps is just fine for regular listening etc. You're teen-age kids listening to an MP3 wont give a crap. Is it truly CD quality ALL the time.nope.it's not.FLAC is truly lossless.
320 is the way to go and here is why.First there is a test online your can listen to two recordings of the exact song clip and guess which one is 128 and which is 320. Go hereNow the first thing you MUST notice is the fullness of the music. There is a lot of hard beats with subsequent lulls in the sound.
One guy, one vocal, no harmonies and not backup singing. With this 'type' of wave form 128 and 320 are going to be nearly equal.
So this is actually and bad and even deceiving example of comparing the two.BUT. When you throw in lots of instruments and more vocals, backups, harmonies into the mix as much of the music out there is.you get a different story with 128 to 320, with 320 being clearly the more capable.
I would stick with 320. Science and math is one thing, but lets give the ears a try;)this test must be performed in a daw or an audio-editing software like audacity or wavelab1. Step: take a track from a cd and save it as wav ( result: if the tracks alligned exactly everything that is identically is phased out and you should only hear what was lost due compression- now repeat this test original wav vs. Each of the other compressed tracks. Quote:This topic really belongs in 2002.The conversation in 2014 should be about moving away from lossy audio formats entirely.I wrote that two years ago, it's even more applicable now than it was then. Lossy audio was a 'necessary evil' in an era when the largest hard drives were 60gb.
In today's world, it's an anachronism that can't go away soon enough.The thing I hate most about lossy audio: the more I hear it, the more my ears 'learn the degradations'. I didn't use to really notice degradations from 320kbps LAME-encoded MP3 files. Now I almost always do.
Quote:This topic really belongs in 2002.The conversation in 2014 should be about moving away from lossy audio formats entirely.I wrote that two years ago, it's even more applicable now than it was then. Lossy audio was a 'necessary evil' in an era when the largest hard drives were 60gb. In today's world, it's an anachronism that can't go away soon enough.The thing I hate most about lossy audio: the more I hear it, the more my ears 'learn the degradations'. I didn't use to really notice degradations from 320kbps LAME-encoded MP3 files. Now I almost always do.Oh most definitely.
You'll hear it more when you start working with higher sample rates.
Tags: transfer flac to mp3, flac to mp3, flac to mp3 converter, convert flac to mp3, converting flac to mp3, how to convert flac to mp3, convert flac to mp3 mac, how to convert flac to mp3 mac,flac to mp3 320kbps, convert flac to 320 mp3, flac to 320 mp3 converter, convert flac to 320kbps mp3 OverviewHave you ever spent the time downloading your favorite audios that you sought after, only to find out that the files are all in FLAC format? Though FLAC is a fine audio format, it is so large infile size. So it is not practical to send FLAC files through email or offer them for downloading on the internet. Besides, most portable devices like iPhone, iPod, Zune, etc. Can not play FLAC files.Just convert FLAC to MP3 with Bigasoft FLAC MP3 converter to have more convenience.Bigasoft FLAC Converter, the professional FLAC to 320 MP3 Converter, can easily transfer and convert the free lossless audio codec FLAC to MP3 320kbps with almost no loss of audio quality on MacOS X (Mountain Lion included) or on Windows (Windows 8 included). Besides converting FLAC to MP3, it also can convert FLAC to WAV, AIFF, Apple Lossless M4A, AU, MP3, OGG, WMA, AC3, RA, MP2, and etc.It even can extract audio from video files including MPEG, MOV, MP4, M4V, RM, WMV, ASF, MKV, TS, MPV, AVI, 3GP, FLV, etc and then convert to FLAC, OGG, WAV, MP3, WMA and etc.The following is a step-by-step guide on how to convert FLAC to 320 MP3 on Mac or Windows with the powerful.
Step 1 Run Bigasoft FLAC ConverterFree download Bigasoft FLAC Converter (, ), then install and run it, a charming interface will pop up as follows.Step 2 Input FLAC filesPress ' Add File' button to import your FLAC files.Or you can also directly drag your FLAC files to the main interface of this FLAC to MP3 320kbps Converter (for Mac).Step 3 Set MP3 output formatClick ' Profile' drop-down button to set MP3 output format. You can click ' Browse.'
Button to choose destination folder for saving output files.To convert FLAC to 320kbps MP3, click ' Setting.' Button, the 'Advanced Settings' Window will pop up right beside the main window. In the 'Advanced Settings'Window, click 'Advanced' tab to go to the 'Audio' column, Click 128 tab on the right side of 'Audio Bitrate' to select desired audio bitrate like 320. Step 4 Finish conversionClick ' Start' button to begin converting FLAC to MP3 320kbps.
You will get the output files that you want by clicking ' Open Folder' button soon. Tips. What is FLAC?FLAC, the abbreviation for Free Lossless Audio Codec, accomplishes data compression without sacrificing the integrity of the audio source. FLAC's free and open source royalty-free nature makes itwell-supported by many software applications.
320 Mp3 Quality
Audio sources encoded to FLAC are typically reduced to 50-60% of their original size. Compared to lossy formats like MP3, FLAC playback support inportable audio devices and dedicated audio systems is limited at this time. What is MP3?MP3, standing for MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3, is a patented digital audio encoding format using a form of lossy data compression. It is a compressed audio format that allows for smaller file sizes withsimilar sound quality. Audio sources encoded to MP3 are typically 10 to 12 times smaller than their original size.
It is a common audio format for consumer audio storage, as well as a de factostandard of digital audio compression for the transfer and playback of music on digital audio players. ResourcesTo find out more Bigasoft Solutions to enjoy your new digital life, you can go.