Drew....thank you for the detailed information, and thorough explanations. I am just getting my toe into this format, and sifting through everything. Understanding the basics is so very helpful.
A friend in the industry has highly recommended ripping via MP3 320, utilizing a bit-correction program named Poikosoft. He created a CD-R of 4 tracks for me to compare, each encoded with differing codecs....all were bit-corrected.
Here are the specific codecs used:
1. Bit perfect original CD copy
2. Bit perfect FLAC lossless copy
3. LAME mp3 maximum @ 320kps (hi-rez)
4. LAME mp3 normal @ 320kps
I listened to the CD-R again yesterday in a friend's system. We both came to the identical conclusion....#4 was the best sounding overall, and the most natural. #2 was very good (and I want to do more comparisons with #4), but again, our ears and brains voted for #4....more spacious, more transparency, more dimensionality, more natural timbre. The original redbook version sounded flat and congested in comparison (and that's what I've been accustomed to all these years!!). #3, the hi-rez 320 version was pretty good, but the more natural quality of #4 got our overall vote. Perhaps the hi-rez algorithm looks better on paper, but the "normal" version sounded more musical in the real world.
Thought you'd enjoy this information.
alan m. kafton
audio excellence az
A friend in the industry has highly recommended ripping via MP3 320, utilizing a bit-correction program named Poikosoft. He created a CD-R of 4 tracks for me to compare, each encoded with differing codecs....all were bit-corrected.
Here are the specific codecs used:
1. Bit perfect original CD copy
2. Bit perfect FLAC lossless copy
3. LAME mp3 maximum @ 320kps (hi-rez)
4. LAME mp3 normal @ 320kps
I listened to the CD-R again yesterday in a friend's system. We both came to the identical conclusion....#4 was the best sounding overall, and the most natural. #2 was very good (and I want to do more comparisons with #4), but again, our ears and brains voted for #4....more spacious, more transparency, more dimensionality, more natural timbre. The original redbook version sounded flat and congested in comparison (and that's what I've been accustomed to all these years!!). #3, the hi-rez 320 version was pretty good, but the more natural quality of #4 got our overall vote. Perhaps the hi-rez algorithm looks better on paper, but the "normal" version sounded more musical in the real world.
Thought you'd enjoy this information.
alan m. kafton
audio excellence az