Preferred FORMAT???

[F_c_O]

Vinyl and tape, depending on genre. For some reason, I just feel like certain genre fits certain format better than any other format. For example, I prefer noise/power electronics on tapes over any other format while I like my sludge and punk most on 7" vinyl. The reason I prefer these dead formats is, first of all, they look way better than any other format out there. Secondly, I enjoy the 'ritual' of playing them, having to flip the side, rewind and all that plus in my opinion, cd or digital files just dont sound the same as vinyl and tape.

[l.b.]

in terms of versatility, usage, and potential from artists' standpoint (as opposed to just listener), i think cd is the 'best' format. not restricted by side lengths, cheaper to ship than LPs, can play in the car or at your lame friend's house who doesn't have a turntable. sound-wise too, no loss of extreme highs + lows like with tape or vinyl (although this doesnt always matter with something like p.e. or harsh noise).

edit: "best" that is in terms of least limitation/most possibility. you could put shitty black metal or high-fidelity drone on a cd and it would work. i would not like to listen to klaus schulze, for instance, on tape. or keiji haino on 7". but harsh noise is fine on tape, hardcore is fine on 7". just a matter of possibilities.

[Bob]

I think I have to conclude that CD is superior to download even if downloading from a site like bandcamp can be cheap and a fast way to get music it does seem that a higher quality music file can be got from ripping a CD and certainly higher quality as well than some thing like a download code with an LP

[Zeno Marx]

I think I have to conclude that CD is superior to download even if downloading from a site like bandcamp can be cheap and a fast way to get music it does seem that a higher quality music file can be got from ripping a CD and certainly higher quality as well than some thing like a download code with an LP

That's not the case most of the time.  Bandcamp, for instance, offers a lossless option.  It might even offer more than one.  wav, aif, aiff, flac, shn, ape, ALAC, and m4a (lossless container) are all lossless and of the same quality as ripping a CD to wav.  For the average user, downloading the Bandcamp lossless option is actually a better idea than ripping a CD with iTunes or a lesser software.  EAC or XLD ripping, with the proper settings and following correct protocol, is comparable to downloading lossless from Bandcamp.  Most people don't use, or don't know how to use, EAC or XLD optimally, so their rips are lesser than the Bandcamp lossless download.

*and some of the Bandcamp lossless downloads are shared at 24-bit and higher sampling rates, so they could be sharing directly from the studio masters rather than the dithered 16/44 that was sent to the CD plant.  in those instances, Bandcamp is offering the best version available.

[Bob]

Well I am not sure about that going onto bandcamp now this is what is available to me
(This album https://lesbian.bandcamp.com/album/forestelevision)

Standard high-quality formats:
MP3 V0 - 85.2MB
MP3 320 - 101.6MB
Audiophiles and Nerds:
FLAC - 312.4MB
AAC - 77.1MB
Ogg Vorbis - 62.3MB
ALAC - 348.8MB

So yes there is a higher or bigger file option but I can rip a CD using windows media player as a lossless audio file and it can be up to 600 to 700 MB in size or more. For instance a bandcamp release at 54.39 length I can download it as FLAC 355MB or even ALAC 365MB but a CD I have ripped at 61.3 min length is 627 MB in size.
So I would say I think an audio file at 355MB is a perfectly good enough quality to listen to but I do think I can get better quality with a CD rip. Maybe for some albums a very big file will not suit it because it is not a very high quality recording in the first place so to have it a really large file might be useless for some things anyway. I still like all formats but I don't think I would listen to a 60 min album at 100 MB it is to low quality. I have never used itunes.

[Zeno Marx]

Well I am not sure about that going onto bandcamp now this is what is available to me
(This album https://lesbian.bandcamp.com/album/forestelevision)

Standard high-quality formats:
MP3 V0 - 85.2MB
MP3 320 - 101.6MB
Audiophiles and Nerds:
FLAC - 312.4MB
AAC - 77.1MB
Ogg Vorbis - 62.3MB
ALAC - 348.8MB

So yes there is a higher or bigger file option but I can rip a CD using windows media player as a lossless audio file and it can be up to 600 to 700 MB in size or more. For instance a bandcamp release at 54.39 length I can download it as FLAC 355MB or even ALAC 365MB but a CD I have ripped at 61.3 min length is 627 MB in size.
So I would say I think an audio file at 355MB is a perfectly good enough quality to listen to but I do think I can get better quality with a CD rip. Maybe for some albums a very big file will not suit it because it is not a very high quality recording in the first place so to have it a really large file might be useless for some things anyway. I still like all formats but I don't think I would listen to a 60 min album at 100 MB it is to low quality. I have never used itunes.

It doesn't sound like you understand the technology involved here.  The FLAC (355) and ALAC (365) is the same quality as your 627, but since you're using a poor quality ripper like Windows Media Player, the FLAC and ALAC are actually higher quality than your CD rip.  You're going on size of files, and it is inconsequential.  There is no loss in the FLAC or ALAC numbers.  They are all lossless.

In your Lesbian example, the FLAC and ALAC are the same as having the full wav.  They've been compressed (but not altered) in their container.  As I said, you don't appear to have a good grasp on what technology is in use here or what happens in the various processes.

The MP3s, AAC, and Ogg are all lossy and not part of this discussion, but you're associating them all with lossy because you're confused into thinking 627 automatically means better than the FLAC and ALAC numbers.  You could send me a wav file of a song of your choice, and we could look at its wav form.  Then we could take a look at the FLAC or ALAC wav form of that same track and it would be identical to the wav image.  It's all lossless.  This would not be the case for MP3, AAC, or Ogg, because they are lossy.

Again, that FLAC (355) and ALAC (365) is higher quality than the 627 Windows Media Player rip, but only because Windows Media Player is a poor tool.  Windows Media Player doesn't rip bit for bit, so it isn't identical to your CD.  If you were using better software, they would all be of identical quality.

wav = AIFF/AIF = FLAC = ALAC.  These are all identical files, though their sizes differ.

[RyanWreck]

....god damn it Bob.

[Bob]

I see well that explains allot and I am glad if someone can tell me I freely admit it don't understand all this stuff about different file types and sizes. But can you recommend some better software then to rip CDs other than the Windows Media Player ? Or anyone ? I am a bit disappointed because with a really big file size I can only fit a small amount of stuff on my walkman.

[Zeno Marx]

I see well that explains allot and I am glad if someone can tell me I freely admit it don't understand all this stuff about different file types and sizes. But can you recommend some better software then to rip CDs other than the Windows Media Player ? Or anyone ? I am a bit disappointed because with a really big file size I can only fit a small amount of stuff on my walkman.

Exact Audio Copy for PC, and XLD for Apple.  dbpoweramp is an OK ripper, but even it is considered 2nd rate in comparison to EAC and XLD.  It takes about fifteen minutes to set up the Exact Audio Copy correctly, and there is a short, step by step, process to ripping CDs with it.  You quickly get used to it, and it takes only an extra minute to do it.

Exact Audio Copy setup tutorial & ripping tutorial:
http://filesharingtalk.com/threads/435208-Installing-configuring-and-ripping-with-Exact-Audio-Copy-%28EAC%29

XLD setup tutorial & ripping tutorial:
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=102584

[Zugzwang Productions]

Like some people said earlier, I like all format, and think they each work better depending of the situation/genre/artist message. I like CDs and mp3 because they are practical, tapes because they are cute and have a sound quality that fits some genres, LP because they look great etc.

[13]

I've always loved the future positive "cyberpunk" edge of the compact disc. Sony first intended it to be a luxury format for the japanese market, and that's exactly what it looks like. I have lot's of vinyl and tapes as well, but I've never looked upon them as aesthetically superior formats. I like things small and neat.

[Bob]

Right so I have installed both Exact Audio Copy and itunes and I have ripped three CDs twice with both programs I will try to decide which is best by listening. itunes seems to offer a bit more variation in the different types of rip available with regard quality and file size anyway thanks allot for the help Zeno Marx !

[Cementimental]

I've always loved the future positive "cyberpunk" edge of the compact disc.

Yeah!

[13]

End of thread.

[Zeno Marx]

I find it very odd how a lot of people have this notion that a computer is good enough for recording, editing, mastering and CD-authoring music/noise, but somehow mysteriously not good enough for listening to it.

Speakers is not the only issue.

I have never used computer that has good pure & clean sound. Every computer I have used, has flaws of sound when you just use the mini-jack output. Be it my old PC's, lap-tops or various qualities and nowadays iMac. I know all you need is proper soundcard. But as it is, if I burn audio on CD and play it on stereos, sound is much better than play file.

This is a key factor when using a computer as a stereo component.  From what I'm reading, there is a lot of background noise (crosstalk) on a computer, and stock soundcards aren't intended to give good sound.  My previous computer was terrible with background noises.  At a decent volume, you could hear all kinds of audible garbage that was reminiscent of phone modem squiggles.  I've read more than once that if you want to use your computer as a true stereo component, you wouldn't have any other software on the computer but your player.  It would be stripped of everything else but an OS and a media player.  Most people aren't going to do this for various reasons, but since we're having the conversation, there it is.  And a soundcard designed for high-fidelity and a DAC of some sorts.  That's quite a leap considering a lot of people don't even have audio-grade speakers.

Yep. I'm fully aware of those "squiggles", and despite somewhat destroyed ears, this disturbs me as listener of recording.

I finally set up the WASAPI plug-in for Foobar.  I should have done this a long time ago.  These probably aren't the correct terms, but what it basically does is isolate your soundcard from all other activity.  It's a hassle because you can't listen to music and then play anything else until you've closed Foobar.  youtube won't even load if you're listening through Foobar.  I've been listening through a digital out, thinking it was my best possibility.  Wrong.  WASAPI makes way for a superior sound.  The difference between a normal soundcard setting+digital out vs. WASAPI+digital out is significant.

*I believe there are similar plug-ins and results with the ASIO plug-in for those with such soundcards.