• Steam recently changed the default privacy settings for all users. This may impact tracking. Ensure your profile has the correct settings by following the guide on our forums.

I'm a noob to audio qualities :)

ilyace

Member
On what.cd I see all of these different formats (well, most are mp3), but I really don't understand it all. I see FLAC, which I believe is pretty much a lossless type right? Then there's different types of mp3 (V0, V2)...can somebody try to explain all of the differences to me? Thanks.
 
Yep, FLAC is lossless, meaning very little audio quality is lost from the CD rip. When you rip a CD it get's ripped to WAV and then compressed. When you compress WAV to FLAC you lose very little (taken as none) quality.

The format MP3 can only "hold" up to 320 kbps, where as FLACs will be up to the high 900's and more. So the best quality MP3 you'll find on What.cd is a 320 kbps MP3. The only problem with 320 kbps tracks is that they are quite big, so V0 is second in line and tends to be the most preferable MP3 format. V0 uses special algorithms to get the best possible quality to size ratio (the bit rate will be variable). V2 is basically the same idea except worse quality, it's there for people who have small MP3 players etc.

Hope that helps.
 
FLAC is loseless, meaning it's audibly identical to the source format. There are two common misconceptions about FLAC:
1. That's it's lower quality than uncompressed codecs (eg WAV). This is total crap because compression in this case is unrelated to quality. The FLACs are uncompressed to loseless in real time (think of RARs, when you unRAR something the output file is not worse than what you put in, the same with FLAC).
2. That it guarantees very good sound quality. Although it usually does this is not 100% as CDs can me mastered lossy and obviously low quality sounds can be transcoded to FLAC, it depends on the source. For all intents and purposes though FLAC is extremely good quality, too much so really. You will never be able to tell the difference between V0 MP3 and FLAC.
Unless you want carbon copies of a CD to burn with a CUE file (a kind of blueprint for a CDs content) do not download FLAC.

V0 and V2 are the newer variable bit rate encoding options for LAME (replacing APS and APX respectively). LAME is the best MP3 encoder without a doubt.
Variable bit rate (VBR) is the efficient way to encode audio as it gives more quality to areas that need it and less to parts that don't (like really quiet areas).
They are in contrast to constant bit rate encoding options (CBR) that just put a flat rate sound quality to all parts of a sound giving a larger file size and in some cases worse sound quality in comparison to the VBR equivalent. CBR encodings are represented with whatever bit rate is constant (usually 320 or 192 kbps).
Again 320 is overkill, you will never be able to tell the difference between it and V0, plus V0 is smaller in file size so always get it over 320 if it's available.
If I was to be honest it's not likely you'll ever even be able to tell the difference between V0 and V2 and to go even further there's a good chance you won't be able to tell a V2 rip from a 192 rip.
Since V2 has a nice trade off between file size and quality I'd say get it, you won't be disappointed. It's probably better than what you've been downloading anyway.

MP3 is not a dying format yet even though it should be, as a side note encode a song with Nero's AAC codec at .35 VBR (~100 kbps) and you'll see (hear?) you can't tell it from a FLAC source even though the m4a's file size is a tenth of the source. Even at .25 you'll only start to hear the difference.
OGG and AAC are far better than MP3.

Most people (me included) don't have the training or the sound systems to hear the legacies that lossy codecs leave behind on audio (and the frequencies cut out) so ignore the elitists if they tell you otherwise.
In short: Download V2.
 
I dont really sure about this but I got a mp3 with the same bit rate but one has Vbr at the end...

Ex

192. kbps

192. kbps(VRB)

what the diff?
 
That was something I was going to mention in my first post as it is a pet hate of mine. There is no such thing as 192 VBR or any number VBR. This is an error in labelling probably caused by the uploader's ignorance in relation to the term VBR.
Almost always 192 VBR is actually V2, the confusion is caused because V2 is the VBR equivalent to 192.
If the number is some random number like let's say 145 VBR then that is because the uploader has mistaken the average bit rate of a file for it's VBR encoding, these are usually Vx encodings (x being any number from 0-9) or odd CBR encodings and the uploader doesn't get that it isn't VBR.

Before downloading a whole album with an odd stated bit rate, download one song and check it with Audio Identifier to see if the actual quality is good enough for you.
 
I have other wired bit rates also..

243,152,212,194,195 ex....

Where these mistakes of the uploaded also?

and say I use itunes to convert all my music bit rates from 96 kbps to 320 kbps. I have 11,000 and it about 60gb... if I make everything 192 kbps whould I see major inreace in trems of size from say 60 to 75 gb..
 
Yeah they're mistakes, those readings are most likely the average bit rate for a music file and it's actually some VBR encoding.

You can't transcode up to a higher bit rate, it's be like shrinking an image and then resizing it up again. The quality would be lost, the same with audio.
Now if you replaced 60gb of 96 kbps audio with 192 kbps then it'd increase your collection to somewhere around 120gb.
Again you cannot just convert to 192 from 96, the quality is already gone. If you want better quality you'll have to re-download everything.
Anyway you should use V2, it's much more efficient (although personally I only download V0).
 
i'm hating what.cd
i managed to get myself on ratio watch as my internet doesnt seem to want to share anything that i've leeched from them.
:(
 
Well then it not a good idea to use private trackers then.
 
Back
Top