Dave
very active
Posts: 480
|
Post by Dave on Apr 22, 2013 10:01:08 GMT
Something that has long puzzled me - not difficult - is the number that appears in brackets after the word 'Accurate' after using dbPowerAmp for ripping CDs. I might have got a clue yesteday so I thought I'd ask the experts on here . Normally the number that appears is '1' o '2' but ocassionally it can be a little higher. Yesterday I ripped a Mercury Living Presence CD of the 1812 Overture and was warned by the (charity) seller to turn down the volume when first listening to it (because of the dynamic range?). The figure that appeared in brackets after 'Accurate' was '11' - never seen anything remotely close to that before so does it relate to the dynamic range on the CD and ripped copy? And whilst we're considering this, can anyone throw any light on the compression level options (1 to 8, default 5), that dbPowerAmp offers?. What are the pros and cons of the higher and lower levels, particularly on SQ, if any? TIA, Dave.
|
|
solderdude
Administrator
measureutternutter
Posts: 4,881
|
Post by solderdude on Apr 22, 2013 12:08:59 GMT
Confidence level (after accurate) and Dynamic Range are not related in any way. Confidence level says something about the ripping method and amount of errors encountered (AFAIK)
To check for Dynamic Range you need the analysis program from DR database.
Compression level options is for FLAC only and has influence on the final file size similar to a ZIP file that can be compressed fast (biggest file size) and slow (smallest possible file size) and has to do with the speed the files are encoded. Doesn't do nothing when ripping to WAV. It's for FLAC only,
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2013 12:24:57 GMT
And whilst we're considering this, can anyone throw any light on the compression level options (1 to 8, default 5), that dbPowerAmp offers?. What are the pros and cons of the higher and lower levels, particularly on SQ, if any? Frans, understand your answer about compression level not mattering when you are ripping to wav. But what about if you are going to be playing the flac file as is, using, say, Foobar and having been ripped by EAC? In that case, what would be the best compression level to use for absolute sound quality, disregarding file size or any other consideration?
|
|
Javier
Administrator
Digital bytes
Posts: 986
|
Post by Javier on Apr 22, 2013 13:59:32 GMT
There is no relation between compression level and SQ when using lossless formats like FLAC, ALAC, APE, etc. as they are all by definition well....lossless. MP3 or other lossy formats are different and the higher the compression the bigger the loss. You can try comparing different compression leveles using Foobar's ABX plugin (do you know how to use it?). Lossless compression level refers only to the final size of the file and the amount of CPU/time required for the encoding process. The higher compression needs a more poweful CPU or it'll take longer time than lower compression. FLAC compression hits the best size/encoding time balance with a compression of 5 or 6, going beyond that takes longer and doesn't reduce size much more than those. I always encode FLAC to level 6 which is fast enough in my lowly Core i3 2100 and size is +/-50% of the original WAV. BTW, Foobar's DR plugin is great for comparing different editions of the same disk, the differences between pre loudness war era and most current remasters can be amazingly huge, the plugin can be found here: www.jokhan.demon.nl/DynamicRange/foo_dynamic_range_1.1.1.zipI always "DR scan" files and have a column in Foobar showing each track's value (red rectangle):
|
|
solderdude
Administrator
measureutternutter
Posts: 4,881
|
Post by solderdude on Apr 22, 2013 14:24:37 GMT
And whilst we're considering this, can anyone throw any light on the compression level options (1 to 8, default 5), that dbPowerAmp offers?. What are the pros and cons of the higher and lower levels, particularly on SQ, if any? Frans, understand your answer about compression level not mattering when you are ripping to wav. But what about if you are going to be playing the flac file as is, using, say, Foobar and having been ripped by EAC? In that case, what would be the best compression level to use for absolute sound quality, disregarding file size or any other consideration? When you are ripping the higher 'compression' is slower. The result being a slightly smaller file. On Playback the FLAC is 'decoded' and the difference in decoding speed isn't very big. Certainly not as big as the difference in encoding. This deecoding of the FLAC happens in the PC and is not real time, not even when streaming a FLAC. It is decoded and or filtered/upsampled in the player/PC and the decoded signals are sent to the DAC in the exact same way as a decoded MP3 or WAV is sent to a DAC. WAV is also processed in the player/PC in almost the same way as the FLAC is b.t.w. and is not streamed directly to a DAC. Certainly not when digital volume control is used. The DAC in itself (certainly all the modern DAC's) in its turn also shifts and filters and upsamples the incoming data yet again. So much for bit perfect... So there should be no difference in SQ in differently compressed FLAC files even by different rippers/converters. Just like there is no difference in a ZIP'ed, RAR'ed, 7-Zip'ed file once decompressed. The only differences are in compressed file size and the time it takes to compress and decompress.
|
|