Is there an mp3 like program supporting 24/48?

[Keni]

Yeah... what an nested loop of diminished thinking.

 

I was simply wondering if there is an audio compression technique that yields a compressed 48k/24bit playable file akin to mp3?

 

It's a funny thing in my mind, but I was thinking I would like to share a higher quality online than mp3 as compressed 44.1/16 yet more expediently (smaller). Kind of 3 steps forward 2 steps back, but better none the less?

 

Anyone have any thoughts?

[Colin Nicholls]

FLAC ? Not as compact as mp3 but TANSTAAFL

My music archive used to be 320kbps mp3 but I've recently been ripping all my CDs using FLAC.

[Keni]

2 hours ago, Colin Nicholls said:

FLAC ? Not as compact as mp3 but TANSTAAFL

My music archive used to be 320kbps mp3 but I've recently been ripping all my CDs using FLAC.

Thanks Colin...

 

What are FLAC variables? I thought FLAC to be full fidelity, not compressed. I guess I was mistaken?

Does FLAC have a 24bit compressed format? I’ll start looking around. I will see what CbB's FLAC export offers...

 

[craigb]

1 hour ago, Keni said:

I thought FLAC to be full fidelity, not compressed.

It is both.  MP3's are considered a "lossy" format because, after compression, you can't uncompress them and get the full fidelity.  FLAC (and others like ACC) are compressed, but they don't lose any of the information required to recreate the original.  Hence they are obviously larger than lossy types, but are still much smaller than uncompressed formats like AIFF and WAV.

Also, FLAC files can also provide a resolution of up to 32-bit, 96kHz, which is even better than the standard CD!

[Keni]

20 minutes ago, craigb said:

It is both.  MP3's are considered a "lossy" format because, after compression, you can't uncompress them and get the full fidelity.  FLAC (and others like ACC) are compressed, but they don't lose any of the information required to recreate the original.  Hence they are obviously larger than lossy types, but are still much smaller than uncompressed formats like AIFF and WAV.

Also, FLAC files can also provide a resolution of up to 32-bit, 96kHz, which is even better than the standard CD!

Thanks Craig...

 

I'm looking into flac now. Me desire is to decrease file size for internet friendly sizes, but retain a higher quality.

I'd like to start storing 24bit copies online, but while wav supports up to 32/192, file sizes are typically too large to be web friendly. Hoping to store 24/48 lossless. Right now a 24/48 4 minute song is about 40M and a 16/44.1/192 mp5 shrinks it down to around 5M. 

[John K]

What about Ogg Vorbis. Maintains good sound quality at smaller ratios than mp3 and supported by most players.

Go also to  https://www.dbpoweramp.com/  and download the music converter. mp3 goes down after a month trial but all other formats are left for free, including Ogg.

 

 

[slartabartfast]

There is no way you are going to get lossless compression that will rival an MP3 in size, for the very good reason that an MP3 throws away a lot of data. It is like the difference between packing a dozen pillows into a suitcase and packing three pillows instead. An  alternative is to compromise on the largely inaudible differences between 24/48 and  16/44.1. One second of audio at 24/48k requires 1,152,000 bits compared to 705,600 bits at 16/44.1k a size reduction of about 40% for the CD quality file. That compares roughly  to FLAC average size reduction. Further compression of the 16/44.1k file using FLAC would bring the size down again, but nowhere near the  size reduction of 11:1 ratio that is available in the 128kb/s MP3 bitrate commonly used in streaming.

As noted Ogg Vorbis is a lossy compression, but the comparison with MP3 for the same bit rate is a matter of opinion. In any event if you are choosing a lossy compression scheme you have made the choice to have something that sounds OK rather than something that is accurate in reproducing  the original. If you are trying to provide live streaming of your data, then obviously lower quality for higher speed of transmission is the tradeoff. If you are trying to store your data online for later access, then there is no reason except time and convenience to compress at all, and you have a stronger argument for using a lossless compression.

[Bruno de Souza Lino]

On 3/27/2021 at 5:20 PM, craigb said:

Also, FLAC files can also provide a resolution of up to 32-bit, 96kHz, which is even better than the standard CD!

And you win precisely nothing with that, especially considering music is compressed to be louder and you have permanent hearing loss at the maximum headroom of 32 bit audio. Higher sample rates have become unnecessary after the introduction of oversampling in plugins and so on. Plus you can't hear the extra 24 thousand frequencies added by the sample rate anyways. Only advantage would be file size but then... You'll find many instances where FLAC files are larger than their WAV equivalents.

 

[craigb]

4 hours ago, Bruno de Souza Lino said:

And you win precisely nothing with that, especially considering music is compressed to be louder and you have permanent hearing loss at the maximum headroom of 32 bit audio. Higher sample rates have become unnecessary after the introduction of oversampling in plugins and so on. Plus you can't hear the extra 24 thousand frequencies added by the sample rate anyways. Only advantage would be file size but then... You'll find many instances where FLAC files are larger than their WAV equivalents.

 

All true!  However, I was just answering the OP's questions. ?