yashsingh1/xdaforums huggingface dataset:
[Galaxy S I9000 General] Tears for Fears:
Sorry I took so long to respond. Had some trouble with relatives. :D

See, that's the thing. FLAC is a lossless format, it's known for keeping sound 100% lossless while saving a lot more space than other lossless formats such as WAV or ALAC. But see, MP3 doesn't save the sound, it kills off pieces of sound (making the quality a lot worse) in order to save space. FLAC only squeezes the sound but leaves it healthy while MP3 is deleting pieces of sound. This is why lossy formats save MUCH more space than ANY lossless format.

Since your songs are already lossy, (320kbps) FLAC or any other lossless format is completely useless, their algorithms will only try to squeeze the sound to maintain its quality (which is already not perfect) so its compression is already limited while lossy formats such as MP3 aren't limited because they can simply reduce the quality.

The reason after compressing your songs the end result comes out bigger than before is because MP3 is already a compression. And as I've said, MP3 isn't limited by quality maintenance, so it saves much more space than FLAC or any other lossless format.

You should also keep in mind that the bitrate isn't a reflection of quality, it's how many bits are stored within a second. So you have to divide the bitrate (320 kb) by 8 to make it into bytes (40 kB ) and multiply it by the duration of the song. Let's imagine it's 4 minutes (240 seconds). So then your song will take 9600 kB, diving it by 1024, you get ~9.4 MB. In most cases, the bitrate can be translated (approximately but not accurately because of different sound compressions) into quality. An MP3 with 320kbps that was compressed the same way will be exactly 2 times better quality than the same MP3 with 160kbps. Common logic. However, just like we can losslessly compress files with WinRAR, we can do the same with sound. For example, a WAV (lossless) can have a bitrate of let's say 1156 kbps, you can use FLAC to compress it to like 778 kbps. However, just like WinRAR, FLAC can save every piece of audio information during the compression process so the quality of 1156kbps WAV and 778kbps FLAC is equal. So this is a clear example when bitrate doesn't accurately tell the quality of sound. This is why technical details always include bitrate, frequency and the format of codec. Example: 320 kbps, 41 kHz, MP3.

Now the best lossy format for storage conservation would probably be MIDI. But you can't really convert your songs into MIDI can you? If storage matters, don't reconvert MP3, just keep it on MP3 and you can try reducing the bitrate a little bit to save some space. If you're not considering yourself an audiophile, the chances are, you won't notice big difference between 192kbps and 320kbps. Make some samples and test it for yourself. It depends on the quality of headphones and the sound driver on your device too, not only your ears and brain.

Sorry if this was a bit lengthy. :D
[Galaxy S I9000 General] edisile:
I already knew lots of this things, but since I am stupid I wanted to try however. I thought it was a good idea xD About reducing the bitrate, I just can't stand anything lower than a 256 kbps m4a file (which sounds like 320 kbps mp3). I have some rap albums at lower bitrates (192 kbps) but since I listen only the words is ok. With electronic music, rock and metal I have to listen the melodies.

My Signature:
[Galaxy S I9000 General] Tears for Fears:
Still, I suggest to make a sample and compare. Only small amount of people can actually tell the difference. And even if they can, it's rarely a big difference. "Noticeability" also depends on psychological determination, not only actual sound quality.
[Galaxy S I9000 General] mrjraider:
Another matter from me.

My oldie acer laptop is 3 years old now. Its harddrive (250 GB) is old and getting slow and broken. (model: Aspire 7730Z)

A lot of broken sectors.

My question is:

Is it better to buy a new one or to replace its hard drive?
[Galaxy S I9000 General] Tears for Fears:
I'd say a new laptop, but it really depends on the price. And I'm not sure how much they cost. :D
[Galaxy S I9000 General] mrjraider:
Our money does not grow on trees and the low price laptops are 400 euro at least. A new Harddrive is cheaper but still, 74 euro for 250 gb harddrive is not worht it..
[Galaxy S I9000 General] Tears for Fears:
That's what I meant. I don't know the prices. :D

Now it entirely depends on your budget and needs. For someone who doesn't care about games, he'd definitely be fine with your laptop, providing everything else works. In such a case, he'd choose buying a new hard drive, but seeing you talk about games a lot, a new laptop would be a better choise of course. (Assuming I understand you correctly. :D) It also depends on what laptop you're going for.

Now you have to valuate your budget. How much you can and how much you want to spend on it. Since you're the only one who knows your finanses, it's really your own bird. I personally would go for buying a new laptop. :D
[Galaxy S I9000 General] edisile:
Ok, I've done the "blind test" (somebody makes you listen the songs, without letting you see which one he picked.). 2 totally different songs (Mindreader by Virtual Riot and Berzerk by Eminem), both encoded in FLAC, 256 kbps m4a (exactly as an 320 kbps mp3), 256 kbps mp3 and, 192 kbps mp3 (I didn't tried lower bitrates, because it would have been easy to recognize them). Test done on my laptop with GOMplayer and my Philips CitiScape Shibuya headphones. Test results?

Mindreader by Virtual Riot

I recognized the 192 kbps mp3, and the 256 kbps one (some little missing sound on the higher frequencies in the outro part of the song). I wasn't able to percieve the difference between the FLAC and the m4a file.

Berzerk by Eminem

Mistook the 192 kbps for the 256 kbps file (both had some problems with the bass guitar, which sound kinda "choppy"), and vice versa. I recognized the FLAC file over the m4a.
[Galaxy S I9000 General] ktulu84:
I can barely tell the difference between 160 and 192 kbps mp3... Ahahaaah

Inviato dal mio GT-i9001 con topatalk 2
[Galaxy S I9000 General] XeLLaR*:
Eww 192kbps is too low for me. All my music is saved as Mp3 with 320kbps or FLAC :good:
[Galaxy S I9000 General] Tears for Fears:
What about recording frequency? :D Does it matter whether it's 41 kHz or 48 kHz or is 41 kHz too low for you as well? :D
[Galaxy S I9000 General] mrjraider:
All my music is MP3 320kbps. Flac is just a giant space waster.. I mean 4GB music in mp3 and after converting 13GB in flac? :P

A bit to much for me XD
[Galaxy S I9000 General] Tears for Fears:
FLAC is rather a giant space saver. :D Don't compare lossy 320kbps MP3 to lossless FLAC! :D FLAC maintains perfect quality while being able to save up to 400 or more kbps! That's huge! :D

Try comparing FLAC to WAV or APE! :D
[Galaxy S I9000 General] mrjraider:
I have 4GB music on my phone in MP3 format.. If i convert it into Flac it uses 13GB of space :(..

Altho, i use DVDVIDEOSOFT Youtube to MP3 converter. I can try to use flac instead of mp3
[Galaxy S I9000 General] DavePKR:
Just spamming; my first post using xda app
[Galaxy S I9000 General] Laurentyu1995:
Welcome bro !!
[Galaxy S I9000 General] DavePKR:
I searched for you on g+ yesterday night, want to ask something related to our device but now I forgot what :))
[Galaxy S I9000 General] Tears for Fears:
No, don't reconvert the format from your songs into lossless formats. The quality has already been lost, so unless you're Superman, the only thing you'll notice is space hogging. :D

The best lossy format you can choose is Windows Media Audio (.wma) (regular or Pro if you want multichannel support). Though it's not as flexible as MP3 and is slightly laggier, so if you have a horrible sound system (sounds system is the central device (phone/PC), sound driver and output device (headphones/earphones) altogether.), it may not work very smoothly if the bitrate/frequency is too high. :D Plus, less players support WMA than MP3.

Also, I do NOT suggest downloading songs from YouTube! :D First reason, of course, is it's illegal, you pirate! :D Second, reconverted sound from a streaming codec will result in a worse quality. If you want to save as much quality by using a lossy format, you will want to have songs that were compressed as little times as possible and YouTube is not the right place. :D

Now in case you'll find an album you really like and want to keep it lossless, your best choises would be FLAC or True Audio (.tta). True Audio supports up to 64 bits per sample (not second) and FLAC supports up to 32 bits per sample. However, anything above 16 bits per sample is an extreme overkill. Both FLAC and TTA speed is similar, however, FLAC usually saves more space than TTA (usually ~50% versus ~30% of the original uncompressed WAV sound). FLAC is also a lot more popular and more widely supported.

Apple's ALAC is comparable with FLAC, but FLAC compression is supperior. As for Monkey's Audio (.ape), it's lossless but it's slower (meaning the sound may be choppy) and inferior than FLAC, ALAC, lossless WMA or others.

Edit: The only player on Android I know that supports TTA is GoneMAD Music Player. :D
[Galaxy S I9000 General] mrjraider:
Well about quality thats not true in my opninion.. To be honest i dont hear much diffrence between al those formats.
[Galaxy S I9000 General] khasim893:
Error

When ever i install any 4.3 JB rom, i am getting "No Removal Storage Mounted" error in several backup apps(like in app backup & sms backup)

Help me..

Currently i am on DevConnection's 4.2.2 RC6...
[Galaxy S I9000 General] mrjraider:
Wipe /system /data /cache and /dalvik-Cache and reflash.. This will fix it. (I hope XD)
[Galaxy S I9000 General] khasim893:
ok will do and let u know
[Galaxy S I9000 General] Tears for Fears:
That's probably because you're not an audiophile. :D

Also, to notice a difference between, let's say, 192kbps and 320 kbps, not only you need a good ear but also good headphones. Same goes for differences between compression methods.

The only formats that have equal quality are lossless formats. However, that doesn't mean they're equally good. Some have wider support (example: 1-64 bits per sample of TTA versus 16-32 bits of ALAC), some are more widely supported (example: more used in audio compression, more players support them etc.), some are faster (example: 46ms latency versus 120ms latency), some compress audio better (example: 60% of original uncompressed WAV sound versus 30% of WAV.)

However, YouTube is simply incapable of holding truly high quality sound. :D Imagine the bandwidth!
[Galaxy S I9000 General] mrjraider:
My music is perfect when i hear an significant ammount of Bass and a song that has a clear sound. To achieve this effect the best i use Viper4Android. Altho it is an heavy app but still it gives me the sound i want to hear...
[Galaxy S I9000 General] Tears for Fears:
Of course, there are people from different ranges of the "audio spectrum". :D Some people are even fine with 122kbps@41kHz MP3.

As I said somewhere before, only small amount of people can tell the difference of anything above 192kbps.
[Galaxy S I9000 General] edisile:
About the frequency, I never heard music with more than 44 kHz, mainly because I never listened to a vinyl and the CDs (100% of modern music) have only 44 kHz. In an era where there's people that go around with Beats by Dr. Dre headphones and makes fun of you because you use not trendy "cans" (I used to have a pair of Sennheisers and a guy with a pair of Beats Solo asked me in which cheap Chinese store I bought them *facepalm*), I feel kinda lucky to feel the difference between 320 and 192 kbps. Both songs I used were downloaded in FLAC (actually Berzerk was in ALAC, converted in FLAC) then converted into m4a/mp3. The only reason I can't stand anything under 320 kbps is because I have more than 60% of my musical collection downloaded or ripped this way. Plus, is actually awful how mp3 "chops" the treble under 256 kbps (I have all the AC/DC discography ripped this way, except Black Ice, and I can assure that hearing how the guitar is "limited" is just bad). Even though I'm a bit of a basshead, if I listen to a song I don't want to hear only the kick.

Funny anecdote: the only time I cursed near my father (he didn't heard me, however :P), was when he put a 64 kbps mono-channel song in the car's radio, with the volume maxed out. I heard the speakers crying out for help. xD

My Signature:

EDIT: it seems that I still manage to recognize a 320 kbps mp3 and a 192 one even with my earbuds (mainly because some "missing" sound = lower volume)

EDIT 2:

I'd tell you some things about this, but I'd get my a*s round-house kicked out from XDA. A 320 kbps sound (full HD video) on YouTube, has a quality way lower than a ripped 256 kbps song. If you just let the software do its job, without doing anything in the settings about the quality, you may even get 64 kbps mp3 files. Talking about piracy, I find that the "64/128 kbps free preview - paid lossless file" system that some artists and sites (e.g bandcamp) use is good enough (even though there should be only incomplete preview tracks, just like on play music). Some people may download the preview but if they have some music taste will pay to download it in higher quality. I used bandcamp as an example, because is full of upcoming/not famous/beginning artists that release their albums for free (Now, since this album is COMPLETELY free and worth to be listened at least once I'm gonna share the link here. First Crush EP - Sabrepulse. He's a pretty "famous" DJ and multi-genre producer, mainly known for his chiptune songs. If you like the album, you better keep an eye on his bandcamp account, since he should release a new album soon.), with a name-your-price option, or at low prices. I watch it like the music's XDA: most things are free, but you can also donate to support the producer.
[Galaxy S I9000 General] mrjraider:
I did try alot at first. Chaning some setting with some lame musicsoftware but since these programs are abracadabra to me...

Also the files i get now are more than fine for me..
[Galaxy S I9000 General] Tears for Fears:
You can't really tell the difference hearing different frequencies, because the maximum a human ear needs would be 40kHz (divided into two channels, we get 20kHz - highest sound frequency a human ear can register.). Because of the conversion to the analog signal, ultrasonic frequencies have to be filtered out, so everyone is using higher frrquencies. And yes, CDs are using 44.1 kHz frequency. However, if you've had listened to DVD, 48 kHz is user in them. Those two are the most common frequencies used.

It's been VERY widely debated whether it's worth sampling at higher frequencies or not. A human ear would just not hear the difference, but the higher frequencies require more resources, RAM, CPU etc. According to some audiophiles' experience and studies, while we can't hear the true sound difference, sampling at higher frequencies makes the frequency of distortion and jittering out of human hearing range and thus "cleaning" the sound. Though it hasn't been proven scientifically.

If you're ever going to record or convert audio to higher frequencies, 96 kHz would be the best choise according to long experience, however, reconverting 96 kHz to 44.1 kHz to fit in CD is very difficult without losing much quality, and vice versa as well. So if you have 96 kHz audio, it's best to convert it to DVD fitting 48 kHz. Otherwise, convert 44.1 kHz to 88.2 kHz (or vice versa).

And I definitely suggest you listen to vinyl, the audio sounds much more naturally than digital CD/DVD sound.

In your place, I would laugh my ass out at people like that. (I even giggled while reading.) Let them enjoy their closed media-driven fantasies. :D

I totally agree with you here. I can relate to you. When listening to music, one of the most annoying things is to hear distortion in sound and missing high/low frequency details, it instantly ruins my mood and I immediately turn off whatever the heck is producing that sound and go back to my golden collection! :D That sound purity is what makes digital music stand up for its drawbacks.

Ugh, I can imagine that sounded awful! :D Such things literally hurt my ears... :D

---------- Post added at 10:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:07 PM ----------

[MENTION=4715675]mrjraider[/MENTION] , I also want to add to this point that even noise and distortion take binary space. So when you hear "snow" in a song, it's not only because of missing information, but also because that "snow" is created and takes its partial space. So a noisy 320kbps MP3 audio file can sound worse than 122 kbps. Technically, its "quality" will be "better", but to a human, it would sound horrible.

However, compressing the sound or converting it doesn't create that "snow" (unless you use a horrible converter), but fetching sound from a streaming video that has limited bandwidth and overcompressed data, may create it. You don't download an MP3 from YouTube, the software scans the video, rips the audio data and creates an MP3 file. This exposes the sound data to "snow".

Edit: I'm fully aware that the sound you get is good enough for you, I just pointed this out for general knowledge.
[Galaxy S I9000 General] mrjraider:
Some snow sound can also be caused by the FX you use. The one on my oldie Sony Walkmanphone has this issue. For some reason it makes an annoying sound when no music is playing.
[Galaxy S I9000 General] Tears for Fears:
Of course, but we're talking about raw sound files, without any effects created with additional software. :D

Edit: I just LOVE when this thread is jacked by music/audio talks! :D
[Galaxy S I9000 General] mrjraider:
Yes ive noticed that haha.
[Galaxy S I9000 General] edisile:
An audiophile thread should be created xD

My Signature:
[Galaxy S I9000 General] Tears for Fears:
Totally! :D

Also, it seems you're not missing the 2000th post this time! :D
[Galaxy S I9000 General] edisile:
Don't even think that. Just 70 posts to go. In a week or less we will get over 2000.

My Signature:
[Galaxy S I9000 General] Tears for Fears:
When this thread is active, it can squeeze up to 120 posts per day. It happened twice before.
[Galaxy S I9000 General] edisile:
This days it hasn't been so active. But don't even worry. I'm subscribed to this thread, and I get a Tapatalk notification every time someone posts.

My Signature:
[Galaxy S I9000 General] Tears for Fears:
I know, but if it can get up to 120 posts in an active day, surely, we can makr that 2000th post tomorrow or the day after. zD

I wonder what would mrjraider say if he'd miss it... He's usually the most enthusiastic about it. :D
[Galaxy S I9000 General] mrjraider:
So movie had ended, im back from walking the dog and now we're watching tv.
[Galaxy S I9000 General] educk:
So... Off-Topic thread you say?

Here is Fox News trying to explain what GitHub is: https://twitter.com/Huth/status/378306063520374784/photo/1

Pretty damn close :laugh:
[Galaxy S I9000 General] XeLLaR*:
48kHz is standard..im kind of an audiophile. I cant stand low music quality, even if i like the track/musican.
[Galaxy S I9000 General] Tears for Fears:
Well, you see, frrquency doesn't tell the quality of music! :D Standard for CD audio is 44.1 kHz.

In frequency, bigger doesn't translate to better. A human ear can't hear anything above 20 kHz. And that's maximum. A regular adult can only hear up to 16-18 kHz sound. Multiplying it by two channels, you get 40 kHz. To filter out created noise, people use a bit higher frequencies than 40 kHz.

According to scientific studies, people can't tell the difference between 44.1/48/88.2/96 kHz. Most people believe 44.1 kHz is the best option for sampling sound as it usually causes least problems, plus the compability with CDs. Bitrate may translate into listening sound quality in most cases, but not sampling frequency.
[Galaxy S I9000 General] edisile:
Nailed it!
[Galaxy S I9000 General] Lei M:
To the Audio Frequencies:

People (usually) can not hear frequencies above 16-20 kHz.

I thought.

Until someone an my engineering school made an Amplifier and the right "boxes" for it themselves, that work linear(same output power) over the whole frequence-spectrum from <20Hz - >40 kHz.

At a power of max 2000 Watts!

I heard it with a power of about 5-20watt.

it was extremely loud in a very large room.

When I heard LindseyStirling - Crystallize the first time, it was amazing!!!

There was no unwanted noise ;)

clearest music ever

You do not hear the high frequencies alone, but you feel the much better sound of music.

you can't hear the high frequencies because your headphones are too bad!

(fyi: buying such an audiophile system costs more than 20000€!!)

sent by Larry via xda-app
[Galaxy S I9000 General] Tears for Fears:
I have cleared up the noise reduction of higher frequencies. This doesn't apply to 44.1 kHz versus 48 kHz. It applies to 44.1 kHz versus 88.2 kHz.

However, despite of how much you spend on your headphones, you will still not hear those frequencies. Your headphone frequency range may even be 1 Hz - 35 kHz, you will simply not hear them. Your ears cannot register these frequencies.

What happened is that the electromagnetic frequency altered the sonic frequency. Both are waves, of course. You didn't hear >40kHz. That 40 kHz was brought down to your hearing range.

As for the noise reduction, frequency modulation devices can identify signal from noise. They amplify the signal, "bringing" the signal to our hearing range while keeping noise out of the way.

So basically, the only purpose there is to reduce noise while being able to listen to the signal normally. However, commercial headphones don't have a frequency range to last higher than 22 kHz. Neither are they powerful enough, so whatever headphones we will buy, we will be limited. So sampling at different frequencies will not alter what we hear in the output device.
[Galaxy S I9000 General] XeLLaR*:
Well, my doc said i can hear up to 23 kHz. Well, im kinda young tho, i guess it will be lowet when i get older..

But till then ill enjoy my music. (32gb full of mp3's and few FLAC albums) :D
[Galaxy S I9000 General] Tears for Fears:
It's hard to understand this. Google Translate isn't a good way to translate text. However, it sounds like this is an article from Wikipedia, judging from the last lines.

You can't copy and Google Translate an article. You have to summarise it. What is your intention of this post? Is it contradicting a previous post? If so, which part? Is something unclear? Are you adding additiomal points?
[Galaxy S I9000 General] Lei M:
you are right ;)

it yust says why >20kHz is important (because of harmonics)

the Article is from here:

http://www.selfmadehifi.de/hifi.htm

in German...

sent by Larry via xda-app
[Galaxy S I9000 General] Tears for Fears:
Psychoacoustics is a very young science.

The principle of harmonics and overtone (from what I understood reading Google Translated text) is correct, however, the harmony is still a sonic wave. Just like echo. It fades away together with fundamental signal because our ears do not register it. Whether ultrasonic frequencies affect our perception of audible range is pure speculation, all scientific evidences lead to otherwise conclusions. What we do know is that none of us is able to feel the difference other than the placebo effect.

Now even if some future studies in Psychoacoustics can prove ultrasonic frequency can affect our perception of audible frequency, don't confuse analog signal with digital. The harmony is fixed, the sound is created by binary bits not an actual physical instrument. That's like comparing a CD recording to a live concert.

But as I said, that's just wild speculation, although we cannot prove whether ultrasonics affect audibles, scientific studies show otherwise. So the only purpose of a higher frequency sampling would be to clarify signal from noise, as I've said a few posts back. Even if we'd have super headphones, we'd still not be able to differentiate between 44.1 kHz or 48 kHz. And I don't mean consciously but physically. That extra 2050 Hz is enough to "clean" the audio. (1 kHz would actually be enough.)