Quote
StonesTod
incidentally, there isn't a soul among us who could tell the difference in sound between these mp3's and the flac files...anyone who says otherwise is a fibber.

I'm beginning to come to that same conclusion. It's kinda like that high frequency that only dogs can hear, I'm sure some tech nut could analyze that on a spectrum also.

Quote
StonesTod
incidentally, there isn't a soul among us who could tell the difference in sound between these mp3's and the flac files...anyone who says otherwise is a fibber.

If I listen to the same track encoded in FLAC and then in MP3 I can tell the difference. Particularly on trebles which are less defined with MP3 files.

Quote
kowalski
screenshots of spectral analysis

Cool. You can actually SEE the difference in SOUND quality.
Now, if I only had the guts to post a picture of my ears

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

Quote
deadegad
The people who want the vaults open are obviously true audiophiles/tapers and of course super Stones fans so it is baffling as to why someone in The stones camp did not make it happen despite Google vs. Itunes competition.

Maybe someone should upload the official Flac at a free torrent sight and F these clueless fools?!?!

That's the way business learns.

If they do not make the vault releases available in hard copy, actual physical cds, rather than just cyber space releases, they will turn up as overpriced bootlegs at the Bootleg Shop.

- Most of the audiophile true stones fans do want vinyl, I've learned by reading IORR.

- Only very few fans are knowing about these *.flac, most of them are filesharers. And people who know about these files do know some ways to get them without paying for them, too. So there is only a very small market in these kind of files. *.mp3 is the common standard. Like VHS-Cassette was ...

- the storage of "cyber releases" is very cheap, no discs, no cases, no shipping, no storage, no outcuts needed ...

For those of you who use bittorent the first fan remastered version has shown up on demonoid...the dynamic range makes the songs jump at you better!

[www.demonoid.me]

Yeah hearing the flac mp3 difference is minimal. Yeah cyber releases are cheaper. I would pay for the physical product rather than going to a torrent site because there is nothing like having it in your hand while enjoying the music. the size o vinyl back in the day was the best. Oh well . . ..

Quote
StonesTod
incidentally, there isn't a soul among us who could tell the difference in sound between these mp3's and the flac files...anyone who says otherwise is a fibber.

Not sure why you would say something like that. I mean, maybe YOU can't hear the difference but how do you know that other people can't as well? Not saying that I can hear the difference between a FLAC file and a high quality mp3, but I certainly wouldn't say that anybody who claims to is a liar.

I want FLAC files because I want lossless audio. I want the best sound possible, as if I bought a cd. I don't even play FLAC files on my computer but if you're burning music to disc, you want to have the best sound quality possible. Or at least I do. That's why I want FLAC files.

Quote
HighwireC
- Only very few fans are knowing about these *.flac, most of them are filesharers. And people who know about these files do know some ways to get them without paying for them, too. So there is only a very small market in these kind of files

It's because for the past 10 years online music stores such as itunes or amazon have been selling only MP3's. So people got used to it.

There's a French online music store which is selling all his music in lossless (FLAC, AIFF, WAV...) including all majors catalogs (Universal, Warner...). It's worth checking out : Qobuz

Quote
StonesTod
incidentally, there isn't a soul among us who could tell the difference in sound between these mp3's and the flac files...anyone who says otherwise is a fibber.

Wait
Thats not incidental
That's groundbreaking

Realistically, few people can legitimately claim to hear a 'real' difference between commercially encoded 256kbps AAC files from iTunes or the commercially encoded mp3's files from google and a CD. The home-bake AAC and mp3 rips from a CD is a different story. That said, I purchased the flac files from StonesArchive because that allows me to make a clean encode to the itunes consistent 256kbps AAC format. I detest different file formats, bitrates etc. I like to keep things consistent.

The price difference outside the US, was $7 for MP3s or $9 for FLAC.

For that difference, there is no question for going with the FLACs.

I've already made CDs confident in the fact that this was going to be the best quality.

I haven't gone to the extent of trying a side-by-side 'sound test'...I'll believe everyone that says I'll never be able to tell the difference. It's a $2 upgrade I can afford, and probably the best 'deal' I've EVER gotten buying ANY sort of stones product.

Quote
studiorambo
Realistically, few people can legitimately claim to hear a 'real' difference between commercially encoded 256kbps AAC files from iTunes or the commercially encoded mp3's files from google and a CD. The home-bake AAC and mp3 rips from a CD is a different story. That said, I purchased the flac files from StonesArchive because that allows me to make a clean encode to the itunes consistent 256kbps AAC format. I detest different file formats, bitrates etc. I like to keep things consistent.

Some people can tell the difference. If I listen to music with headphones I can hear the difference : MP3 - even of highest quality - lacks of definition on trebles and basses. It makes the music more blurred/fuzzy ...

That's why I wouldn't pay for mp3 but I'm ok for FLAC or any other lossless format.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-11-21 05:49 by kowalski.

cannot believe how much attention this FLAC issue is getting.. who cares? its not such a big deal..

amazing how some people can never be happy..

Quote
StonesTod
incidentally, there isn't a soul among us who could tell the difference in sound between these mp3's and the flac files...anyone who says otherwise is a fibber.

This is ignorant and a load of nonsense. Also,it is precisely this general attitude by the general public which has lead to the degradation of music over recent decades and has ultimately lead to horrible sounding compressed / clipped albums like A.B.B. .

Why do you think that good speaker manufacturers spend so much time and effort engineering the tweeters?? It's probably because high frequencies have an impact on the overall sound quality. These high frequencies are missing in compressed MP3 files which,of course,are even below CD quality which is sub-standard itself.

Depending on exactly how the MP3's are encoded,if low frequencies are lost,the advantage of having a good subwoofer (or preferably 2 or 4 of them) is also lost or, at least undermined.

FLAC files don't all sound the same. FLAC is really just a digital compression scheme in which no data is lost from the source of the FLAC file. FLAC files are sourced at CD quality but,also in other cases they are sourced above CD quality. Even CD quality files are compressed from the studio master files so,CD grade FLAC files are compressed from the masters just not necessarily compressed from the direct source of the FLAC file.

By the way,Tom Petty offers 24 bit FLAC files of his newly released material i.e. the fan club live tracks from his last tour. He charges no price premium for them so,I'm sure that he's offering 24 bit FLAC files for a reason other than money.

Like I posted earlier,these are the facts of the situation : "The amount of difference will depend on different factors such as the source of the FLAC files,the playback equipment used (amp / sound processor / receiver / source unit),the quality (or lack there of) of the digital to analog converter chips in the playback equipment,the quality (or lack there of) of the speakers used to listen to the FLAC files etc.. Granted,for an MP3 / digital audio player,the difference could be small in some applications - listening on the go and so on."

If you can't hear the difference,either you have the wrong equipment or it's not configured properly,and/or you have some degree of hearing loss. This is especially true if you are talking 24 bit FLAC files from studio masters. It's not my intention to sound arrogant,but that's the bottom line.

Quote
shadooby

Quote
StonesTod
incidentally, there isn't a soul among us who could tell the difference in sound between these mp3's and the flac files...anyone who says otherwise is a fibber.

I'm beginning to come to that same conclusion. It's kinda like that high frequency that only dogs can hear, I'm sure some tech nut could analyze that on a spectrum also.

If your ears have not been not destroyed by the years (we're all getting older & older), by listening to music with headphones at high level, by playing guitar on a 200 watts marshall at volume/master/treeble 10/10/10 in a 3x3 meters room, you should hear the difference, mainly in the high frequencies.

If you don't, you have a problem, with your ears (damaged) or with you listening system (lo-fi).

If you are interested in what is hi-fi & sound reproduction, please read carrefully all Kowalsky posts. Very interesting and accurate, he knows what he's talking about.

Quote
shadooby

Quote
StonesTod
incidentally, there isn't a soul among us who could tell the difference in sound between these mp3's and the flac files...anyone who says otherwise is a fibber.

I'm beginning to come to that same conclusion. It's kinda like that high frequency that only dogs can hear, I'm sure some tech nut could analyze that on a spectrum also.

This is the equivalent of a child covering their ears when they are told something that they don't want to hear. Read my last post if you want to have an open mind on the subject. Otherwise,have fun with the lossy MP3 files and ignore other superior digital audio files.

Dealing in facts here,this dog nonsense doesn't apply or hold up. It has been factually proven that humans CAN hear differences in audio up to about 22 bit / 100 kHz audio which is above CD quality audio (16 bit / 44.1 kHz) and certainly above compressed,degraded imitations (MP3) of CD grade audio.

Quote
Winning Ugly VXII

Dealing in facts here,this dog nonsense doesn't apply or hold up. It has been factually proven that humans CAN hear differences in audio up to about 22 bit / 100 kHz audio which is above CD quality audio (16 bit / 44.1 kHz) and certainly above compressed,degraded imitations (MP3) of CD grade audio.

not only hear.

if you listen with loudspeakers instead of headphones (I have nothing against headphones), main part of the sound is heard through the ears, but a small part is also physically felt by the whole body.

MP3 v FLAC is the new Wood v Taylor thread!

MP3 has a degraded sound and is arming music. FLAC is not degraded and does not arm music. That's the point.

FLAC, or any other lossless format (including Apple own lossless format which is called AIFF) is a way to digitalize music with keeping all original informations, hence the name "lossless". Future of digital music are high definition files, like those you can already find on HDTracks or Qobuz. These HD files are equivalent to SACD and better than the good old vinyl.

To do another comparison, MP3 is like VHS for video while FLAC (or any other lossless format) is like DVD, and High Definition FLAC is like Blu-ray.

It really comes down to what is the business model that tells people who want to spend more for a better version of their product NO.Some people do not mind mp3s i like better quality ,storage is cheap and i will pay a litte more for flac files which are no big mystery just a slightly compressed version of the original than you uncompress it when you get it

Demonoid has it on flac.

i hate mp3s and downloading - for christ sakes, why cant we have @#$%& Vinyl album of this, damn it.

Stupid question but is a a Sound Board recording better than flac?

Quote
StonesTod
incidentally, there isn't a soul among us who could tell the difference in sound between these mp3's and the flac files...anyone who says otherwise is a fibber.

Then I am a fibber, whatever that means. With proper headphones I can tell mp3 and the even worse m4a format apart from flac within 3 seconds. And it's easy, if you know what to listen for: mp3 sounds 'empty' in a sense, there's no fatness or 'fullnes' to it, as. It's like the heart of the spectrum is missing.

Good vinyl always had this great 3D quality to it, with real depth. No digital format has ever been able to replicate that, but mp3 really is a couple of steps down over lossless.

Mathijs

Quote
steel driving hammer
Stupid question but is a a Sound Board recording better than flac?

FLAC is only a way to compress music so that it takes less place on your hard drive. For instance a 80min CD which is about 800 mega in size, is about 500 mega once compressed in FLAC.

There's no difference in sound quality between a soundboard recording put on a CD or compressed in FLAC.

Quote
Mathijs
Good vinyl always had this great 3D quality to it, with real depth. No digital format has ever been able to replicate that, but mp3 really is a couple of steps down over lossless.

Properly done HD music files are getting close to vinyl sound though.

Quote
kowalski

Quote
StonesTod
incidentally, there isn't a soul among us who could tell the difference in sound between these mp3's and the flac files...anyone who says otherwise is a fibber.

If I listen to the same track encoded in FLAC and then in MP3 I can tell the difference. Particularly on trebles which are less defined with MP3 files.

i don't believe you. you will have to prove this to me and a committee of infidels in a blind-folded test.

Quote
Tumblin_Dice_07

Quote
StonesTod
incidentally, there isn't a soul among us who could tell the difference in sound between these mp3's and the flac files...anyone who says otherwise is a fibber.

Not sure why you would say something like that. I mean, maybe YOU can't hear the difference but how do you know that other people can't as well?

i just simply know things others don't, i guess.

Quote
steel driving hammer
Stupid question but is a a Sound Board recording better than flac?

very stupid question, indeed. i'll play along. followup question, is an audience recording better than pea soup?

Quote
kowalski

Quote
steel driving hammer
Stupid question but is a a Sound Board recording better than flac?

FLAC is only a way to compress music so that it takes less place on your hard drive. For instance a 80min CD which is about 800 mega in size, is about 500 mega once compressed in FLAC.

There's no difference in sound quality between a soundboard recording put on a CD or compressed in FLAC.

Thank you.

You answered it perfectly.