Tell Me :
Talk
(good) Vinyl > SACD > bluray
FLAC can be anywhere from 16bit 44.1kHz (CD sound quality) to 32bit 96kHz (studio master quality). So Flac can beat them all, or be inferior, depending on the source material and bitrate.
Frequently on torrent trackers you will find (for example) a flac, lossless vinyl rip at 24bit 48kHz... Those files will be superior to CD, but NOT superior to the original Vinyl.
FLAC can go up to 32 bit / 1000 kHz .
From a technical standpoint yes, but when was the last time you saw anyone distribute a 32bit 1000kHz flac file?
Never saw one but HDTracks has 24 bit / 192kHz FLAC files.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-02 22:38 by kowalski.
it's been awhile, i'd admit. but i saw someone distributing pamphlets the other day that said something about living with ADD...but there was too much there to read and i lost interest...
I downloaded flac and converted them (using winamp) to WAV which play on my Ipod and sound great.
That's pretty typical actually. If you 'distill' your own MP3s from your lossless copies then its true you would have difficulty knowing which is which, but if you download it in MP3 form you will might not know what or how much it has lost. But if you don't hear any swirling or patchiness and you are happy with what you have than all is well.
I'm fairly certain I could have spotted a 128K MP3 on a car stereo! 128 stinks...
Its nice to have a master lossless copy to make whatever you'd like to hear.
Also, MP3s cannot drive a good subwoofer on a house system nearly at all. The FLACs don't have a problem with it.
ipod is not the best portable device for music quality...
If you want to make a worthy experience, burn on a CD a track sourced from lossless FLAC or WAV and the same track sourced from MP3 @128. Then listen to this CD on a normal hi-fi system and you'll be able to make the difference.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-02 23:54 by kowalski.
Yup.
If you have a definite 256 or higher, even some 192s you're really not gonna know a difference.
Its the Blogs that you d/l from claiming 320 that are obviously not that I avoid by distilling my own. Just like making a tape from an LP rather than making a tape from a tape.
...and I bet that makes Parishilton horny!
Sansa Clip+ or ClipZip.
Excellent portable music player, easy to use and small. Plus they read MP3, FLAC and many other audio encoding formats...
I've been following this thread for the last few days and a lot of good comments have been made. I've tried ripping mp3's at different bit rates and then listening back to see if I can tell the difference. It's hard and you have to look for the difference - it doesn't jump out at you.
What does make a difference is listening to a whole CD which has been ripped at 128 - the prolonged listening starts to grate on the ears after a while. I think I've seen it called "aural fatigue" which seems to sum it up nicely.
After much experimenting over the years I prefer my own mp3 rips done at 192 from a lossless source to go on my ipod. I listen to this in the car to and from work each day. For music I care about I also like to have the CD as well to listen to on the hi-fi at weekends.
Just to stir things up a bit I seen some forums where people have compared the different encoding engines for making mp3's. Apparently they all produce slightly different end results and it is a trade off between speed of encoding / file size / quality. Llame appears to be one of the better engines and I use this plug-in with audiograbber to make my mp3's.
As a final point what you convert to mp3 makes a big difference. Some modern CD's are so brick-walled they sound bad before being ripped and can only get worse. The latest Coldplay CD is bad - just read the comments on amazon. I'm sure these days they are mastered in order to be listened to on an ipod with horrible little ear buds. Put it on a hi-fi and the bass is way too prominent.
I've compared some vinyl rips to cd rips and sometimes there is a huge difference. Rory Gallagher Jinx sounds muddy on CD but the vinyl rip has a much clearer sound (unfortunately with added surface noise).
richard
I think you might hit something crucial there. Liek always the music is mixed in certain medium in target. That was the thing during the vinyl days; the mix changed changed as the tecnology to used in replay changes; was it mono or stereo; was it intended mostly to a radio play, and how that changed, etc. The people are discussing now in Hampton threads of the misqualities of the new archive release and its sound, for example comparing it to old bootlegs. It is too "compressed", and mixed very "upfront" (which, in away, makes distinguished, but the over-all picture a bit thin, or even "dead" as someone said). Since it is only released in MP3/FLAC format by d/l, it sounds like its intended function will never reach out the realm of 'new media'. It will be listened through earphones from a computer, an ipod, etc. And I need to say, as I listen basically from earphones from my computer, it does sound just fine. I haven't yet encoded it and burned it to a regular CD, I don't know how it will sound in a real hi fi. (But what I know that not any digital format can make that dynamic sound as my old vinyls do.)
Anyway, this just a thought. I don't mean that this is categorical; that they are just now mixing everything iPod in mind. But it might explain some certain tendencies in the recent mixing/producing ideas.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-04 13:04 by Doxa.
Creative Zen is a very good player too. Just it's not the same price.
Cowon has some of the best players (audio quality wise) . But again they're not in the same range of price.
Sansa Clip has a nice feature : you can add extra memory with micro SD cards. However screen is really small. What I appreciate the most about this player is you get good audio quality for a nice price. Beware though that you better buy good earphones (but that's the same with most portable player).
If you're looking for bigger screen Zen or Cowon should be the way to go.
This from the king of feedback and distortion? Too funny!
No surprise. Keep in mind that humans can hear only up to 20kHz and cut-off for 320kb/Sec is in the same range. Add here that mp3 coding uses "psychoacoustic" models that remove from the spectra components less audible to human...
Well, you need to know what are you looking (or better to say - hearing) for and use really hi-fi set in special conditions to distinguish flac and 320 mp3.
I am positive that for headphones, car stereo, laptops, computers there is no difference between flac and mp3. For vast majority of humans
.
In my case there is a threshold - I feel really unahppy if bitrate for mp3 is lower than 192kb/sec.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: MP3 vs FLAC
Posted by:
flacnvinyl
()
Date: February 2, 2012 20:35
Quote
donvis
So what's better then SACD, FLAC or blu-ray?
(good) Vinyl > SACD > bluray
FLAC can be anywhere from 16bit 44.1kHz (CD sound quality) to 32bit 96kHz (studio master quality). So Flac can beat them all, or be inferior, depending on the source material and bitrate.
Frequently on torrent trackers you will find (for example) a flac, lossless vinyl rip at 24bit 48kHz... Those files will be superior to CD, but NOT superior to the original Vinyl.
Re: MP3 vs FLAC
Posted by:
kowalski
()
Date: February 2, 2012 20:39
Quote
flacnvinylQuote
donvis
So what's better then SACD, FLAC or blu-ray?
(good) Vinyl > SACD > bluray
FLAC can be anywhere from 16bit 44.1kHz (CD sound quality) to 32bit 96kHz (studio master quality). So Flac can beat them all, or be inferior, depending on the source material and bitrate.
FLAC can go up to 32 bit / 1000 kHz .
Re: MP3 vs FLAC
Posted by:
Munichhilton
()
Date: February 2, 2012 21:21
FROM BRAVADOUSA:
Hello,
Thank you for taking the time to email us. At this time there is no information on when the downloads will become available in FLAC for domestic purchase on the web store. As new items will be added regularly, please continue to check the web store for availability.
Subscribing to our newsletter is the quickest way to receive updates on new and upcoming merchandise, as well as special promotions offered in the store.
If you have any further questions or concerns, feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
Hello,
Thank you for taking the time to email us. At this time there is no information on when the downloads will become available in FLAC for domestic purchase on the web store. As new items will be added regularly, please continue to check the web store for availability.
Subscribing to our newsletter is the quickest way to receive updates on new and upcoming merchandise, as well as special promotions offered in the store.
If you have any further questions or concerns, feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
Re: MP3 vs FLAC
Posted by:
flacnvinyl
()
Date: February 2, 2012 21:33
Quote
kowalskiQuote
flacnvinylQuote
donvis
So what's better then SACD, FLAC or blu-ray?
(good) Vinyl > SACD > bluray
FLAC can be anywhere from 16bit 44.1kHz (CD sound quality) to 32bit 96kHz (studio master quality). So Flac can beat them all, or be inferior, depending on the source material and bitrate.
FLAC can go up to 32 bit / 1000 kHz .
From a technical standpoint yes, but when was the last time you saw anyone distribute a 32bit 1000kHz flac file?
Re: MP3 vs FLAC
Posted by:
kowalski
()
Date: February 2, 2012 21:36
Quote
flacnvinylQuote
kowalskiQuote
flacnvinylQuote
donvis
So what's better then SACD, FLAC or blu-ray?
(good) Vinyl > SACD > bluray
FLAC can be anywhere from 16bit 44.1kHz (CD sound quality) to 32bit 96kHz (studio master quality). So Flac can beat them all, or be inferior, depending on the source material and bitrate.
FLAC can go up to 32 bit / 1000 kHz .
From a technical standpoint yes, but when was the last time you saw anyone distribute a 32bit 1000kHz flac file?
Never saw one but HDTracks has 24 bit / 192kHz FLAC files.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-02 22:38 by kowalski.
Re: MP3 vs FLAC
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: February 2, 2012 22:28
Quote
flacnvinylQuote
kowalskiQuote
flacnvinylQuote
donvis
So what's better then SACD, FLAC or blu-ray?
(good) Vinyl > SACD > bluray
FLAC can be anywhere from 16bit 44.1kHz (CD sound quality) to 32bit 96kHz (studio master quality). So Flac can beat them all, or be inferior, depending on the source material and bitrate.
FLAC can go up to 32 bit / 1000 kHz .
From a technical standpoint yes, but when was the last time you saw anyone distribute a 32bit 1000kHz flac file?
it's been awhile, i'd admit. but i saw someone distributing pamphlets the other day that said something about living with ADD...but there was too much there to read and i lost interest...
Re: MP3 vs FLAC
Posted by:
Braincapers
()
Date: February 2, 2012 22:38
Quote
dcba
"Thanks for this debate guys, it has helped me to decide to download the Archive releases in FLAC format.
Now the next dilemma, what's the best FLAC to MP3 conversion software out there"
Obviously you didn't get the whole point!
Get the FLAC's and play them as they are. Burn them to cd-r (needs a lil convertion to another format) or get a little thing that will enable you to play the files on your stereo.
Forget mp3!
I downloaded flac and converted them (using winamp) to WAV which play on my Ipod and sound great.
Re: MP3 vs FLAC
Posted by:
LeonidP
()
Date: February 2, 2012 23:43
Obviously wav/flac is better since it is not compressed. However ... I still don't believe most can tell the difference. I had an argument with a co-worker several years ago (he was annoyed that I use an ipod, saying mp3s are shite), so I took a cd, burned a song to 128kbs mp3, and the same song to wav (don't remember song now, but I think I did a stones song for this experiment), put both on my ipod, played both over his very-expensive car stereo system ... he refused to take a guess on which was the mp3 knowing he lost.
Basically, to fit as many tracks on my ipod as possible, I still use mp3 but since the drives are bigger I use 192kbs, and I am happy w/ it.
Basically, to fit as many tracks on my ipod as possible, I still use mp3 but since the drives are bigger I use 192kbs, and I am happy w/ it.
Re: MP3 vs FLAC
Posted by:
Munichhilton
()
Date: February 2, 2012 23:50
Quote
LeonidP
Obviously wav/flac is better since it is not compressed. However ... I still don't believe most can tell the difference. I had an argument with a co-worker several years ago (he was annoyed that I use an ipod, saying mp3s are shite), so I took a cd, burned a song to 128kbs mp3, and the same song to wav (don't remember song now, but I think I did a stones song for this experiment), put both on my ipod, played both over his very-expensive car stereo system ... he refused to take a guess on which was the mp3 knowing he lost.
Basically, to fit as many tracks on my ipod as possible, I still use mp3 but since the drives are bigger I use 192kbs, and I am happy w/ it.
That's pretty typical actually. If you 'distill' your own MP3s from your lossless copies then its true you would have difficulty knowing which is which, but if you download it in MP3 form you will might not know what or how much it has lost. But if you don't hear any swirling or patchiness and you are happy with what you have than all is well.
I'm fairly certain I could have spotted a 128K MP3 on a car stereo! 128 stinks...
Its nice to have a master lossless copy to make whatever you'd like to hear.
Also, MP3s cannot drive a good subwoofer on a house system nearly at all. The FLACs don't have a problem with it.
Re: MP3 vs FLAC
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: February 2, 2012 23:52
i think the official dividing line for those with exceptional auricular talent is 256kbs
Re: MP3 vs FLAC
Posted by:
kowalski
()
Date: February 2, 2012 23:53
Quote
LeonidP
Obviously wav/flac is better since it is not compressed. However ... I still don't believe most can tell the difference. I had an argument with a co-worker several years ago (he was annoyed that I use an ipod, saying mp3s are shite), so I took a cd, burned a song to 128kbs mp3, and the same song to wav (don't remember song now, but I think I did a stones song for this experiment), put both on my ipod, played both over his very-expensive car stereo system ... he refused to take a guess on which was the mp3 knowing he lost.
Basically, to fit as many tracks on my ipod as possible, I still use mp3 but since the drives are bigger I use 192kbs, and I am happy w/ it.
ipod is not the best portable device for music quality...
If you want to make a worthy experience, burn on a CD a track sourced from lossless FLAC or WAV and the same track sourced from MP3 @128. Then listen to this CD on a normal hi-fi system and you'll be able to make the difference.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-02 23:54 by kowalski.
Re: MP3 vs FLAC
Posted by:
Munichhilton
()
Date: February 3, 2012 00:00
Quote
StonesTod
i think the official dividing line for those with exceptional auricular talent is 256kbs
Yup.
If you have a definite 256 or higher, even some 192s you're really not gonna know a difference.
Its the Blogs that you d/l from claiming 320 that are obviously not that I avoid by distilling my own. Just like making a tape from an LP rather than making a tape from a tape.
Re: MP3 vs FLAC
Posted by:
ironbelly
()
Date: February 3, 2012 00:24
LeonidP
Guess key words are - "ipod" and "car stereo" Not the best way and equipment to make a test.
Cut-off frequency for 128kB/sec is appr 14 kHz. This means that you'll definitevely should hear the difference between mp3 sourced and original wav while plaing song using normal hi-fi equipment at ambient enviroment. I am almost sure that you'll hear on mp3 sourced file "tshshshsh" instead of "tsssss" for tsymbals
We Had It All Rip too wav -> converted to mp3 128kb/sec -> reencoded to wav
To be fair I use to listen to mp3 on my way to work. That is not a capital crime. Subway noise compensate all the frequencies that were cut by lossy conversion
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-03 00:27 by ironbelly.
Guess key words are - "ipod" and "car stereo"
Not the best way and equipment to make a test.Cut-off frequency for 128kB/sec is appr 14 kHz. This means that you'll definitevely should hear the difference between mp3 sourced and original wav while plaing song using normal hi-fi equipment at ambient enviroment. I am almost sure that you'll hear on mp3 sourced file "tshshshsh" instead of "tsssss" for tsymbals
We Had It All Rip too wav -> converted to mp3 128kb/sec -> reencoded to wav
To be fair I use to listen to mp3 on my way to work. That is not a capital crime. Subway noise compensate all the frequencies that were cut by lossy conversion
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-03 00:27 by ironbelly.
Re: MP3 vs FLAC
Posted by:
SonicDreamer
()
Date: February 3, 2012 01:50
Ok, i bought TBA and H81 in FLAC format and converted the files to MP3 using Lamedrop.
When I added the MP3 folders to iTunes however, they did not show-up in the library list, even though I saw them being transferred into iTunes. Any ideas people?
Chers,
SonicD
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-03 01:54 by SonicDreamer.
When I added the MP3 folders to iTunes however, they did not show-up in the library list, even though I saw them being transferred into iTunes. Any ideas people?
Chers,
SonicD
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-03 01:54 by SonicDreamer.
Re: MP3 vs FLAC
Posted by:
nick
()
Date: February 3, 2012 04:07
It's not just the high and low frequencies we may or may not hear with a FLAC file, but all frequencies are uncompressed. It would have to make sense that you are getting an a better listening experience whether you know it or not.
Re: MP3 vs FLAC
Posted by:
whitem8
()
Date: February 3, 2012 04:17
I download CD's as apple lossless. And also onto my iPod. But I do know iPod's don't have the best sound cards.
So what would you audiophiles recommend for a good portable music player other than iPods, that aren't insanely expensive?
So what would you audiophiles recommend for a good portable music player other than iPods, that aren't insanely expensive?
Re: MP3 vs FLAC
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: February 3, 2012 21:02
Quote
MunichhiltonQuote
treaclefingersQuote
MunichhiltonQuote
Munichhilton
FLAC means you have a master copy.
You can dilute it to MP3 for use in anyway you desire here and there but when its all over...you still have an uncompromisable master copy in FLAC.
MP3's have all sorts of problems that pop up. Plus you can't trace whether its a twice compressed (or more) MP3 or a once compressed MP3.
For example.
I download an MP3 that says its 320K. I have no way of knowing if thats true.
I can now transfer that to 128K if I like. Or maybe to 256K.
Either way, I have just compressed an already compressed file and deteriorated the sound quality even more than before.
If I have FLAC, I can always decompress to wav, and compress to MP3 320K and know that is exactly what it is.
If you listen to true 320K...it is going to be the same as lossless to your ears. Only a small dog could hear the discrepancies in my opinion, although I still really only listen FLAC
But when you are D/Ling from some of the seedy sites I've been around...you have no idea what you are actually getting. Once an MP3 hits dual compression, which happens all the time, you are absolutely gonna hear the difference and wish you had a better source file to make your own MP3s with...
It's such a brilliant description, I must quote this guy.
Your own 320 compared to your own FLAC....I agree that there is very little difference....oh well. Read above.
Great quote from someone that is obviously brilliant!
Its like I always say, when Munichhilton speaks, Munichhilton listens....and quotes apparently
...and I bet that makes Parishilton horny!
Re: MP3 vs FLAC
Posted by:
kowalski
()
Date: February 3, 2012 21:14
Quote
whitem8
I download CD's as apple lossless. And also onto my iPod. But I do know iPod's don't have the best sound cards.
So what would you audiophiles recommend for a good portable music player other than iPods, that aren't insanely expensive?
Sansa Clip+ or ClipZip.
Excellent portable music player, easy to use and small. Plus they read MP3, FLAC and many other audio encoding formats...
Re: MP3 vs FLAC
Posted by:
whitem8
()
Date: February 4, 2012 09:49
Thanks so much Kowalski! I am going to look into it, I deserve a gift.
Sorry but can you give some more, like what type of model. I see many cheap ones that are quite low in price, but don't have much memory. Then a 32 gig Creative Zen, pricy but gets good reviews.
My brother is a tech head and I recently asked him and he says Cowons are really renowned for good sound...check this out:
[www.amazon.com]
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-04 10:09 by whitem8.
Sorry but can you give some more, like what type of model. I see many cheap ones that are quite low in price, but don't have much memory. Then a 32 gig Creative Zen, pricy but gets good reviews.
My brother is a tech head and I recently asked him and he says Cowons are really renowned for good sound...check this out:
[www.amazon.com]
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-04 10:09 by whitem8.
Re: MP3 vs FLAC
Posted by:
rpc2uk
()
Date: February 4, 2012 11:19
Quote
MunichhiltonQuote
StonesTod
i think the official dividing line for those with exceptional auricular talent is 256kbs
Yup.
If you have a definite 256 or higher, even some 192s you're really not gonna know a difference.
Its the Blogs that you d/l from claiming 320 that are obviously not that I avoid by distilling my own. Just like making a tape from an LP rather than making a tape from a tape.
I've been following this thread for the last few days and a lot of good comments have been made. I've tried ripping mp3's at different bit rates and then listening back to see if I can tell the difference. It's hard and you have to look for the difference - it doesn't jump out at you.
What does make a difference is listening to a whole CD which has been ripped at 128 - the prolonged listening starts to grate on the ears after a while. I think I've seen it called "aural fatigue" which seems to sum it up nicely.
After much experimenting over the years I prefer my own mp3 rips done at 192 from a lossless source to go on my ipod. I listen to this in the car to and from work each day. For music I care about I also like to have the CD as well to listen to on the hi-fi at weekends.
Just to stir things up a bit I seen some forums where people have compared the different encoding engines for making mp3's. Apparently they all produce slightly different end results and it is a trade off between speed of encoding / file size / quality. Llame appears to be one of the better engines and I use this plug-in with audiograbber to make my mp3's.
As a final point what you convert to mp3 makes a big difference. Some modern CD's are so brick-walled they sound bad before being ripped and can only get worse. The latest Coldplay CD is bad - just read the comments on amazon. I'm sure these days they are mastered in order to be listened to on an ipod with horrible little ear buds. Put it on a hi-fi and the bass is way too prominent.
I've compared some vinyl rips to cd rips and sometimes there is a huge difference. Rory Gallagher Jinx sounds muddy on CD but the vinyl rip has a much clearer sound (unfortunately with added surface noise).
richard
Re: MP3 vs FLAC
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: February 4, 2012 13:03
Quote
rpc2uk
As a final point what you convert to mp3 makes a big difference. Some modern CD's are so brick-walled they sound bad before being ripped and can only get worse. The latest Coldplay CD is bad - just read the comments on amazon. I'm sure these days they are mastered in order to be listened to on an ipod with horrible little ear buds. Put it on a hi-fi and the bass is way too prominent.
I've compared some vinyl rips to cd rips and sometimes there is a huge difference. Rory Gallagher Jinx sounds muddy on CD but the vinyl rip has a much clearer sound (unfortunately with added surface noise).
richard
I think you might hit something crucial there. Liek always the music is mixed in certain medium in target. That was the thing during the vinyl days; the mix changed changed as the tecnology to used in replay changes; was it mono or stereo; was it intended mostly to a radio play, and how that changed, etc. The people are discussing now in Hampton threads of the misqualities of the new archive release and its sound, for example comparing it to old bootlegs. It is too "compressed", and mixed very "upfront" (which, in away, makes distinguished, but the over-all picture a bit thin, or even "dead" as someone said). Since it is only released in MP3/FLAC format by d/l, it sounds like its intended function will never reach out the realm of 'new media'. It will be listened through earphones from a computer, an ipod, etc. And I need to say, as I listen basically from earphones from my computer, it does sound just fine. I haven't yet encoded it and burned it to a regular CD, I don't know how it will sound in a real hi fi. (But what I know that not any digital format can make that dynamic sound as my old vinyls do.)
Anyway, this just a thought. I don't mean that this is categorical; that they are just now mixing everything iPod in mind. But it might explain some certain tendencies in the recent mixing/producing ideas.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-04 13:04 by Doxa.
Re: MP3 vs FLAC
Posted by:
kowalski
()
Date: February 4, 2012 14:18
Quote
whitem8
Thanks so much Kowalski! I am going to look into it, I deserve a gift.
Sorry but can you give some more, like what type of model. I see many cheap ones that are quite low in price, but don't have much memory. Then a 32 gig Creative Zen, pricy but gets good reviews.
My brother is a tech head and I recently asked him and he says Cowons are really renowned for good sound...check this out:
[www.amazon.com]
Creative Zen is a very good player too. Just it's not the same price.
Cowon has some of the best players (audio quality wise) . But again they're not in the same range of price.
Sansa Clip has a nice feature : you can add extra memory with micro SD cards. However screen is really small. What I appreciate the most about this player is you get good audio quality for a nice price. Beware though that you better buy good earphones (but that's the same with most portable player).
If you're looking for bigger screen Zen or Cowon should be the way to go.
Re: MP3 vs FLAC
Posted by:
whitem8
()
Date: February 4, 2012 14:28
Yup, I ordered the Cowon iAudio 10. I have some great headphones, with a little amp to boost the signal. I travel with the Boss noise canceling headphones. I am not a huge proponent of Bose, and their brand is overpriced. But those headphones are state of the art and the noise canceling is fantastic. I fly a lot so, especially good on flights. Thanks Kolawski for inspiring me to finally get a good portable music player. I will review after getting it and loading music on it.
Re: MP3 vs FLAC
Posted by:
SonicDreamer
()
Date: February 5, 2012 20:07
BUMP
Re: MP3 vs FLAC
Posted by: SonicDreamer ()
Date: February 3, 2012 01:50
Ok, i bought TBA and H81 in FLAC format and converted the files to MP3 using Lamedrop.
When I added the MP3 folders to iTunes however, they did not show-up in the library list, even though I saw them being transferred into iTunes. Any ideas people?
Cheers,
SonicD
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-05 20:13 by SonicDreamer.
Re: MP3 vs FLAC
Posted by: SonicDreamer ()
Date: February 3, 2012 01:50
Ok, i bought TBA and H81 in FLAC format and converted the files to MP3 using Lamedrop.
When I added the MP3 folders to iTunes however, they did not show-up in the library list, even though I saw them being transferred into iTunes. Any ideas people?
Cheers,
SonicD
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-05 20:13 by SonicDreamer.
Re: MP3 vs FLAC
Posted by:
NICOS
()
Date: February 5, 2012 23:07
Lossless barker...................
__________________________
__________________________
Re: MP3 vs FLAC
Posted by:
shadooby
()
Date: February 5, 2012 23:13
320 mp3 vs. flac on my computer with hi-fi speakers = no difference.
320 mp3 on ipod vs. Cd burned from flac on my hi-fi = no difference.
I've never compared the two types before but since this debate on IORR and the releases of Brussels and Hampton, I listened carefully to both struggling to hear the difference and found none.
I'll stick with the much more convenient mp3's.
Let me add also that I do agree that this is probably only true if the mp3 is from an original source at 320.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-06 02:06 by shadooby.
320 mp3 on ipod vs. Cd burned from flac on my hi-fi = no difference.
I've never compared the two types before but since this debate on IORR and the releases of Brussels and Hampton, I listened carefully to both struggling to hear the difference and found none.
I'll stick with the much more convenient mp3's.
Let me add also that I do agree that this is probably only true if the mp3 is from an original source at 320.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-06 02:06 by shadooby.
Re: MP3 vs FLAC
Posted by:
shadooby
()
Date: February 6, 2012 02:10
Quote
kowalski
Watch this video with Neil Young explaining why high res is the future of digital music and mp3 should be free.
That donkey back end theory is quite interesting too.
[allthingsd.com]
This from the king of feedback and distortion? Too funny!
Re: MP3 vs FLAC
Posted by:
ironbelly
()
Date: February 6, 2012 03:04
Quote
shadooby
320 mp3 vs. flac on my computer with hi-fi speakers = no difference.
320 mp3 on ipod vs. Cd burned from flac on my hi-fi = no difference.
I've never compared the two types before but since this debate on IORR and the releases of Brussels and Hampton, I listened carefully to both struggling to hear the difference and found none.
I'll stick with the much more convenient mp3's.
Let me add also that I do agree that this is probably only true if the mp3 is from an original source at 320.
No surprise. Keep in mind that humans can hear only up to 20kHz and cut-off for 320kb/Sec is in the same range. Add here that mp3 coding uses "psychoacoustic" models that remove from the spectra components less audible to human...
Well, you need to know what are you looking (or better to say - hearing) for and use really hi-fi set in special conditions to distinguish flac and 320 mp3.
I am positive that for headphones, car stereo, laptops, computers there is no difference between flac and mp3. For vast majority of humans
.In my case there is a threshold - I feel really unahppy if bitrate for mp3 is lower than 192kb/sec.
Re: MP3 vs FLAC
Posted by:
flacnvinyl
()
Date: February 6, 2012 03:35
V0 is the best mp3 you can create. Variable bitrate jumping between 192 to 320 depending on the material. On typical setups even I would be hard pressed to hear a difference.
Lossless audio, in all its forms, is for home use only. Mp3 for ease. I feel the same as many of you regarding the loudness war.. A Bigger Bang is the best example to date. Distorted to the point of losing detail. I wish I could get my hands on the master multitrack recording session and make a brand new render!
Lossless audio, in all its forms, is for home use only. Mp3 for ease. I feel the same as many of you regarding the loudness war.. A Bigger Bang is the best example to date. Distorted to the point of losing detail. I wish I could get my hands on the master multitrack recording session and make a brand new render!
Re: MP3 vs FLAC
Posted by:
Spud
()
Date: February 6, 2012 15:52
Quote
I feel the same as many of you regarding the loudness war.. A Bigger Bang is the best example to date. Distorted to the point of losing detail. I wish I could get my hands on the master multitrack recording session and make a brand new render![/quote
Yes, It's shocking. No real dynamics at all...just everything in yer face all the time.
It's the price of catering for the lowest common denominator... and of the industry's assumption that most consumers will listen via inadequate formats and poor quality playback equipment.
[A self fulfilling prophecy if ever there was one. There's no point in having a good system these days because the source material itself is so lacking in musical information. No timing, no pitch definition, no dynamics ] ]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-06 15:56 by Spud.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
ChrisMahavishnu , daspyknows , DEmerson , jason8903 , kkhoranstoned , makemeburnthecandle , mrpaulincanada , perkmo
Guests:
2000
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10