Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
let's do this shit.
one is lossless.
but goddamnit, it just doesn't play on itunes
THAT ITUNES IS TERRIBLE.
give it a google if need be. On Windows, no unfortunately not unless you set up Itunes to control another media player which does support Flac but that defeats the purpose. If you have the need to listen to lossless audio in Itunes there's always Apple's lossless format which is just as okay as FLAC (though not open source obv. if that is an issue) otherwise I'd use Foobar2000 for your flac listening needs.
Obviously FLAC is a lossless audio format whereas MP3 compresses the file. FLAC will maintain the original bitstream. MP3 is not the most efficient lossy audio format but the most widely supported whereas FLAC is pretty much the most efficient lossless audio format (at least last time I checked) and as far as lossless goes is one of the most widely supported as well. I have all of my cd's and as much other music as I can in FLAC but only for archival purposes. I then encode the FLAC files to v3 quality mp3. I find no decrease in AUDIBLE sound quality and if more people did listening tests for themselves (double blind to eliminate placebo, expectation bias as well as level matched) instead of just listening to ignorant media and audiophools, they'd come to a similar conclusion and not waste their time with utterly useless overkill like 320kbps mp3's. So for me FLAC vs. MP3 equals archival copy vs listening copy. There's the odd time when I'm listening with really good headphones that I might listen to FLAC at home due to old habits dying hard (not that better headphones would make it any easier to hear lossy artifacts) but certainly with a pmp, it's entirely pointless to have lossless audio on it anyways because even if there is any increase in actual objective audible quality, outside noise would render it impossible to hear. Conclusion, both have their purpose and are great at what they do.
I can tell when a rip isn't 320kbps on my headphones because everything sounds oooo so very flat. But I can imagine people with standard headphones/speakers would find it quite hard to distinguish 320 to 192 people WITH decent headphones/speakers will be able to do so.... and I do find listening to CD presents the clearer richer sound though the difference is subtle.
·Plays on everything.
·No discernible loss in quality.
So, for me, [a 320kbps mp3 rip + the original CD] = [listening copy + backup + archive].
One portable drive copy of my music folder protects against re-ripping in the event of theft or normal mechanical failure of either the CDs or the rips.
If I could be bothered, I could burn some archival DVDs (cheap) or make another hard drive copy (less cheap) and keep them off-site for über protection, but who can be bothered? - I have home contents insurance for a reason.
The only agruments for me not to use 320kbps mp3 are a) disk space/cost, or b) doing a double blind listening test to find the mp3 kbps rate that I can't tell any difference at. But b) seems like a waste of time when a) isn't an issue in these days of mega-cheap storage.
All of the above assumes you're ripping CDs as a starting point.
If you're dealing with audio that was originally DL'd (or very time-consumingly recorded from your vinyl) then you'd be advised to make those 'optional' backups that you might otherwise have not bothered if you had a CD copy.
I think some of the points above arguing for the non-necessity of FLAC are understandable but seem to inherently imply that the files are being listened to on a computer.
For me there is a very discernable difference in quality when you start comparing/listening to FLAC vs mp3 on a high end hi fi system.
FLAC all the way for me. Although I’m one of those old timers that still buys everything. But if I am downloading I try my hardest to locate a lossless copy.
Unless the mp3 is a shitty rate (i.e. 128 or less), then no there isn't. It's been tested.
I have all my music ripped to FLAC, to listen to on my hi-fi at home. Everything's also transcoded to MP3 so I can listen to it on the move. Storage is cheap, best of both worlds.
on the basis that when I want to listen to something PROPERLY I'll have it on vinyl or CD and be using my proper stereo.
THe only reason I store music electronically is so I can make it portable and most of the time that means listening to it quietly on earbuds at work or competing with wind noise in the car etc and sound quality isn't a pressing issue.
I have no use for FLAC really since if I want to listen to something lossless, I'll use the physical copy.
foobar sendtodevice auto converts everything i send to my player to mp3 v0.
It's smaller and nobody can tell the difference anyway.
mp3 for your ipod or whateverz.
Ideal combinations would be FLAC and OGG
everybody that said they can hear the difference: Y'ALL JUST GOT PLACEBO'D.
This is gonna be an ongoing battle until y'all admit that FLAC sounds better than MP3. It just does, especially on high-end speakers BUT ALSO on car stereos. Separation, fidelity; FLAC is the way to go.
That said, 99% of my music collection is in MP3, much of the better stuff converting from FLAC to either HQ 256k or Normal Quality 320k. Some of my favorite albums are in HQ 320k. The only albums I maintain in ALAC (iPod/iPhone user) are OK Computer, In Rainbows, and Hail To The Thief. (GUESS MY FAVORITE BAND)
The first 2 because I own expensive versions of the CDs, the latter because it's mastered horribly and I wanted the best possible rip.
This debate needs to end. They both have their uses! On many setups, the audible difference between 256k MP3 and FLAC is fairly miniscule. It depends on the material as well, but if you're arguing that MP3 sounds better than FLAC... you probably prefer the Kinks to the Beatles.
quote: "FLAC sounds better than MP3"
It is indistinguishable, so false.
quote: "On many setups, the audible difference between 256k MP3 and FLAC is fairly miniscule."
In fact, it is indistinguishable. Which side are you arguing?
quote: "if you're arguing that MP3 sounds better than FLAC"
No one has said that, probably ever in the history of the world.
Just not true.
High quality MP3s are usually at 320k for a reason. It's not just a random number picked out of the air - Large amounts of psychoacoustic testing have found this to be the point at which increasing the bitrate no longer increases the perceived audio quality.
For easier music (music without transients causing pre-echo) this is much lower than 320k.
It is also worth saying that the MP3 standard allows for different psychoacoustic models used for the compression stages so different players/programmes may produce different results.
and how I even wrote quote to be on the safe side since this site is even more unreliable at the moment than normal, and how I then disagreed with the statement that I'd quote: "quoted"...yeah.
unless I was listening to a live acoustic recording that was sampled at 192k I wouldn't be bothered.
Infact as an audiophile I'm not bothered.
320k MP3's are fine just fine.
I'm a meat connoisseur, and happy to just eat corned beef every day.
I think its more like saying, or thinking rather, that I NEED to buy triple-quilted bog roll when I can just use the cheaper yet as effective double-quilted bog roll.
Off the back of this analogy Vinyl is like using a bidet and CDs are those Japanese auto-washing, auto-blow drying toilets.
haven't had a mucky fingernail in 24 years. Yet.
Pretty sure he will say Lame v0.
"It is indistinguishable, so false."
Because it's been "tested?" Link please. My ears detect a difference.
"In fact, it is indistinguishable. Which side are you arguing?"
Headstrong much? My argument was that we're arguing apples and oranges, and that I respectfully disagree with your stance of "indistinguishable."
"No one has said that, probably ever in the history of the world."
I thought it was indistinguishable. :) I think you and I have a miscommunication. Sorry for coming off like a blowhard.
No they don't. You wouldn't pass a pepsi test.
... but before posting, for the love of god read this: http://stereophile.com/features/308mp3cd
Also, to whoever said 'Placebo': just because you can't hear it, doesn't mean it's not there. Lossy is just that, something is being lost - whether you pick up on it or not.
In a scientific sense perhaps, but since we listen with ears and not laboratories, then if you can't pick up on something which is supposedly missing, then for all intents and purposes, it isn't missing.