Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 95

Thread: Flac vs mp3

  1. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by orfik View Post
    ..... You use it to keep perfect copies of CDs so that you don't need to disturb your physical media. From FLAC you can transcode to any of the lossy codecs and maintain the maximum amount of quality. You cannot transcode from lossy to lossy without a significant degradation in the file. Should some advanced lossy codec emerge in the future, you can still use those FLAC archives to convert to that, instead of being stuck with a lossy library technically inferior to the new codec. Take iterations of LAME: archive all your files in one generation of the codec and you're stuck with it.
    -------------
    Very good point Orfik. That's exactly why I want to "upgrade" my library.

  2. Music   -   #82
    HINT's Avatar n00b BT Rep: +1
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In Music World
    Posts
    83
    mp3

  3. Music   -   #83
    mp3

  4. Music   -   #84
    VinX's Avatar ▄ █ ▄ █ ▄ █ ▄ BT Rep: +5
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    No Where
    Posts
    903
    for me i mostly use mp3 320 kbps .. have some flac also

  5. Music   -   #85
    flac or ape for me

  6. Music   -   #86
    scarface's Avatar Poster BT Rep: +1
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    60
    I only use mp3

  7. Music   -   #87
    Popov's Avatar n00b
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Age
    39
    Posts
    482
    only FLAC

  8. Music   -   #88
    Wearwolf's Avatar Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sofia, Bulgaria
    Age
    32
    Posts
    6
    I use only .mp3 (for now )

  9. Music   -   #89
    Quote Originally Posted by orfik View Post
    The FLAC vs MP3 conversation is an ignorant one. Even if you don't believe that FLAC sounds better (which it does, and I'd bet a large sum of money the people who think it doesn't don't have the components to make that claim), it's an archival codec before anything else. You use it to keep perfect copies of CDs so that you don't need to disturb your physical media. From FLAC you can transcode to any of the lossy codecs and maintain the maximum amount of quality. You cannot transcode from lossy to lossy without a significant degradation in the file. Should some advanced lossy codec emerge in the future, you can still use those FLAC archives to convert to that, instead of being stuck with a lossy library technically inferior to the new codec. Take iterations of LAME: archive all your files in one generation of the codec and you're stuck with it.
    It summarizes the whole matter.
    Besides, you can convert FLAC to any other format (V0, V2, CBR etc) w/o quality loss. If you have FLAC, you have all.

  10. Music   -   #90
    Skiz's Avatar (_8(I)
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    CO
    Age
    47
    Posts
    22,943
    Quote Originally Posted by BlackBird_ View Post
    Besides, you can convert FLAC to any other format (V0, V2, CBR etc) w/o quality loss. If you have FLAC, you have all.
    No you can't.


    yo

Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •