waffles ?

[melatonin]

been away for some time, what happened to waffles, closed ?

[meelad]

no it is still up

[The_Martinator]

What do you mean by closed? It isn't open signups if that's what you mean.

[TIHAT]

still working

[piratebot]

you have to be admin to login. sorry.

[KushBlow]

you have to be admin to login. sorry.

:lol:

No but it works.

[Lovestoned]

you have to be admin to login. sorry.

:lol:

No but it works.

That's just a fake page, KushBlow is correct of course.

What's much easier to get in so if you've got What then Waffles isn't much for you if you aren't going for their 'Iron Waffles' 100% FLAC rips.

[Villalltheway]

No i think he is reffering maybe due to the fact that it often goes offline for short amounts of time for maintenance, seems to be regular thing but ususally i go off for a tea come back and its all fine.

[Brenya]

What's much easier to get in so if you've got What then Waffles isn't much for you if you aren't going for their 'Iron Waffles' 100% FLAC rips.
I can't understand why people would download a file 5 times as large for a negligible increase in sound quality.

Some people must simply have better ears than me.

If a codec ever comes out that is significantly better than MP3-V0... let me know, and I'll just redownload it :P.

[Villalltheway]

What's much easier to get in so if you've got What then Waffles isn't much for you if you aren't going for their 'Iron Waffles' 100% FLAC rips.
I can't understand why people would download a file 5 times as large for a negligible increase in sound quality.

Some people must simply have better ears than me.

If a codec ever comes out that is significantly better than MP3-V0... let me know, and I'll just redownload it :P.

maybe you dont notice because u havent got very good sound system, rubbish speakers sound rubbish whatever u play through them, im sure u would be able to tell the difference between a flac and a mp3 on a decent sound system.

[Time-Traveller]

What's much easier to get in so if you've got What then Waffles isn't much for you if you aren't going for their 'Iron Waffles' 100% FLAC rips.
I can't understand why people would download a file 5 times as large for a negligible increase in sound quality.

Some people must simply have better ears than me.

If a codec ever comes out that is significantly better than MP3-V0... let me know, and I'll just redownload it :P.

I download V0 for my mp3 player and it's perfectly acceptable, V2 sounds grainy and horrible in comparison to my ears, FLAC sounds crystal clear and the sound simply sparkles on high end, proper hi-fi stereo equipment and the sound truly breathes. The difference is easier to hear on some albums over others depending on the recording level used by the producer, a lot of albums these days are recorded close to max level to create impact and grabs the users attention it can be harder to tell the difference when this is the case. It's on albums that have parts recorded quietly and loudly that the subtle differences begin to show.

If your interested take a mp3 album and a flac album down to your nearist specialist HI-FI store and ask them to play the same track from each version and you will instantly notice the difference.

Your ears are not the only factor in this you also need to take into consideration, the equipment you are listening to, the way it's set up, the acoustics of your listening environment & what your actually listening too.

For some people the extra 4 or 500Mb is definitely worth it, having the actual source data also has the added benefit of you being able to share it with others in any encoding format that they would like. Obviously on multi format music sites this has the hidden benefit of you being able boost your ratio allowing you to grab extra toons for yourself, naturally the convenience of V0 mp3 also has it's advantages and is the format of choice for most users.

[Skiz]

you have to be admin to login. sorry.

Stop giving incorrect advise to legitimate questions please.

[RedRansom]

What's much easier to get in so if you've got What then Waffles isn't much for you if you aren't going for their 'Iron Waffles' 100% FLAC rips.
I can't understand why people would download a file 5 times as large for a negligible increase in sound quality.

Some people must simply have better ears than me.

If a codec ever comes out that is significantly better than MP3-V0... let me know, and I'll just redownload it :P.
http://img473.imageshack.us/img473/2159/flac320mp3128mp3compareum0.gif
and you can find more info at what.cd forum

been away for some time, what happened to waffles, closed ?
and i am pretty sure didnt change url but if you talking about oink yes
http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/3889/oinkfc9.png

[viru5]

Still up but the signups are closed.

[Brenya]

maybe you dont notice because u havent got very good sound system, rubbish speakers sound rubbish whatever u play through them, im sure u would be able to tell the difference between a flac and a mp3 on a decent sound system.
I guess my ipod is rubbish :dabs:

If your interested take a mp3 album and a flac album down to your nearist specialist HI-FI store and ask them to play the same track from each version and you will instantly notice the difference.
By God, I'll do it.

[Villalltheway]

I guess my ipod is rubbish :dabs:


since when has ipods been able to play flac files? Dont know but have i missed something.

[Brenya]

I guess my ipod is rubbish :dabs:


since when has ipods been able to play flac files? Dont know but have i missed something.
:whistling

[Gekko]

I guess my ipod is rubbish :dabs:


since when has ipods been able to play flac files? Dont know but have i missed something.

don't think it can natively but i'm sure he's talking about rockbox ;)

[Albo Da Kid]

I think you can modify your ipod to play flac files. There was a thread/tutorial about this in BTmusic. I haven't tried it yet.

ps. welcome to the family Gekko. Good to see you in here as well.

[johall]

lol wheres waffles turned into mp3 vs flac

[Time-Traveller]

I think you can modify your ipod to play flac files. There was a thread/tutorial about this in BTmusic. I haven't tried it yet.

ps. welcome to the family Gekko. Good to see you in here as well.


Register on the head-fi.org forums and check out the Portable Source Gear board within the Equipment forums, it's without doubt the best resource on the net for all your audio answers & as somebody mentioned earlier rockbox can make your IPOD do lots of things but if you don't use high end in ear phones it's still gonna sound like a goose farting in the fog :)

[Villalltheway]

I think you can modify your ipod to play flac files. There was a thread/tutorial about this in BTmusic. I haven't tried it yet.

ps. welcome to the family Gekko. Good to see you in here as well.


Register on the head-fi.org forums and check out the Portable Source Gear board within the Equipment forums, it's without doubt the best resource on the net for all your audio answers & as somebody mentioned earlier rockbox can make your IPOD do lots of things but if you don't use high end in ear phones it's still gonna sound like a goose farting in the fog :)

Backs what i said up if u use shit equipment it will always sound shit regardless of what format u play it in.

[Funkin']

I can't understand why people would download a file 5 times as large for a negligible increase in sound quality.

Some people must simply have better ears than me.

If a codec ever comes out that is significantly better than MP3-V0... let me know, and I'll just redownload it :P.

Everyone has their own opinion on the subject, and it does get a little tiring at times. But get yourself at least a half way descent system(along with a nice pair of cans), as Villa pointed, and you should most definitely be able hear a difference. If you're not really into music though...the type that downloads the latest teenage pop or emo album just to listen on their ipod on their walk to school or at lunch...or something like that, then I wouldn't really bother with it. Since nice setups can get pretty expensive, and not really worth it if you're only going to listen here and there. If you're not this type of person though, then give it a shot. I'm sure you'll be impressed.

Not only is lossless music my most downloaded files because of the quality, I also like converting the files to 320 myself for when I put music on and listen to my mp3 player. I feel better converting it from source than grabbing someone else's already converted upload. I guess it's piece of mind.

[tX]

:lol:

No but it works.

That's just a fake page, KushBlow is correct of course.

What's much easier to get in so if you've got What then Waffles isn't much for you if you aren't going for their 'Iron Waffles' 100% FLAC rips.

You do realize the irons simply check logs, right? :dry:
They do that automatically at what.cd, though I guess you'd feel more 'comfortable' having it done by a real person

Also, even with the best gear, MOST people cannot hear any difference. Most of the people who claim to hear differences are posers. Misinformation at this forum is astounding.

FLACs are generally downloaded for archival purposes (you have a lossless copy, verses a lossy codec that might/will become obsolete. You can burn perfect discs. etc)

[piratebot]

what's logchecker isn't the best btw.

[Time-Traveller]

Also, even with the best gear, MOST people cannot hear any difference. Most of the people who claim to hear differences are posers. Misinformation at this forum is astounding.

You have just astounded me, do you have a link where I can find your research that led you to this conclusion or did you just make it up ?

[piratebot]

Also, even with the best gear, MOST people cannot hear any difference. Most of the people who claim to hear differences are posers. Misinformation at this forum is astounding.

You have just astounded me, do you have a link where I can find your research that led you to this conclusion or did you just make it up ?
the keyword is most.

visit hydrogenaudio.org and look at the results of their listening tests. most have a hard time ABX-ing lame V5 with a high anchor.

people who claim they can hear differences rarely back it up with proof.

[Time-Traveller]

You have just astounded me, do you have a link where I can find your research that led you to this conclusion or did you just make it up ?
the keyword is most.

visit hydrogenaudio.org and look at the results of their listening tests. most have a hard time ABX-ing lame V5 with a high anchor.

people who claim they can hear differences rarely back it up with proof.

It's one of those things that's virtually impossible to back up with proof short of wiring the listener up to a brain scan to see the subtle differences in brain activity when listening sources of varying quality as it's totally subjective to the individual listener and of course the placebo effect has to be taken into account.

I thought that hydrogen audio is a well respected infobase for audiophiles but if they are spouting nonsense about not being able to tell the difference between a high anchor & V5 (110 to 150 kbps) then I'd have to reconsider, try listening to 128kbps track and V0 track I know for a fact there is a audible difference and this is without bringing flac into the equation

[piratebot]

I thought that hydrogen audio is a well respected infobase for audiophiles but if they are spouting nonsense about not being able to tell the difference between a high anchor & V5 (110 to 150 kbps) then I'd have to reconsider, try listening to 128kbps track and V0 track I know for a fact there is a audible difference and this is without bringing flac into the equation
tell me how you know for a fact. i'm curious to see how you back this up.

[Time-Traveller]

I thought that hydrogen audio is a well respected infobase for audiophiles but if they are spouting nonsense about not being able to tell the difference between a high anchor & V5 (110 to 150 kbps) then I'd have to reconsider, try listening to 128kbps track and V0 track I know for a fact there is a audible difference and this is without bringing flac into the equation
tell me how you know for a fact. i'm curious to see how you back this up.

Dead simple I can hear the difference in sound quality, it's kinda like the difference between a standard TV and a HD one, an HD source on the HD TV just has a clearer picture, fact,

However I can't prove it to someone who can't tell the difference

[mamacita]

And like Traveler said, it comes down to personal taste, so how is he ever supposed to "back up his proof"?

Hell, people think mint chocolate chip ice cream is the bomb, but I hate the guts out of it. But how can i ever prove to someone that chocolate chop cookie dough ice cream is so much better? Its all subjective.

So don't claim that Time T can't hear the difference. Perhaps he can. Perhaps his ear is more attuned to it than yours?

I know I can tell a difference between a high quality mp3 and a flac, but I also use some expense in ear phones.

P.S. - Check out the site Time T mentioned. Head-fi.org is an awesome site if you need help with audio equipment. Just be sure and hide your wallet somewhere, lest you put a huge hole in it :P

[piratebot]

double blind tests eliminate placebo.

[tX]

A while ago, some guy at the what.cd forums got the same audio file, encoded in a ton of different bitrates, and got people to listen to them.
The lower bitrates were easier distinguished (sub 128, which would be "normal TV" by your analogy), but VERY few got the higher ones, and those were probably fluked

[Lovestoned]

A while ago, some guy at the what.cd forums got the same audio file, encoded in a ton of different bitrates, and got people to listen to them.
The lower bitrates were easier distinguished (sub 128, which would be "normal TV" by your analogy), but VERY few got the higher ones, and those were probably fluked

It still depends on what you're using to produce the sound.

I heard that you can hear a big difference between a V0 and a FLAC if you've got a Audiophile grade Hi-Fi system.

[tX]

A while ago, some guy at the what.cd forums got the same audio file, encoded in a ton of different bitrates, and got people to listen to them.
The lower bitrates were easier distinguished (sub 128, which would be "normal TV" by your analogy), but VERY few got the higher ones, and those were probably fluked

It still depends on what you're using to produce the sound.

I heard that you can hear a big difference between a V0 and a FLAC if you've got a Audiophile grade Hi-Fi system.

You HEARD
And anyway, the best I've ever heard is a slight difference. Your friend is probably posing as a miracle ear
ITT: placebo effect :dry:

If you THINK something will sound better, it'll feel like it does

[mamacita]

If you really want to know where some people are coming from when they state they can tell the difference, get a headphone amp, and then get some high quality in-ear headphones and you'll see what they're talking about.

Get some phones with really good isolation. The sound quality is unbelievable.

[Lovestoned]

You mean the Placebo effect, don't you?

So do you think it's a big jump from V2 - V0?

I'm more of a V0 person.

[mamacita]

I do actually. I've been listening to V0's on my ipod at work for a long time now. I've got a couple V2s on there, and every time they pop up I can tell a difference. In fact, a lot of the times I find myself turning the volume up a notch with the V2s hit.

This is using an isolating canal phone.

[piratebot]

I would love to see some of you perform a proper ABX test with V2 and V0.

Just because you have high end equipment, doesn't mean you are automatically able to distinguish such differences. placebo

[mamacita]

You really are an unbeliever aren't you.

Anyways I used to be just as cynical and pessimistic about the topic. And of course equipment alone doesn't make you an expert.

Who knows, maybe I just have some crappy v2 rips *shrugs*

[johall]

I do actually. I've been listening to V0's on my ipod at work for a long time now. I've got a couple V2s on there, and every time they pop up I can tell a difference. In fact, a lot of the times I find myself turning the volume up a notch with the V2s hit.

i have had the same experience....and this has happened with my high end cans as well as some mediocre iem's as well as airplane headsets and my home stereo as well

although its not a factor of volume....more a factor of hearing minor discrepancys not really enough to make a sound difference but enough to annoy me a little

[lhnz]

I would love to see some of you perform a proper ABX test with V2 and V0.

Just because you have high end equipment, doesn't mean you are automatically able to distinguish such differences. placeboQuoted for truth.

The difference between V2 and V0 is negligable. Look at the transcode diagrams if you want to see the cut off point...
Also remember that the human ear can only hear up to 20KHz even for the best people...
Most people can only hear up to 19KHz.

If you're over 30 you're going to have trouble telling the difference between 128 and V2 to be honest. :P

[Time-Traveller]

If you're over 30 you're going to have trouble telling the difference between 128 and V2 to be honest. :P

Wrong, conversion to MP3 leaves the track sounding tinny, hollow and just missing something.

[mamacita]

If you're over 30 you're going to have trouble telling the difference between 128 and V2 to be honest
And I'm 25, so what's the point :P

My dad is 60, and he wont even touch mp3s, as the quality nags the hell out of him.

[Time-Traveller]

If you're over 30 you're going to have trouble telling the difference between 128 and V2 to be honest
And I'm 25, so what's the point :P

My dad is 60, and he wont even touch mp3s, as the quality nags the hell out of him.

Honestly buddy your wasting your time the younger ones just don't get it :)

[mamacita]

Cheers.

T-T, you should enable PMs, or PM me some contact info.

[Time-Traveller]

Cheers.

T-T, you should enable PMs, or PM me some contact info.

I can't yet my man been here less than a week, still a good 3 weeks till I'm trusted with that kind of power :)

[piratebot]

ignorance is bliss.

[lhnz]

If you're over 30 you're going to have trouble telling the difference between 128 and V2 to be honest. :P

Wrong, conversion to MP3 leaves the track sounding tinny, hollow and just missing something.You're old but you are not wise.

A tiny bit of background reading:

The range of hearing for a healthy young person is 20-20,000 Hz. The hearing range of humans gets worse with age. People lose the ability to hear sounds of high frequency as they get older. The highest frequency that a normal middle-aged adult can hear is only 12,000-14,000 Hz.
Source: http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/ChrisDAmbrose.shtmlNow take a look at some formats:

http://xs.vc/eac/Spectral/Images/flac.png
This is a FLAC, as you can see the frequency goes all the way up to the maximum 20,000 Hz that a young adult might hear. Obviously somebody older than this is not going to be able to hear the extra detail...

http://xs.vc/eac/Spectral/Images/mp3_V0.png
This is an MP3 encoded with the V0 preset. As you can see it goes all the way up to 19,000Hz. Little detail is lost.

http://xs.vc/eac/Spectral/Images/mp3_V2.png
This is an MP3 encoded with the V2 preset. As you can see it goes up to 18,000 Hz.

http://xs.vc/eac/Spectral/Images/mp3_128.png
This is a 128 CBR MP3. It only goes up to 16,000 Hz and sounds awful to younger listeners... However, if you remember from earlier that the highest frequency that a normal middle-aged adult can hear is only 12,000-14,000 Hz you should be able to see that actually they are unlikely to be able to tell the difference between it and FLAC.

Now, obviously you won't just lose your hearing with the click of a finger, but as you get older you're slowly going to lose that higher definition, and eventually that huge collection of FLAC you've amassed is going to just be a joke because you'll no longer be able to hear the difference between it and 128 CBR.

Take a listen on this webpage: http://ultrasonic-ringtones.com/
Or here if you want to take a proper listening test and have the time: http://www.digital-recordings.com/hearing-test/www-ht-pro/ht_help_p.html
Take a listen and find out at what point you can't hear the highest frequency. I'm 21, and can only hear up to 19Khz. This means that even with the best audiophile equipment I would not be able to tell the difference between a FLAC and a V0.
I'm not even bad, either. I've only ever gone to about 3 or 4 loud concerts in my life, and barely ever use an mp3 player, so I do not have extremely damaged hearing...
The people that are going to have the worst hearing are those much older than me, as the blurb I quoted said. The irony is that these are also the people buying expensive audiophile equipment and creating FLACs that their ears are no longer good enough to hear.

P.S: This is of course not including distortion of the sound sometimes caused by lossy encoding, however nowadays bad cases of this are few and far between...

[Time-Traveller]

It's not just the frequency range that determines sound quality it's the compression technique used and more factors already mentioned a couple of pages back until you get that through your thick head you won't be able to see past the whole frequency range thing

You can copy and paste as many spectrum analysis charts as you like but they won't convince me I can't tell the difference when I clearly can 128 to V2 & V2 to V0 is quite easy for me to differentiate between V0 to CD is harder but the difference is there remember not everything you get from listening to music is in audible range.

Ever heard the phrase feeling the music ?


*Edit*

K I can also hear upto 19Khz through that test with shitty 50 quid Sony headphones plugged into my soundblaster X-Fi and I'm more than 10 years older than you so that doesn't really prove anything either way does it.

[lhnz]

It's not just the frequency range that determines sound quality it's the compression technique used and more factors already mentioned a couple of pages back until you get that through your thick head you won't be able to see past the whole frequency range thingI clearly noted that in the little section saying 'P.S.' However, as I've said, nowadays the LAME encoder is pretty good at avoiding creating artifacts in the sound...


You can copy and paste as many spectrum analysis charts as you like but they won't convince me I can't tell the difference when I clearly can 128 to V2 & V2 to V0 is quite easy for me to differentiate between V0 to CD is harder but the difference is there remember not everything you get from listening to music is in audible range. Ever heard the phrase feeling the music ?You can't 'feel' the difference, so quit it what that mumbo jumbo - when people say they can 'feel' some music they're talking about the emotions and soul, and not a FLAC recording, lol.

Anyway, evidently you don't want to listen to my cold hard science. I'm just saying that statistically and biologically speaking what you've said is improbable. If you want to argue some new-age shit about 'feeling the FLAC' then go ahead. I'll merely stand here laughing at you until you get a grip.


K I can also hear upto 19Khz through that test with shitty 50 quid Sony headphones plugged into my soundblaster X-Fi and I'm more than 10 years older than you so that doesn't really prove anything either way does it.It proves that people that say they can hear the difference between FLAC and V0 are likely to be speaking out of their asses. Although don't feel that I'm having a go at you, the whole of What.CD and Waffles.FM want to believe that they can 'hear the difference'. Generally it's just a placebo unless you're superhuman.

I mean, perhaps some people can properly tell the difference...

Note: Of course FLAC is obviously preferred to archive though. =]

[Time-Traveller]

I clearly noted that in the little section saying 'P.S.' However, as I've said, nowadays the LAME encoder is pretty good at avoiding creating artifacts in the sound...


You can copy and paste as many spectrum analysis charts as you like but they won't convince me I can't tell the difference when I clearly can 128 to V2 & V2 to V0 is quite easy for me to differentiate between V0 to CD is harder but the difference is there remember not everything you get from listening to music is in audible range. Ever heard the phrase feeling the music ?You can't 'feel' the difference, so quit it what that mumbo jumbo - when people say they can 'feel' some music they're talking about the emotions and soul, and not a FLAC recording, lol.

Anyway, evidently you don't want to listen to my cold hard science. I'm just saying that statistically and biologically speaking what you've said is improbable. If you want to argue some new-age shit about 'feeling the FLAC' then go ahead. I'll merely stand here laughing at you until you get a grip.

K whatever, I'm sorry if you can't tell the difference on your cheap-ass crappy setup but thats not really my fault.

Next you'll be telling us there's no quality difference between CD & Vinyl

[piratebot]

I bet you don't even know what a double blind test is. Go ahead and disregard this post as well.

[nepenthe]

Oh my.... its funny how this subject never fails to bring out the sharpened claws :lol:

[Villalltheway]

People are still talking about this shit? Whats the point flac is the best whatever anyone may say, if its such a big difference that people should get it, who knows depends on ur set up, can u be bothered to take up lods of hd space for a difference in sound quality that u may not be able hear properly etc.

[mamacita]

So you guys are so seriously blinded by your technicalities that you can't even accept that other people have other opinions, and might very well be able to tell the difference?

Don't insult Time_t's intelligence by your one line smart ass quips. I don't need a double blind test to know what I hear. When I'm listening to my library of music on shuffle, i don't know what's flac and what's not, what's v0 and what's v2, but I often times hear a difference and then check it out and guess what, lo and behold, I'm usually right.

Heck, i used to be a flac nonbeliever for the very reasons you guys are stating. Time and lots of listening have proven to me otherwise.

But yeah, whatever, you guys know it all so I guess we're idiots or something, hmm?

Edit:


Oh my.... its funny how this subject never fails to bring out the sharpened claws

Seriously!! I mean, I'm being told that what I hear is simply a misjudgment on my part and nothing but a placebo effect because flac or v0 is "supposed" to sound better. What an utter bunch of crap.

But hey, that's music for you...utterly subjective. I know tons of people who think Country is the greatest thing on Earth. I can't stomach the stuff. So I guess that means they all have bad music taste. Pffft.

[piratebot]

I'm just saying, in order to actually know you hear differences, you need to do some proper testing to eliminate any hard-headed bias.

Look up "bias" and "placebo" in a dictionary or wiki. This may help you understand.

[Lovestoned]

Mmm..

If I'm not wrong FLAC was never meant to be built for normal playbacks but instead for archiving albums just in case they get scratched or spoil after too many plays.

Topics like these has always been on Hydrogenaudio and What too and somehow conflicts will always happen.

If you care so much about the bitrates you'll forget about the main thing of getting free music, to be enjoying it w/o any worries.

[lhnz]

Next you'll be telling us there's no quality difference between CD & VinylThere is a quality difference between CD and vinyl. Mastered way better most of the time. :>

[mamacita]

I'm just saying, in order to actually know you hear differences, you need to do some proper testing to eliminate any hard-headed bias.

Look up "bias" and "placebo" in a dictionary or wiki. This may help you understand.

I don't want to start a flame throwing contest, but seriously dude, get off your throne. Now you've insulted my intelligence as well. As if I don't know what placebo and bias mean. My major in college was sociology, so I know exactly what they are, thank you very much.

And no I don't need to scientifically knowwhich sounds better. The one sounds better than the other to me, and that's that. Who the hell cares otherwise?

[Rafa]

Mmm..
If I'm not wrong FLAC was never meant to be built for normal playbacks but instead for archiving albums just in case they get scratched or spoil after too many plays.


Word... is simple like this. FLAC is for archiving, is a perfect copy from original record/cd, then you can convert to any other format you like, and you can record a CD identical to the original. That is why i download FLAC, for archiving, not for hear in any player or whatever. Otherwise, V0 would be good enough, since in normal sound system we can not distinguish the difference between both.



Next you'll be telling us there's no quality difference between CD & VinylThere is a quality difference between CD and vinyl. Mastered way better most of the time. :>

Before I thought the CD was much better than vynil, but now it does not seem so real... am i wrong?

[integral]

i'm glad i don't have this much time on my hands to know all of this stuff.

[piratebot]

I'm just saying, in order to actually know you hear differences, you need to do some proper testing to eliminate any hard-headed bias.

Look up "bias" and "placebo" in a dictionary or wiki. This may help you understand.

I don't want to start a flame throwing contest, but seriously dude, get off your throne. Now you've insulted my intelligence as well. As if I don't know what placebo and bias mean. My major in college was sociology, so I know exactly what they are, thank you very much.

And no I don't need to scientifically knowwhich sounds better. The one sounds better than the other to me, and that's that. Who the hell cares otherwise?
One doesn't sound better than the other if you can't spot the differences, genius.

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Transparency

Just don't go around saying you can tell flac vs v0 because you have some hot shit headphones and a major in sociology and don't care about placebo.
If you're downloading high bitrate mp3s or flac for the peace of mind of knowing you'll have little or no artifacts, then that's fine.

[Lovestoned]

Maybe he has gold plated ears? You never know.

Or maybe he's a crossbreed between a human and a bat.

[tX]

i'm glad i don't have this much time on my hands to know all of this stuff.

It really amuses me to read people say they don't have time to do 10 minute readings, yet probably spend that much time, at least, posting in forums :unsure:

@lhnz, it's a lost cause :mellow:

[cinephilia]

if you don't have a suitable hi-fi system, you'll never hear the difference between v0 and flac, it's as simple as that.

[Time-Traveller]

Word... is simple like this. FLAC is for archiving, is a perfect copy from original record/cd, then you can convert to any other format you like, and you can record a CD identical to the original. That is why i download FLAC, for archiving, not for hear in any player or whatever. Otherwise, V0 would be good enough, since in normal sound system we can not distinguish the difference between both.



Next you'll be telling us there's no quality difference between CD & VinylThere is a quality difference between CD and vinyl. Mastered way better most of the time. :>

Before I thought the CD was much better than vynil, but now it does not seem so real... am i wrong?

Yeah vinyl on the same reference system as a cd sounds way better.

Either way vinyl or a properly well mastered cd will allow the track to breathe, give you an incredible detailed soundstage & excellent instrument placement so you can hear that the drummer is playing behind the lead singer, the bass guitarist is to the left and lead guitar is too the right.

[BigNut]

anyone got waffles invites? i have what.cd and would love to get into waffles. from what i can see what.cd has a great FLAC selection...

[yevgeny]

i notice a subtle difference but only with particular types of music. complicated sounds like rain and rage against the machines self titled album sound far better/more detailed from what i can tell.

[athenaesword]

it is possible that there are some audible differences in flac and mp3 v0, but that may be usually attributed to fault in the encoding algorithms, which are highly improbable in the first place.

i briefly ran through the whole thread, and my are there quite a few pompous asses out there insisting that differences in v0 and flac should be "obvious". that's bullshit in itself. and before any one of you idiots come trumping around with your "it's your setup" shit again, I've had an RSA Predator + UE TF10s, which aren't the highest end in portable audio, but they're more than decent, and v0 and flac sounds exactly the same on those.

I'm currently using an Oritek OMZ + Adam A7 professional monitors. that's as accurate as anyoen's likely to get without blowing over $2k. and I STILL can't hear any noticeable difference between flac and mp3. if i did blind tests, maybe i will, but on casual listening, there's NO WAY differences are obvious.

those who wish to continue insisting that their ears are golden, put up some abx results, otherwise, keep your dreaming to yourself.



Word... is simple like this. FLAC is for archiving, is a perfect copy from original record/cd, then you can convert to any other format you like, and you can record a CD identical to the original. That is why i download FLAC, for archiving, not for hear in any player or whatever. Otherwise, V0 would be good enough, since in normal sound system we can not distinguish the difference between both.


There is a quality difference between CD and vinyl. Mastered way better most of the time. :>

Before I thought the CD was much better than vynil, but now it does not seem so real... am i wrong?

Yeah vinyl on a the same reference system as a cd sounds way.

Either way vinyl or a properly well mastered cd will allow the track to breathe, give you an incredible detailed soundstage & excellent instrument placement so you can hear that the drummer is playing behind the lead singer, the bass guitarist is to the left and lead guitar is too the right.


you've not once supported what you've said in this entire thread. all we've heard is all the pompous "audiophile" terms over and over. enough with trying to blow smoke in everyone's eyes and get some tests done already. then we can begin to talk. it's fine if you think you can hear the difference, but insisting that everyone else should? geez.

and 80% of head-fi's smoke. yes there's some good info on there, and over the years I've learnt quite abit about audio from there, but tbh these days it's just too hard to filter out the rubbish.

[Time-Traveller]

it is possible that there are some audible differences in flac and mp3 v0, but that may be usually attributed to fault in the encoding algorithms, which are highly improbable in the first place.

i briefly ran through the whole thread, and my are there quite a few pompous asses out there insisting that differences in v0 and flac should be "obvious". that's bullshit in itself. and before any one of you idiots come trumping around with your "it's your setup" shit again, I've had an RSA Predator + UE TF10s, which aren't the highest end in portable audio, but they're more than decent, and v0 and flac sounds exactly the same on those.

I'm currently using an Oritek OMZ + Adam A7 professional monitors. that's as accurate as anyoen's likely to get without blowing over $2k. and I STILL can't hear any noticeable difference between flac and mp3. if i did blind tests, maybe i will, but on casual listening, there's NO WAY differences are obvious.

those who wish to continue insisting that their ears are golden, put up some abx results, otherwise, keep your dreaming to yourself.



Word... is simple like this. FLAC is for archiving, is a perfect copy from original record/cd, then you can convert to any other format you like, and you can record a CD identical to the original. That is why i download FLAC, for archiving, not for hear in any player or whatever. Otherwise, V0 would be good enough, since in normal sound system we can not distinguish the difference between both.



Before I thought the CD was much better than vynil, but now it does not seem so real... am i wrong?

Yeah vinyl on a the same reference system as a cd sounds way.

Either way vinyl or a properly well mastered cd will allow the track to breathe, give you an incredible detailed soundstage & excellent instrument placement so you can hear that the drummer is playing behind the lead singer, the bass guitarist is to the left and lead guitar is too the right.


you've not once supported what you've said in this entire thread. all we've heard is all the pompous "audiophile" terms over and over. enough with trying to blow smoke in everyone's eyes and get some tests done already. then we can begin to talk. it's fine if you think you can hear the difference, but insisting that everyone else should? geez.

and 80% of head-fi's smoke. yes there's some good info on there, and over the years I've learnt quite abit about audio from there, but tbh these days it's just too hard to filter out the rubbish.



Either way vinyl or a properly well mastered cd will allow the track to breathe, give you an incredible detailed soundstage & excellent instrument placement so you can hear that the drummer is playing behind the lead singer, the bass guitarist is to the left and lead guitar is too the right.

What you've quoted me on there is absolutely correct, I stand by what I say, I can tell the difference, there's no point getting upset and angry because you can't :(

Please tell me the setup you mentioned there isn't a portable source & portable amp connected up to a set of monitors, you will have truly embarrassed yourself there if it is ???


Edit: Also audiophiles probably wouldn't use the terms "soundstage & instrument placement" they'd probably use some pompous audiophile terminology instead of sound quality for dummies

[piratebot]

those who wish to continue insisting that their ears are golden, put up some abx results, otherwise, keep your dreaming to yourself.

They don't feel they have to. They're subjective audiophiles.

[Brenya]

Edit: Also audiophiles probably wouldn't use the terms "soundstage & instrument placement" they'd probably use some pompous audiophile terminology instead of sound quality for dummies
Geniuses can be Idiots, but Idiots can't be Geniuses :dabs:

those who wish to continue insisting that their ears are golden, put up some abx results, otherwise, keep your dreaming to yourself.
I want to see some results, too, or just describe in detail the difference between one song in FLAC and another in V0. Choose a familiar song, too, please.

Let us deaf men hear the symphony?

[cinephilia]

Geniuses can be Idiots, but Idiots can't be Geniuses.
with talent, you do what you like.
with genius, you do what you can.

[athenaesword]

Geniuses can be Idiots, but Idiots can't be Geniuses :dabs:

those who wish to continue insisting that their ears are golden, put up some abx results, otherwise, keep your dreaming to yourself.
I want to see some results, too, or just describe in detail the difference between one song in FLAC and another in V0. Choose a familiar song, too, please.

Let us deaf men hear the symphony?
mr time traveller here will just put up some more of his BS about how the music's breathing lol.


[What you've quoted me on there is absolutely correct, I stand by what I say, I can tell the difference, there's no point getting upset and angry because you can't :(

Please tell me the setup you mentioned there isn't a portable source & portable amp connected up to a set of monitors, you will have truly embarrassed yourself there if it is ???


Edit: Also audiophiles probably wouldn't use the terms "soundstage & instrument placement" they'd probably use some pompous audiophile terminology instead of sound quality for dummies

dude you wanna play the equipment game at least get your facts right. I already said I'm using an oritek OMZ dac, and Adam A7 monitors. the monitors are powered so I don't need an external amp, much less a portable one.

why wouldn't audiophiles use "soundstage and instrument placement"? at least that's more accurate, and actually means something, compared to your "breathing" nonsense.

I'm neither upset, nor angry. You're just another audionoob who thinks his ears are better than everyone else and refuses to do blind tests to acknowledge his own failure. All those people in this thread who've actually displayed some real knowledge on the subject don't acknowledge your claims because facts and figures have been thrown in your face that show that you shouldn't be able to discern and audible difference between flac and v0. While such a possibility still exists, perhaps due to the imperfect lame algorithm, you have time and again avoided taking these tests to prove your point. If that's the limit that you want to take this to, then stop there, please and stop posting that you can tell a difference, because we've all heard that too many times.
The facts are:
1) you're making a claim
2) people disagree with you or don't believe you (with graphs to back it up too)
3) you can't swallow that but you don't want to, or can't prove your claim, although the methods to do so have been explicitly mentioned
4) you just keep repeating your claim, as though saying it more times will get people to believe you.

so unless you wanna take it to the next step, just shut up already.

[tX]

ITT: Posers