Does anyone share FLAC files?

[CluelesInSeatl]

I'm brand new here and this is my first post.

I'm an old timer and I'm trying to find digital copies of the songs in my vinyl collection.

I've got quite a few MP3s, but I think I would prefer FLAC files because I'm told you get higher quality playback from a FLAC file than from an MP3 file.

But I haven't been able to find any sources for FLAC downloads.

If you know of sources for FLAC files I'd cure be grateful if you could point me toward them.

Will in Seattle
a.k.a. "Clueless"

[anon]

But I haven't been able to find any sources for FLAC downloads.

If you know of sources for FLAC files I'd cure be grateful if you could point me toward them.

When it comes to BitTorrent trackers, you have What.cd, Waffles and SceneSound, for example. There are also niche lossless trackers such as BTMusic, E**** (hard to get in).

[sez]

http://avaxhome.ws/music/format_bitrate/lossless

The aforementioned sites indirectly provide their content for direct download on there.

[Tv Controls you]

I share over 200gb of flac lol. Audiophile for life.

www.thepiratebay.org (http://thepiratebay.org/browse/104) has a flac section (that isn't that good because anyone can upload to it)

Don't know if you know alot about torrents but you need a program called utorrent (www.utorrent.com) to download files off piratebay

Once you gain a concept of how torrents work I recommend:
1) waffles.fm
2) what.cd

They are both private trackers that offer top notch flac files. You must get invited from a previous member though.

[Funkin']

I would stick with sez's suggestion and use Avaxhome. The lossless bittorrent trackers are pretty hard to get into. But a lot of the content at these trackers make there way to Avax anyways(with permission or not unfortunately).

You can also check out FlacShare(another DDL forum). It's new though, so the content there isn't as big as Avax.

But...if you're wanting to use a tracker for lossless, then I highly recommend Torrents.ru. There is a ton on that site, and it's easy to seed. Samething with Demonoid.

[PerMaFrOsT]

I would stick with sez's suggestion and use Avaxhome. The lossless bittorrent trackers are pretty hard to get into. But a lot of the content at these trackers make there way to Avax anyways(with permission or not unfortunately).

You can also check out FlacShare(another DDL forum). It's new though, so the content there isn't as big as Avax.

But...if you're wanting to use a tracker for lossless, then I highly recommend Torrents.ru. There is a ton on that site, and it's easy to seed. Samething with Demonoid.

Nice info! I will try FlacShare :shifty:

[xuxoxux]

The lossless bittorrent trackers are pretty hard to get into.

What.cd is actually relatively easy to get into. Their interview system is the key. Study for like an hour or two and take it. Then enjoy the massive selection of music.

[Funkin']

Actually I wasn't talking about What or Waffles, xuxoxux. Those are more general music trackers(that does have lossless torrents though). I was referring to the music trackers that cater to lossless format only. There are a few around, but a couple of those are pretty hard to get invited to.

[aen]

I only share logs and cues. Flac is too difficult for me.

[Ewwwyourface]

no i dl 128kbps mp3 there is no difference

[xuxoxux]

Actually I wasn't talking about What or Waffles, xuxoxux. Those are more general music trackers(that does have lossless torrents though). I was referring to the music trackers that cater to lossless format only. There are a few around, but a couple of those are pretty hard to get invited to.

Yup, sorry mate. You are right. Getting into them is a struggle.

[WakeMeUp]

I wouldn't recommend FLAC sources unless you are obsessed with quality. 320 bitrate mp3s are quite good to me and most people, so you would be better not getting into any of this.

[aen]

I would recommend you v0 if you good with mp3 320 and your mind.

[PerMaFrOsT]

I wouldn't recommend FLAC sources unless you are obsessed with quality. 320 bitrate mp3s are quite good to me and most people, so you would be better not getting into any of this.

All depend where are you listening the music. If you use a player rated on 20€ with mp3 is enough...

[RedRansom]

btmusic and what.cd the way to...hope you have some sources to share then maybe it will help to open btmusic's doors easily...

[crude745]

I recommend FLACShare.net (http://flacshare.net/) for RS & MU links

[Speedo]

I wouldn't recommend FLAC sources unless you are obsessed with quality. 320 bitrate mp3s are quite good to me and most people, so you would be better not getting into any of this.

All depend where are you listening the music. If you use a player rated on 20€ with mp3 is enough...

The way I understand it 320 mp3 cuts of right over where the human ear can understand it at about 20.000. Are you telling me you have super sonic hearing or are you all about something else?

[oresund]

All depend where are you listening the music. If you use a player rated on 20€ with mp3 is enough...

The way I understand it 320 mp3 cuts of right over where the human ear can understand it at about 20.000. Are you telling me you have super sonic hearing or are you all about something else?

If you can't hear any difference between flac and MP3 320 you have f..up your ears dude.

The difference has nothing to do with frequency range. It's all about distorsion, dynamics and digital glitches. MP3 sucks big time and is only usable with crappy headphones.

[IdolEyes787]

It's all about distorsion MP3 sucks big time and is only usable with crappy headphones.

Irony.

[cinephilia]

mp3 is n00b

flac is king of the jungle :yup:

[Stabber]

I only get flac quality for my favourite albums but i've never noticed any difference between them and v0 quality .

[IdolEyes787]

mp3 is n00b

flac is king of the jungle :yup:

I thought that was Tarzan ?

No wait that's Lord.
Wait again isn't the Lion the King of the jungle?

No wait that beasts.

OK then flac it is.

[cinephilia]

full bluray also

[obaletan]

Everything is relative.... On my system Marantz xlr Pre/Pro, McIntosh amp, and JBL synthesis speakers in a treated room (Decent gear). The difference between mp3 and lossless on most music would be quite apparent to anyone. Walmart off-brand mp3 player through KOSS headphones does it matter.... nope.

Flac FTW!

[IdolEyes787]

Everything is relative.... On my system Marantz xlr Pre/Pro, McIntosh amp, and JBL synthesis speakers in a treated room (Decent gear). The difference between mp3 and lossless on most music would be quite apparent to anyone. Walmart off-brand mp3 player through KOSS headphones does it matter.... nope.

Flac FTW!

Still doesn't apparently lessen the likelihood of looking down one's nose at other people though..

[obaletan]

Everything is relative.... On my system Marantz xlr Pre/Pro, McIntosh amp, and JBL synthesis speakers in a treated room (Decent gear). The difference between mp3 and lossless on most music would be quite apparent to anyone. Walmart off-brand mp3 player through KOSS headphones does it matter.... nope.

Flac FTW!

Still doesn't apparently lessen the likelihood of looking down one's nose at other people though..

I meant no disrespect. I'm into listening/making music. It's a hobby and really the only thing I throw any money at. I was simply stating that these differences are much easily recognized on higher end equipment. I'm proud of my equipment and used it as a reference to what I consider decent gear. Others may disagree. I use transcoded flac on my ipod (192 CBR mp3). I was just saying it's relative to what you're listening to. On another note... the off brand walmart mp3 player and koss headphones is what my sister uses. I bought it as a present, and she truthfully doesn't care whats played through it :).

[ca_aok]

To be honest, most people would be unable to hear the difference between FLAC and MP3, even on systems worth thousands of dollars (I'm talking about 320 or V0 LAME here, not some 128kbps limewire shit). If you can't (or won't try to) successfully tell the difference in an ABX (double blind test), it's a placebo effect from the money you've spent. It's quite common in the audiophile world, there was a hilarious study done a while ago where self-proclaimed audiophiles listened to two systems: one with expensive Monster cables, the other with the connections made with coat-hangers. No one was able to tell the difference correctly to a statistical point of relevance.

Anyone who says the differences are "glaring" is lying through their teeth anyway. The differences are extremely subtle... a bit more of a muddled low end, duller cymbals and high ends, maybe a slight "hollowness" to the sound depending on bitrate.

Once you start getting towards 128kbps, the differences get more obvious. You'll more frequently have audible compression artifacts and a greatly degraded sound. As you continue to decrease the bitrate it'll get worse and worse.

For most people anything around ~192 will be transparent, for the more discerning ears it's probably closer to 256 or 320.

There are plenty of other reasons to download FLAC. If you have the free disk space it's nice to know you're getting the full possible quality regardless of how good your ears are, it's nice for archival purposes, since you have an exact copy of the CD source (or close to it), and the files use Vorbis Comments for tags, meaning you can essentially make up your own tags to customize your library.

[Quarterquack]

KOSS headphones aren't all that bad... I own a pair of portapros myself, and they sound great for their price range. I understand being in "musical production" means you need the absolute best in gear to know if you're shy on bass, muffling an instrument, or a note earlier than perfect harmony; then again, tell that to the hundreds of music studios that still use Fostex cans as studio monitors.

[obaletan]

To be honest, most people would be unable to hear the difference between FLAC and MP3, even on systems worth thousands of dollars (I'm talking about 320 or V0 LAME here, not some 128kbps limewire shit). If you can't (or won't try to) successfully tell the difference in an ABX (double blind test), it's a placebo effect from the money you've spent. It's quite common in the audiophile world, there was a hilarious study done a while ago where self-proclaimed audiophiles listened to two systems: one with expensive Monster cables, the other with the connections made with coat-hangers. No one was able to tell the difference correctly to a statistical point of relevance.

Anyone who says the differences are "glaring" is lying through their teeth anyway. The differences are extremely subtle... a bit more of a muddled low end, duller cymbals and high ends, maybe a slight "hollowness" to the sound depending on bitrate.

Once you start getting towards 128kbps, the differences get more obvious. You'll more frequently have audible compression artifacts and a greatly degraded sound. As you continue to decrease the bitrate it'll get worse and worse.

For most people anything around ~192 will be transparent, for the more discerning ears it's probably closer to 256 or 320.

There are plenty of other reasons to download FLAC. If you have the free disk space it's nice to know you're getting the full possible quality regardless of how good your ears are, it's nice for archival purposes, since you have an exact copy of the CD source (or close to it), and the files use Vorbis Comments for tags, meaning you can essentially make up your own tags to customize your library.

All extremely good points ... I have never considered myself an audiophile and almost never want to be. I do remember reading that article about the coat hangers. When I bought my gear they were trying to sell me on MIT XLR cables... they have price ranges from $150(1.5 foot single xlr) up to like $3000 I think? What a croc! I order parts from monoprice and built my own 7 channels 4 foot long for $64 :)

I also never stated that it would be glaring. I should have clarified more as you stated it becomes very hard to determine once you get to 320 or V0. 192 track and genre depending. 128 and below why waste your time... HD space is too cheap just bump to 192 or 256.

I have ABX'ed before and I will say I did quite well on my fave tracks. Never heard before.... not so good. Also music genre and the original dynamics of the track play a huge part in these comparisons. But I also have the background for listening for defects I do live sound control and recording for bands and personally.

Your other reasons for having flac are the exact reasons why I use it. Archival and tags are huge.

Even though the files are bigger. My media drive has 1500+ albums using 500GB. Thats a lot of music. A terrabyte drive can be had for $90. So I think the space argument isn't even valid. Then you get a library program like mediamonkey that transcodes on the fly to mp3 player, where space is a concern.

I'm all for everyone using flac. :)


KOSS headphones aren't all that bad... I own a pair of portapros myself, and they sound great for their price range. I understand being in "musical production" means you need the absolute best in gear to know if you're shy on bass, muffling an instrument, or a note earlier than perfect harmony; then again, tell that to the hundreds of music studios that still use Fostex cans as studio monitors.

I'm not saying Koss headphones are bad just first name that popped in my head. Music studios and their poor production techniques and equipment choices are a rant for a different board :)

[oresund]

To put it very simple. Nothing performs better than the weakest object in a chain.

In other words, by using FLAC, you remove the potential of the file causing limitation of the sound quality and as the above poster say, hard disc space comes cheap, so why bother to compress the music ?

Use for instance an original Pink Floyd album or a Keb Mo record, make a FLAC and a MP3 320 file and compare. There's a clearly difference in dynamics. I do however agree there are many examples of crappy original Cd records where you don't hear any difference. I really don't bother to buy these records anyway.

I'm amazed what people do sometimes. I have seen examples of people converting a MP3 128 to a FLAC and then say they can't hear any difference between the formats.

[beansis]

To be honest, most people would be unable to hear the difference between FLAC and MP3, even on systems worth thousands of dollars (I'm talking about 320 or V0 LAME here, not some 128kbps limewire shit). If you can't (or won't try to) successfully tell the difference in an ABX (double blind test), it's a placebo effect from the money you've spent. It's quite common in the audiophile world, there was a hilarious study done a while ago where self-proclaimed audiophiles listened to two systems: one with expensive Monster cables, the other with the connections made with coat-hangers. No one was able to tell the difference correctly to a statistical point of relevance.

Ur missing the point. People who have "systems worth thousands of dollars" wouldn't be listening to lossy to begin with. There is no reason to spend that much money unless you are looking for the subtle differences that you pointed out. Otherwise comparable sound quality is available much cheaper for those who aren't ocd over their tunes. As far as cables goes, I think it is common knowledge that Monster cables are bs, and a well constructed cable with good materials is really all that is necessary, unless you have lots of money to throw around.

[polsat]

no

[gamesover]

no

Simple, direct, and to the point :D

[ma7moud1]

http://thepiratebay.org/browse

[anon]

http://thepiratebay.org/browse

More like /browse/104.

[Shinzen]

meh jus upto 1:1 Ratio both on public n private trackers

[JCity]

noob here. flac files? are those the flash files?

[Shinzen]

noob here. flac files? are those the flash files?

Nope

Flac is Lossless Audio hmm like Better Quality than mp3

[anon]

Looks like you confused FLAC with .fla, JCity. :)

[nye]

FLAC is the only way to go if you have a high definition system.

[cinephilia]

lol@only way to go. what about untouched wav files ?

[Anon71]

Flac is a waste of space, the only need for it is to convert lossless to any lossless or lossy format

[anon]

Flac is a waste of space, the only need for it is to convert lossless to any lossless

:mellow: