FLAC vs MP3 - Which Has Better Quality

[bigdaddydude]

I've been listening to MP3s at a 192 kb/s bitrate for awhile now and the quality sounds good, but now I'm curious if FLAC has better quality? Does FLAC eat up more of my hard drive space? Any trackers that would be dedicated to FLAC and teach me how to upload/rip music to FLAC files?

[anon]

I've been listening to MP3s at a 192 kb/s bitrate for awhile now and the quality sounds good, but now I'm curious if FLAC has better quality?

http://filesharingtalk.com/threads/421874-Is-FLAC-really-quot-better-quot-than-high-bit-rate-MP3


Does FLAC eat up more of my hard drive space?

Yes.


Any trackers that would be dedicated to FLAC and teach me how to upload/rip music to FLAC files?

There are some FLAC trackers, but they're generally hard to get into. I'd recommend you read this (http://xunside.info/eac/Setup/setup1.html) and the wiki on What.cd (if you're a member there) to get started with EAC and FLAC ripping, and then, if you'd prefer a specialized site, apply for an LW invite here (https://losslessworld.info/singapp.php). You'll need to answer some questions, post some proof of membership on other trackers, and upload one torrent within a 24 hours timeframe.

[Waddafocky]

If encoded correctly, a >192kbps MP3 will sound transparent to its source.

In this day and age, your hardware is more likely to be the limiting factor than the source. For example, your laptop speakers/iPod headphones can only make your music sound so good. Really, if you don't have semi/quasi-audiophile hardware, FLAC will be a wasted investment. I am using $200 IEM's (granted no sound card or pre-amp), and I can't really hear the difference between FLAC and V0/V2 MP3's unless I'm listening to delicate classical.

I recommend that you find some FLAC copies of albums you have already, preferably in both CD and mp3 format, and do some testing yourself. If you can only detect a minor difference, then stick with what you have, or move up to V0. V0 LAME MP3's will take up about 1/3 of the space of FLAC and will have about twice the number of bits to sound transparent.

Any dedicated music-tracker will have quality standards that promote close-to-transparent rips of music. What and Waffles come to mind, but I've been at Libble for a little while, and depending on what kind of music you like (mostly indie, other relatively unknown music), it's a great tracker. Also, you look like an all-right guy (not referring to your avatar), if you want an invite to Libble, I can spare you one.

[whatcdfan]

flac is far more better in terms of quality then any lossy formats, flac preserves the original bitrate of 1411kbps whereas u can go to the maximum of 320 kbps with mp3 so theoretically theres a huge difference in quality but as Anarkial said u gotta have the hardware to take the difference into ur notion.
As for the size:
one simple universal fact applies to all the media, the better the quality=the larger the size
the compression rate of FLAC varies from 20 to 40% depending on various factors meaning a 40MB wav track wud become something like 30 MB whereas MP3's compression revolves between 78 to 87% in standard quality so the 40MB wav track wud become something like 6MB
Before u do anything take Anarkial advise of testing for urself into consideration

[ca_aok]

Do an ABX test on a few of your favourite albums (preferably across a range of genres) on your best listening equipment in a quiet room. If you can tell the difference, go for FLAC. Otherwise, stick to MP3.

There are several other reasons to go for FLAC though. Hard disk space is cheap and it's nice to have 1:1 copies of your CDs stored digitally (and any other CDs you might obtain). Besides, you have complete control over choosing FLAC over MP3 and it's generally a choice made for free... ensuring that the bottleneck for your audio listening experience will be your equipment, not your files.

[yevgeny]

well i can discern some improvement with flac which was a bit of a surprise to me since my pioneer setup is quite old, it used to play only minidisc and cd to give an idea of how old so connecting it to xbmc saved it from languishing in my shed doing nothing. tbh i havent had a problem finding anything in the usual places like w&w.

i found this, it gives an overview but there heaps of other guides on there.


http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Free_Lossless_Audio_Codec (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Free_Lossless_Audio_Codec)

[streetrider]

FLAC is the best way to archive your music files for the versatility it offers. It definitely uses up more storage space but then hard discs are getting more and more affordable with each passing day. Personally, the music I've been downloading since the past few months is only flac and I'm absolutely enjoying it. For a start you could find a lot of perfect flac on wh@t and w@ffles. Later on you evolve to LW's, P's or E's where you get those flawlessly ripped files with proper scans and wouldn't have to search for them under heaps of mp3 files.

PS. There you'll will also find encoding and ripping guides by the best guys in the business.

[Rigel9]

Mp3 obviusly is superior. FLAC is only for nerds and n00bs, u cant even play it in iTunes so its basicaly useless.

[b3owulf]

Mp3 obviusly is superior. FLAC is only for nerds and n00bs, u cant even play it in iTunes so its basicaly useless.
Thanks, man, you made my day!!!

[ScottK]

HD over XviD : 1 - 0
flac over 320 Mp3 : 1 - 1

im not pro, but my belief is flac = overrated. i can watch HD quality over Xvid, but i cant hear any difference between mp3 & flac. (i have normal ears?) . i do download flac (album i want to burn into cd) but not obsess to make collection on my pc

[ca_aok]

Mp3 obviusly is superior. FLAC is only for nerds and n00bs, u cant even play it in iTunes so its basicaly useless.
If you're using iTunes as a music player, you've essentially failed at using a computer. Might as well fail at formats too.

[Waddafocky]

Mp3 obviusly is superior. FLAC is only for nerds and n00bs, u cant even play it in iTunes so its basicaly useless.
If you're using iTunes as a music player, you've essentially failed at using a computer. Might as well fail at formats too.

I'm pretty sure he was trolling, dude.

[Slickerey]

dvd

We're talking about music here, Sherlock Holmes.

[Waddafocky]

dvd

Thank you for your thoughtful post - it has added a whole new dimension to this discussion that I had never thought of before.

Your contribution of

dvd
will go down in my memory as one of the most meaningful posts of all time, and I can not hope to match it, I just aspire.

/inb4disabled4spamming

[anon]

Thank you for your thoughtful post - it has added a whole new dimension to this discussion that I had never thought of before.

Your contribution of

dvd
will go down in my memory as one of the most meaningful posts of all time, and I can not hope to match it, I just aspire.

/inb4disabled4spamming

Man, I was away when the most intelligent post in the history of FST was made. :(

I'd like to thank you for quoting it and thus allowing it (and its poster) to reach immortality. Posts such as:

dvd

Definitely deserve to be remembered by future generations.

[Waddafocky]

Thank you for your thoughtful post - it has added a whole new dimension to this discussion that I had never thought of before.

Your contribution of

will go down in my memory as one of the most meaningful posts of all time, and I can not hope to match it, I just aspire.

/inb4disabled4spamming

Man, I was away when the most intelligent post in the history of FST was made. :(

I'd like to thank you for quoting it and thus allowing it (and its poster) to reach immortality. Posts such as:

dvd

Definitely deserve to be remembered by future generations.

Yes, I agree. This is why I have also commemorated this by making this my forum title, because there are some things that must not be allowed to die, and must be carried onwards and forwards like the Olympic torch, passed through generations like an old heirloom or the knowledge of atomics, and generally regarded only from a distance, like a stinking shit.

[ca_aok]

If you're using iTunes as a music player, you've essentially failed at using a computer. Might as well fail at formats too.

I'm pretty sure he was trolling, dude.
You'd be surprised how many people will try to convince you iTunes is a good music player (on Windows machines). Apple's good at brainwashing people :P

[Burnsy]

Thank you for your thoughtful post - it has added a whole new dimension to this discussion that I had never thought of before.

Your contribution of

will go down in my memory as one of the most meaningful posts of all time, and I can not hope to match it, I just aspire.

/inb4disabled4spamming

Man, I was away when the most intelligent post in the history of FST was made. :(

I'd like to thank you for quoting it and thus allowing it (and its poster) to reach immortality. Posts such as:

dvd

Definitely deserve to be remembered by future generations.

J-Dye strikes again :lol:

[anon]

Yes, I agree. This is why I have also commemorated this by making this my forum title, because there are some things that must not be allowed to die, and must be carried onwards and forwards like the Olympic torch, passed through generations like an old heirloom or the knowledge of atomics, and generally regarded only from a distance, like a stinking shit.

Three :lol:s to that.

[Sporkk]

I like lame V0 for best sound for file size compromise. I have semi high end headphones and a dedicated amp and can't tell the difference between flac.

[Waddafocky]

Back on topic, even V0 is the enlargement of e-penis (one that I indulge in as well). V2 is generally considered transparent, even with high-end walamapaloozas.

The fidelity of your equipment can technically exceed the physical constraints of your ears, but that doesn't make you hear better. You could be playing clean vinyls through $10k equipment, but your ears can only hear so well (and if you have high end equipment you really have no business pirating music).

/inb4 someone blasts me for my last parenthetical.

[whatcdfan]

even V0 is the enlargement of e-penis (one that I indulge in as well). V2 is generally considered transparent.

true, V2 in my opinion is better then anything else considering the average of quality and size since when i have to upload an album to public trackers i always have to do it in CBR320 kbps bcoz most of my uploads go to rutor which dosent allow lossy quality any less then that which enlarges the torrent size enormously so 90MB album becomes like 150 Mb and it really becomes pain in the ass when uploading box sets or discographies, yesterday i uploaded a discography 10 albums set in CBR320 kbps sized at 1.5 gigs which took me 6 long hours to transfer the files to the first batch of seeders had it been in V2 it wud have been a lot faster and the quality practically same listening experience

[whatcdfan]

delete

[Polarbear]

I think V2 is overkill. 128 is transparent especially if you listen to a lot of trance like myself. Mp3 sounds a lot better than FLAC.

[Waddafocky]

Polarbear, I thought you were trolling but you posted with kurreckt speeling and gramur.

I can't say 128 is transparent - that would be only if your ears were shot. And saying that MP3 > FLAC is like saying MP3 > CD - that can only happen if you like your music a certain way (more static, possibly louder, highs missing)

EDIT: Sorry if above post was sarcasm - sometimes I can see it, sometimes I can't.

[A]

Polarbear, I thought you were trolling but you posted with kurreckt speeling and gramur.

I can't say 128 is transparent - that would be only if your ears were shot. And saying that MP3 > FLAC is like saying MP3 > CD - that can only happen if you like your music a certain way (more static, possibly louder, highs missing)
Sarcasm gone undetected I see.

[anon]

yesterday i uploaded a discography 10 albums set in CBR320 kbps sized at 1.5 gigs which took me 6 long hours to transfer the files to the first batch of seeders had it been in V2 it wud have been a lot faster and the quality practically same listening experience

Always enable super-seeding until you've seeded a full copy of the torrent, if you're the initial seeder. That can halve the amount of data you need to upload before someone else becomes a seeder.

Do disable it when that happens, as then super-seeding becomes counterproductive.

[whatcdfan]

looks like something useful
what is super seeding man? and why and how do i enable it?

[Waddafocky]

Any place that pushes 320 over V0 is deluded or misinformed.

whatcdfan:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=super-seeder&l=1

[anon]

whatcdfan:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=super-seeder&l=1

Thanks for saving me the hassle :)

[Humbucker]

Using lossless as a fail-safe mechanism can't be argued against, but have you ever wondered why listening tests are not conducted for lossy encodings at “high” bitrates (~256)? I challenge you to find anyone who can differentiate (a song, not problem sample-- after all people attend concerts to listen to music) between a MP3 -V0 encoded music and a FLAC encoded music. Yes, using lossless might give you the satisfaction of knowing that “this is as good as it gets”, but honestly, you'd be hard pressed to find people who can differentiate between a lossy and a lossless.

[OlegL]

flac is better than mp3 because flac is lossless and mp3 is lossy.

[Waddafocky]

flac is better than mp3 because flac is lossless and mp3 is lossy.

Implying by definition that lossless is better than lossy, and totally ignoring everything else that's been said in this thread. You're not as good as

dvdbut you're almost there.

EDIT: Looks like I failed at detecting sarcasm, yet again. I'll keep my idiot comments to myself.

I used to be a perfect archival freak until I realized even my body fails to live up to my high standards - every single atom in my body is replaced every 5 years. Why the fuck should my music be better than physics?

Also, to the above post, I'm going to call on physics again. You wouldn't just be hard-pressed. If you have to TRY REAL HARD to discern differences between two basically identical copies of your music, and maybe have OTHER PEOPLE listen to it for you, you've got other problems, mate.

I also used to be a FLAC guy until I realized that the music industry could use quality as their selling point - give out shit MP3's for free, and make the FLAC's hard to get. Then I realized how stupid an idea that was and slashed my wrists.

[ScottK]

flac is better than mp3 because flac is lossless and mp3 is lossy.

:lol:

[bijoy]

flac is better than mp3 because flac is lossless and mp3 is lossy.

Looks like some 80 year old is speaking here.. :fst:

[DeadPoet]

flac is better than mp3 because flac is lossless and mp3 is lossy.

Looks like some 80 year old is speaking here.. :fst:

Give this guy a break.
Obviously english is not his first language and that shouldn't be the reason to make fun of someone.
His post made me chuckle a bit too but I'm not running around FST posting crap about him.
That's not ethically you know...

[Quarterquack]

Looks like some 80 year old is speaking here.. :fst:

I'm starting to regret that pact I made with myself about giving you room to breathe. Imbecile.

[th0r]

. . . you'd be hard pressed to find people who can differentiate between lossy and a lossless.i believe i can and other people i know can, too; you don't need a sound setup in the $1,000s of dollars to hear the difference between flac and mp3, imo, but it does need to be pretty decent. other than its archival purposes, why else would flac be a viable format for ripping music?


I am using $200 IEM's (granted no sound card or pre-amp)no sound card? maybe i'm missing something here . . .


flac is far more better in terms of quality then any lossy formats, flac preserves the original bitrate of 1411kbps whereas u can go to the maximum of 320 kbps with mp3 so theoretically theres a huge difference in quality but as Anarkial said u gotta have the hardware to take the difference into ur notion.i've done some sound tests myself and i'm able to hear the difference (at least w/ albums ripped in 100% accurate flac versus albums ripped in 320 kpbs/v0 mp3 that have particularly good production; good album production might add a bias to that test, tbh)


Do an ABX test on a few of your favourite albums (preferably across a range of genres) on your best listening equipment in a quiet room. If you can tell the difference, go for FLAC.this seems to be the most accurate test (it's a test that i've done before) if you really want to be sure flac is superior, but as always, the result depends on your sound setup and the production value of the albums you're listening to, imo

[Quarterquack]

I'm going to have to side with Th0r on this one. Quality isn't just a measure of the bitrate at the end of the day. Other factors, including things like jitter factor in. (I wonder how many people will get that one). (No, seriously). Nowadays, a decent pair of open Sennheiser cans (580 and 600 are just fine) that have been modded properly (for show and/or opening purposes), recabelled and balanced, along with a cheap set of amps like the Valhalla will run you a total grand sum of 500$ for a music experience that would have been had for 20 times that much money no less than 5 years ago. You don't need to buy headphones that cost as much as your car, and amplifiers with turntables that cost twice as much, any longer.

I recall mentioning in a thread around here not too long ago, that I can easily note the difference between V2 and V0 on my setup, but with anything higher than V0 I usually struggle/have to nitpick to find any differences, if any are noticeable, and I'd rank my current setup as mid tier (it cost me around 750$ in total, I'm upgrading it soon enough). I will be the first to admit, though, that there is no audible difference between 320kbps and V0, no matter whose system I've run ABX tests on.

[pakito]

Same for me, really

[Waddafocky]

Wait, what would jitter have to do with the FLAC vs high-bitrate MP3 debate? Both are stored as bits on the drive, and therefore don't have to worry about rotational speeds as you read the CD. If you're talking about CD vs FLAC, that's a different discussion.

Also, to be able to say that a $500 system will make your music sound better and to say that a $500 system will help you discern the difference between FLAC and MP3 are totally different things. Yes, a $500 system will make your music sound better. But what a sound system cannot do is make you hear at impossible ranges, those high and low bits that get stripped out during a lossy encode. If you choose a low enough bitrate, and enough bits get stripped out, it will be easy to tell the difference with almost any sound system.

I can't say because I haven't actually observed you doing the tests but if you say you can hear the difference between FLAC and V0, I can only say one of 3 things:
1. You have exceptional (supernatural) ears.
2. You're not listening to V0, maybe 128 CBR.
3. You're not doing blind tests and therefore are experiencing the placebo effect.

[whatcdfan]

I will be the first to admit, though, that there is no audible difference between 320kbps and V0, no matter whose system I've run ABX tests on.

absolutely..........but still the difference is very visible in CBR 128 kbps and V2 or better, i think its the mode of encoding VBR/CBR which determines the quality later on,
some experts on mp3talks.ru told me that there should be a specific reason in opting for CBR instead of VBR,but there can be exceptions
it was the time when i use to download all my music from mp3sale all the music there is in V2 except for one album which i downloaded was in CBR320 when i asked why is this in CBR320 at mp3talks they told me the music of the album demanded the optimum quality if we had an option to go beyond that, we would have

[Quarterquack]

...

It was a joke about the jitter, Anarkial. Jitter doesn't even exist, it's a concept invented by monkeys that want to sound more technical about sound than they should. And no, a $500 system is more than adequate to bring out flaws in the music itself. For example, for the longest time ever I thought there was something wrong with my headphones "clicking" till one day I noticed that I only noticed the clicking on guitar solos. Upon further investigation, I realized the clicking I had been noticing for so long was the sound of the guitarists' pick strumming the strings. A better system directly means that you can not only decide the difference between a fantastic recording/mastering over a crappy one, but also the quality of a file. Miserably done encodes sound like the sea on my system. You can't hear the different waves. (I'll admit, that cheeky pun is not mine, it belongs to a friend).

Also, I never said I can tell the difference between FLAC and V0. There's about a handful of songs that I'd need to especially pick to notice the difference (cymbals are my way of telling, especially when drowned amongst guitars and screaming vocals). The only thing I have no problems determining are tracks up to V0. That includes V2 and V0. I think I did mention that with anything higher than V0 it's pointless for me to even try and figure out what quality it is, and for the V0/320kbps case especially, I have never passed an ABX test, no matter the system.

EDIT: Whatcdfan, it goes without saying that depending on the genre and the specific instruments involved, different qualities are preferred. If you listen to a lot of Opera or music that involves heavy vocal work and not much else (tropical music falls into this, as well), then you'd be hard pressed to require anything more than a 128kbps mp3. On the other end of the spectrum, if you enjoy a lot of metal (as I do), then that complicates things, but as I said, the difference between V0 and 320kbps has always been transparent to me, I see no reason you should pick one over the other, except for the reason that you like to keep tabs/control over your file size.

EDIT2: Also, my apologies to fidelity freaks, but at the end of the day, a Stradivarius sounds the exact same a side-street vendor who hand makes ten of them a day on any audio track that's been remastered to hell and back. Sure, you can tell there's a difference in violins, but the energy/vibrations are unfortunately lost in the digital conversion; perhaps it's just me, but I've never understood the "I want to hear it the way the artist intended" argument. Go see him/her/it live.

[Waddafocky]

Another epic ringhunter post.

Ok, when you talked about jitter I was like you best be trolling mayne.

Although I completely agree with you that an expensive sound system will make you hear things you never heard before, I still don't think that a well done V0 encode will be all that much different from the CD. For the extreme highs and lows, maybe, as you pointed out. And bad encodes will sound like shit on any system (except for stock iPod earphones, those things are crap beyond crap). But I think we're generally in agreement here.

Even surpassing technical details of certain genres, your preferences should be the first thing taken into account. It'll ease your mind to know that Yo Yo Ma is being played back bit for bit and you're not losing the slightest details, the clicking of the strings on the fingerboard, and OH YES, you can even hear him breathe without him sounding like a raspy accordion. You'll be happy knowing that the pop songs you don't care much about don't occupy much space on your drive but you get the general feeling and you can dance to it if you feel like it (and seriously, do you really need to hear Taio Cruz bit for bit? What's the difference? You can't make crap music better by encoding it better...)

As for your last comment - it's like the guys who post videos of their $2000 vinyl setups on YouTube and everyone comments like "Wow, it's like I'm hearing the music in my room - much better than my system." It's total facepalm.

And live trumps all, availability issues aside. Fuck perfection - music is an experience, not a fucking science. (Except don't watch Katy Perry live unless you're sure she's on AutoTune). (And don't listen to classical music on your computer unless you're trying to learn a piece - support those poor guys in your neighborhood trying to make a living off of pieces of wood and metal.)

[1000possibleclaws]

This has nothing to do with bittorrent. Over 99% of people think mp3 sounds fine, end of story as far as I'm concerned.


If this was asked on a music forum, I might consider taking the OP seriously, but come on.

[whatcdfan]

@Anarkial:
well said mate so i think it come tunneling down to one common factor that is hardware, to be able to notice the difference between V0/320kbps and FLAC/APE/ALAC i mean lossy and lossless one must have lossless compatible hardware that can output all the input bitrate put into the playing file and for sure if one have the compatible hardware there will be notifiable difference between lossy and lossless, i have experienced it on both my 5.1 channel music system and my notepad speakers
on my music system lossless sounds are heart thriving and lossy sounds are not so especially when i have the taste of "as good as it gets"
on my notebook speakers lossy sounds perfect but lossless sounds are rend bcoz speakers arent compatible to deliver output of such high bitrate

[bijoy]

Looks like some 80 year old is speaking here.. :fst:

I'm starting to regret that pact I made with myself about giving you room to breathe. Imbecile.

who cares? :huh:

[forthat]

one thing for sure ... mp3 is good enough for normal users ... like those who has 2 speakers and users who listen at low volumes ...

FLAC is for users any thing other that above .. that's what i can tell about this debate

[atamo]

Which Has Better Quality :lol::lol::lol: fake Title! Something like this can not comment.

[lea88]

Anyone of you who cant tell a difference between FLAC and a 320kbps probably

1)Dont have decent equipment
2)Are fortunate enough to have ears which are not sensitive

[Quarterquack]

I'd love to know what your system is, Lea. I've tried systems with price tags North of $20,000, and I struggled (granted, they weren't mine, and it wasn't an extended session).

[Intr4ns1t]

EDIT2: Also, my apologies to fidelity freaks, but at the end of the day, a Stradivarius sounds the exact same a side-street vendor who hand makes ten of them a day on any audio track that's been remastered to hell and back. Sure, you can tell there's a difference in violins, but the energy/vibrations are unfortunately lost in the digital conversion; perhaps it's just me, but I've never understood the "I want to hear it the way the artist intended" argument. Go see him/her/it live.

/thread

If you're a real fidelity nut, see em acoustic. Unplugged even. There's absolutely no loss of aural quality due to silly things like cables and electiricity(not being sarcastic, just embracing the debate of real musical quality, and what the ear hears most purely), ports and cards, all those things rewriting the original, unique and individual harmonic qualities of the instruments you're listening to. Personally, if I want to hear music at it's most pure and real, it MUST be live, but that's an entirely different subject. I've been afforded the opportunity to see hundreds, if not several thousands, of sets, from most of the range of music, live over the course of my life, so I am spoiled rotten. But, nonetheless, those idiosyncrasies are the exciting thing about music, and the way we connect with the performers we adore/idolize/admire, and feel a shared humanity.

/hippy rant

For real though, studio vs. venue, venue wins hands down, out cold, no debate, end story.

/offtopic

@OP, fuck if I know, I'm half deaf. :stuart:

[lea88]

I'd love to know what your system is, Lea. I've tried systems with price tags North of $20,000, and I struggled (granted, they weren't mine, and it wasn't an extended session).

I would have posted the pics of my sound system immediately but there is 1 person on this forum who doubts my integrity and claims that all I do is lie therefore give me a day or two and Ill post complete pics of my system with my nick written on a page of paper in all the pics.

[Quarterquack]

But, nonetheless, those idiosyncrasies are the exciting thing about music, and the way we connect with the performers we adore/idolize/admire, and feel a shared humanity.

Completely agreed. You can't really "know" an artist or person till you're up and close to them. Some of my favorite artists turned out to be douches/business monkeys when seen live, even though their music wouldn't even given it away in over a decade, and yet, others feel completely down to Earth (the two names that I met/talked to and instantly pop into mind when I mention connecting/knowing what an artist is about are Leona Lewis and Brian Fair). I can't really explain it as well as you did, but there's always the personality judgment/connection factor shared between fan and performer in a live session, that can't be experienced through a pair of headphones and high fidelity files.


I would have posted the pics of my sound system immediately but there is 1 person on this forum who doubts my integrity and claims that all I do is lie therefore give me a day or two and Ill post complete pics of my system with my nick written on a page of paper in all the pics.

I'm in no rush, but I didn't want you to prove anything. All I wanted to know was what your system was composed of, so I can hunt a friend or someone who has it, and find out if I can get it for myself, too, down the road. However, you're welcome to do things your way.

[lea88]

Completely agreed. You can't really "know" an artist or person till you're up and close to them. Some of my favorite artists turned out to be douches/business monkeys when seen live, even though their music wouldn't even given it away in over a decade, and yet, others feel completely down to Earth (the two names that I met/talked to and instantly pop into mind when I mention connecting/knowing what an artist is about are Leona Lewis and Brian Fair). I can't really explain it as well as you did, but there's always the personality judgment/connection factor shared between fan and performer in a live session, that can't be experienced through a pair of headphones and high fidelity files.


I would have posted the pics of my sound system immediately but there is 1 person on this forum who doubts my integrity and claims that all I do is lie therefore give me a day or two and Ill post complete pics of my system with my nick written on a page of paper in all the pics.

I'm in no rush, but I didn't want you to prove anything. All I wanted to know was what your system was composed of, so I can hunt a friend or someone who has it, and find out if I can get it for myself, too, down the road. However, you're welcome to do things your way.

At the moment I have 2 systems

System 1

Pioneer AVH-P6100DVD Head Unit
Pioneer P6600 Digital Sound Processor
Focal 165KRX2 6.5" Components
Focal Polyglass Rear Coaxials
Focal Power 4.75 Limited Edition Amplifier
Focal Power 1.800 Limited Edition Amplifier
Pioneer Reference Series W12PRS Sub in a Sealed enclosure
Dynamat Extreme Dampening in trunks and doors
Stinger Xpert Wiring

System 2

Pioneer AVH-P4100DVD Headunit
JBL MS-8 Digital Sound Processor
Morel Supremo 6.5" Components
Audison Lrx 4.1 Amplifier
Pioneer Reference Series W12PRS Sub in a Sealed enclosure
Dynamat Extreme Dampening in trunks and doors
Rockford Fosgate Dual Amplifier Wiring Kit

[Hades]

MP3 is more better then flac ,

[wasaby]

Free Lossless Audio Codec (FLAC) is better, because it is lossless, isn't it?
get proper hardware and then listen, sure you see the difference

[ca_aok]

Just ignore him, he's merely spamming his way to 20 posts.

[anon]

Just ignore him, he's merely spamming his way to 20 posts.

That's puzzling, given the fact full privileges require a mere 5 posts (plus the usual two weeks of membership, of course).

I guess he thinks it'll take less if he posts more. :mellow:

[Waddafocky]

Recorded has better fidelity than live - Perlman playing Paganini sounds better on my laptop than my friends do in real life - this is real proof bring it!

[Intr4ns1t]

Recorded has better fidelity than live - Perlman playing Paganini sounds better on my laptop than my friends do in real life - this is real proof bring it!

Um...:unsure:

http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/8112/ronperlman.jpg ?

[cinephilia]

Recorded has better fidelity than live - Perlman playing Paganini sounds better on my laptop than my friends do in real life - this is real proof bring it!
blieve me, you'd change your mind if you listened to Itzhak Perlman himself in a hall with great acoustics..

[lea88]

I actually agree with Anarkial. You hear Live through crappy speakers, wiring and associated equipment which isn't meant for SQ, quite the opposite of a recording studio environment

[Waddafocky]

Gaiz no recorded iz battar I know that live is nothing that's why the word is longer

[Quarterquack]

Gaiz no recorded iz battar I know that live is nothing that's why the word is longer

:no: You could have had more fun toying around with people at a higher level than this. You didn't need to make it obvious. The fun could have gone on.

[ca_aok]

I actually agree with Anarkial. You hear Live through crappy speakers, wiring and associated equipment which isn't meant for SQ, quite the opposite of a recording studio environment
Those PA systems aren't generally total pieces of crap, you know ;) Perhaps if you're at a small venue, but at a big show I wouldn't say this is true.

[Waddafocky]

Gaiz no recorded iz battar I know that live is nothing that's why the word is longer

:no: You could have had more fun toying around with people at a higher level than this. You didn't need to make it obvious. The fun could have gone on.

Sorry I have an inferiority complex so when I act dumb and nobody catches it I feel like shit.

Also, to Lea - I don't like listening to live when it means that I have to listen to speakers/wiring. I'm a classical kind of guy, so I support the local quartets/quintets and small orchestras that play around where I live. Otherwise, if the music requires speakers, i.e. electronic or rock, then I'm still happier listening to it live than recorded, because for me, music is a social experience, and only occasional a personal one.

[Quarterquack]

Sorry I have an inferiority complex so when I act dumb and nobody catches it I feel like shit.

You mean a superiority complex. You are constantly reminded that even when you act dumb, people are even dumber; which is why you feel the need to stoop down further. There, I diagnosed you properly now. That'll be a few thousand dollars.

Sometimes I sit alone at night and think that I should become a psychiatrist.

[Intr4ns1t]

Sometimes I sit alone at night and think that I should become a psychiatrist.

Then I would suggest you sit down in front of a mirror, then ask yourself, "How does this make me feel?" If you find yourself annoyed by the question, you're probably doing it right. :P Pass go, collect $200(per 50 minute hour), and enjoy the benefits.

[Waddafocky]

Sometimes I sit alone at night and think that I should become a psychiatrist.

Then I would suggest you sit down in front of a mirror, then ask yourself, "How does this make me feel?" If you find yourself annoyed by the question, you're probably doing it right. :P Pass go, collect $200(per 50 minute hour), and enjoy the benefits.

Do you sometimes sit at home at night and think that you should become Rich Uncle Pennybags?

And back on topic so this thread doesn't get Van Dammed - Why do we have this thread? Really, what's the point any more?

[Intr4ns1t]

Then I would suggest you sit down in front of a mirror, then ask yourself, "How does this make me feel?" If you find yourself annoyed by the question, you're probably doing it right. :P Pass go, collect $200(per 50 minute hour), and enjoy the benefits.

Do you sometimes sit at home at night and think that you should become Rich Uncle Pennybags?

And back on topic so this thread doesn't get Van Dammed - Why do we have this thread? Really, what's the point any more?

It was a rhetorical topic. Rhetoripical... rhetopical...rhetoricopacal...rhetoricatopical thread, so, no harm, no foul?

[Waddafocky]

Rhetoricatopical Shmetoricatopical quality is in the ears of the beer holder

[1000possibleclaws]

I actually agree with Anarkial. You hear Live through crappy speakers, wiring and associated equipment which isn't meant for SQ, quite the opposite of a recording studio environment

Live bootlegs capture elements you won't find in (over)produced studio-work. Also you'll be able to tell if the musicians can actually play their songs, and you might get improvisation (phish?) or just the band changing up songs from the time they were initially recorded. The point of live albums isn't to give a better quality recording than a studio recording, or else noone would ever record in studios/hire producers.

Then again you are obviously trolling, so this is entirely pointless to point out.




And back on topic so this thread doesn't get Van Dammed - Why do we have this thread? Really, what's the point any more?

Flac convo's in the BITTORRENT section of a file-sharing board? Entirely pointless.

[Quarterquack]

If anyone still doubts the advantages of live bootlegs or performances vs. recorded/mastered copies; just listen to the difference between a band's performance (like say Dream Theater in Metropolis 2) on album, and on tour (they actually released one of their high profile performances as a New York concert disc). The quality/emotion flowing of the music is significantly different.

[Intr4ns1t]

Live bootlegs capture elements you won't find in (over)produced studio-work. Also you'll be able to tell if the musicians can actually play their songs, and you might get improvisation (phish?) or just the band changing up songs from the time they were initially recorded. The point of live albums isn't to give a better quality recording than a studio recording, or else noone would ever record in studios/hire producers.

It'll sound silly, but watch the video of the live performance of Yoda, by Weird Al Yankovic, on youtube. It demonstrates how little of the artist we can see on an album, versus a live performance. Watch it through the "break" to see the essence of improvisation. That video actually gave me a lot more respect for W.A.Y., after seeing how full that performance is. A perennial showman who is a master of chemistry with his audience. And that chemistry will never be translated through the cheese grater of "mastering".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=810638fCvrQ