Printable View
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?
http://filesharingtalk.com/threads/4...h-bit-rate-MP3Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdaddydude
Yes.Quote:
Does FLAC eat up more of my hard drive space?
There are some FLAC trackers, but they're generally hard to get into. I'd recommend you read this 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. You'll need to answer some questions, post some proof of membership on other trackers, and upload one torrent within a 24 hours timeframe.Quote:
Any trackers that would be dedicated to FLAC and teach me how to upload/rip music to FLAC files?
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigel9
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
If you're using iTunes as a music player, you've essentially failed at using a computer. Might as well fail at formats too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigel9
I'mQuote:
Originally Posted by ca_aokIf you're using iTunes as a music player, you've essentially failed at using a computer. Might as well fail at formats too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigel9
prettysure he was trolling, dude.
We're talking about music here, Sherlock Holmes.Quote:
Originally Posted by auto329
Thank you for your thoughtful post - it has added a whole new dimension to this discussion that I had never thought of before.Quote:
Originally Posted by auto329
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by auto329
/inb4disabled4spamming
Man, I was away when the most intelligent post in the history of FST was made. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Anarkial
I'd like to thank you for quoting it and thus allowing it (and its poster) to reach immortality. Posts such as:
Definitely deserve to be remembered by future generations.Quote:
Originally Posted by auto329
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by anon-sbiMan, I was away when the most intelligent post in the history of FST was made. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Anarkial
I'd like to thank you for quoting it and thus allowing it (and its poster) to reach immortality. Posts such as:
Definitely deserve to be remembered by future generations.Quote:
Originally Posted by auto329
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 :PQuote:
Originally Posted by AnarkialI'mQuote:
Originally Posted by ca_aok
prettysure he was trolling, dude.
J-Dye strikes again :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by anon-sbiMan, I was away when the most intelligent post in the history of FST was made. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Anarkial
I'd like to thank you for quoting it and thus allowing it (and its poster) to reach immortality. Posts such as:
Definitely deserve to be remembered by future generations.Quote:
Originally Posted by auto329
Three :lol:s to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anarkial
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.
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.
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 experienceQuote:
Originally Posted by Anarkial
delete
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.
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.
Sarcasm gone undetected I see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anarkial
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by whatcdfan
Do disable it when that happens, as then super-seeding becomes counterproductive.
looks like something useful
what is super seeding man? and why and how do i enable it?
Any place that pushes 320 over V0 is deluded or misinformed.
whatcdfan:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=super-seeder&l=1
Thanks for saving me the hassle :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Anarkial
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.
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 asQuote:
Originally Posted by OlegL
but you're almost there.Quote:
dvd
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.
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by OlegL
Looks like some 80 year old is speaking here.. :fst:Quote:
Originally Posted by OlegL
Give this guy a break.Quote:
Originally Posted by bijoy
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...
I'm starting to regret that pact I made with myself about giving you room to breathe. Imbecile.Quote:
Originally Posted by bijoy
i believe i can and other people i know can, too; you don't need a sound setup in the $1,000s of dollars to hear the difference between flac and mp3, imo, but it does need to be pretty decent. other than its archival purposes, why else would flac be a viable format for ripping music?Quote:
Originally Posted by Humbucker
no sound card? maybe i'm missing something here . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by Anarkial
i've done some sound tests myself and i'm able to hear the difference (at least w/ albums ripped in 100% accurate flac versus albums ripped in 320 kpbs/v0 mp3 that have particularly good production; good album production might add a bias to that test, tbh)Quote:
Originally Posted by whatcdfan
this seems to be the most accurate test (it's a test that i've done before) if you really want to be sure flac is superior, but as always, the result depends on your sound setup and the production value of the albums you're listening to, imoQuote:
Originally Posted by ca_aok
I'm going to have to side with Th0r on this one. Quality isn't just a measure of the bitrate at the end of the day. Other factors, including things like jitter factor in. (I wonder how many people will get that one). (No, seriously). Nowadays, a decent pair of open Sennheiser cans (580 and 600 are just fine) that have been modded properly (for show and/or opening purposes), recabelled and balanced, along with a cheap set of amps like the Valhalla will run you a total grand sum of 500$ 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.
Same for me, really