Quote:
Originally Posted by megabyteme
/facepalm..... its better, now please put the computer down and walk away
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by megabyteme
/facepalm..... its better, now please put the computer down and walk away
FLAC is better, however if you cannot tell the sound quality difference, there's no point in downloading a bigger file. V0/320kbs does the job for me.
hmmmm.......u have found FST but u dont know what the difference between a FLAC and MP3 amazing, well as far as i am concerned i only grab mp3's coz they are playable at my sound system which dosent plays any of the lossless formats be it flac, ape, or alac except WAVs but i look for flacs to download rather then mp3's coz many times if went technical and found that mp3's i downloaded were reencoded from mp3's with lesser quality so its basically not HQ mp3 its low quality instead which i cannot listen considering i already listening to lossy, i dl flacs and other lossless formats to re encode them to mp3 myself so that i can have "REAL" 320 kbps or V2 coz ripping from lossless is same as ripping from original cds'sQuote:
Originally Posted by megabyteme
He knows the difference between FLAC and MP3 in theory but he wanted to confirm the real "hearing" difference practically.You didn't understand what he meant,amazing.Quote:
Originally Posted by whatcdfan
Almost all of my music collection consists of MP3 V0 with exception being some Classical Music which I wanted to burn to a CD to play in my car.
Assuming the lossless rip is "perfect" itself to begin with, of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by whatcdfan
..... i also use flac.... but i wonder what is the best bitrate of mp3....
If "best" means "highest" here, then 320Kbps.Quote:
Originally Posted by fedje
Thanks, Aby. You understood my question perfectly. How the others missed it?... :idunno:Quote:
Originally Posted by AbyBeats
I discovered to my surprise that the MP3 player can indeed make a difference, as some don't play MP3s 100% perfectly all the time.
In my case, VLC Media Player (yeah, I know, It's not really an optimal MP3 player) played one note of a song badly, so I thought it was just a bad MP3. After I downloaded a different MP3, the bad note sounded exactly the same. So I tried an old copy of Winamp, and the note sounded perfect.
Lossless may be 'better' (theoretically) but it's pretty much pointless over vbr, unless of coarse some of you are autistic which seems to be the case here.
Does anyone know what exactly is compressed when you rip to FLAC compared to other lossless formats?
I can't get into the technical side of it too much, but basically just all the portions of samples that fall below 0db and above the highest peak point. In other words, the parts that basically have no audio data there. So the dynamic range also plays a big factor. Anwayy, one example for instance, if you take a brand new album that has volume-compression and is maxed out for levels and then you encode it to flac, the space you'll save will be average. On the other hand, if you take a home recording in wav or something you did yourself, you might save as much as 50% of the original filesize. If it's a recording of a very low dB level, you might save even more than half.
Edit: And actually, I think I misread your question a little bit, but maybe it at least answers it partially.
There isn't any "theoretical" about it. It is better because it is lossless. If done right, it can bit exact to the original raw track. If you have good hearing, you can tell the difference between a lossy mp3 track, HQ VBR or CBR, and a lossless track. Foobar has a component that will do a double blind test of two tracks, http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx. I did it and was able to pick out the lossy mp3 track 20 times in a row. I figured that was enough since the chance that it was coincidence that I picked that track 20 times in a row were so minute that it was nearly impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by iLOVENZB
I would assume that all lossless formats are similar in nature in that they find repeating strings. Some use better algorithms than others and such. It is really not that much different than using file compression such as RAR and ZIP except that it has been optimized for audio.
I always thought my zip files sounded a bit "off"... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by sandman_1
:w00t: LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by megabytemeI always thought my zip files sounded a bit "off"... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by sandman_1
Flac is way much better. I am learning to rip now.ANy help is always appreciated.
extractor: Have a look at this guide: http://www.calonet.org/eac-ripping-guide/
Another good EAC ripping resource:
http://xunside.info/eac/Setup/setup1.html
truth be said,Anon :yup:Quote:
Originally Posted by anon-sbiAssuming the lossless rip is "perfect" itself to begin with, of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by whatcdfan
I listen only flanc on my iPod
for sure Flanc is better
free format 640kbps but has a limited player compatibilityQuote:
Originally Posted by anon-sbiIf "best" means "highest" here, then 320Kbps.Quote:
Originally Posted by fedje
War is over, the flancks are free. Flac.Quote:
Originally Posted by tragedi
I can hear a difference between 320 and wav/flac but I have a miracle of hearing. I'm mid 30's and can still hear the frequencies they want to scare teenagers away with and if that is put to use I might have to get kids to buy me smokes. How that is? I have no idea since I haven't been to nice to my ears. As I recall 320 cuts the freq at 20-22khz witch is beyond normal human hearing so therefor it does not matter, except for on a dancefloor maybe where the vibration of the bass doen't obey the khz.
Good point. If disk space isn't an issue then why nit have the best quality.Quote:
Originally Posted by P2PDog
then, why not sticking with wav ? any player can read it once burned... unlike flac :mellow:
There is no need to create any facts. FLAC IS better than mp3 because it is lossless. I thought that was clear enough. Those who have large HDDs will need to consider forgeting mp3. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by apextwin146Yeah we will just believe it cuz you say so. Any other facts you wanna create while u r at it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Monteiro
True but FLAC/APE can compress that wav down quite a bit. Flac decompresses to wav anyway so there is really no point in keeping a wav file around.Quote:
Originally Posted by cinephilia
I have a 1TB drive and still haven't forgotten about MP3s... simply because with my current equipment I don't notice any difference, but I can fit much more music this way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Coleman
the point is that wav is compatible with literally everything. music is about sharing - i see no point in only being able to play flac files on your flac-compatible player or computer.Quote:
Originally Posted by sandman_1True but FLAC/APE can compress that wav down quite a bit. Flac decompresses to wav anyway so there is really no point in keeping a wav file around.Quote:
Originally Posted by cinephilia
i mean you're not able to play your music anywhere nor you can lend albums to friends that doesn't have the 'right' equipment. this is a big disadvantage in my eyes.
Only some 320 encodes do this. In fact, if anyone knows any off-hand that do or still do, please let me know or post it here. It used to be that there was no real freq cutoff with 320k mp3, but now some encoders seem to have them cut off at around 16-18khz.Quote:
Originally Posted by Speedo
:yes: just because we you have lots of space doesn't mean you should fill it with unnecessary stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by anon-sbiI have a 1TB drive and still haven't forgotten about MP3s... simply because with my current equipment I don't notice any difference, but I can fit much more music this way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Coleman
To be honest I prefer mp3 and ogg files to flac. The discussions is not about which is better, its about definition of the "better". To me "better" is lower file size, and high portable player support, so mp3 is my guy. I throw my music to a ftp location and stream directly from there to my netbook so smaller file size helps alot to my use. I'm happy with "few times smaller file size" instead of "a hardly noticeable quality difference"
You can decompress it and convert the track to any format of your choosing so I am not seeing your argument here. I can convert a whole album from FLAC to MP3 HQ VBR directly with Foobar and Lame in less than a minute. Or I can burn an Audio CD in less than 3 minutes using the .cue file mounted in Imgburn.Quote:
Originally Posted by cinephilia
i was talking about burned discs. what's burned is generally not on my hdd anymore.
but yeah, sure... next time i wanna bring some music to a friend, i'll think about ripping, converting and burning everything again into more compatible formats.
so you are saying, to listen some music everybody should learn to encode and burn disks? why to use a codec anyway? we can just use RAW formatsQuote:
Originally Posted by sandman_1You can decompress it and convert the track to any format of your choosing so I am not seeing your argument here. I can convert a whole album from FLAC to MP3 HQ VBR directly with Foobar and Lame in less than a minute. Or I can burn an Audio CD in less than 3 minutes using the .cue file mounted in Imgburn.Quote:
Originally Posted by cinephilia
it's really simple. flac is cool. raw formats aren't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Expeto
So using Foobar 2000 + Lame is too difficult for you to do or burn an audio disk? Must be a monumental task for you to do anything. :blink:
Why compress files? Hmmm, maybe to save space. :rolleyes:
On PC, about any player can play FLAC files, even Windows Media Player with directshow filters. If you are talking about playing it in a portable player, then what is the problem about having it convert to say mp3 on the fly directly to that device? You gotta transfer the files at some point.Quote:
Originally Posted by cinephilia
First of all, I can encode a file from my arch cli, way before your point and drool gui even shows up. In my home PC, I don't even have to anything, my crontab scripts automatically converts every complete music of any format file in my /home/download/ and saves them as ogg vorbis to my /home/music/ and adds them to my xmms playlists.Quote:
Originally Posted by sandman_1
Some people with large hdd space said they didn't cared about the size, and I'm saying if your hdd doesn't matter why not go with raw. Why to use a compressed format at all?
the problem is its unnecessary, the difference is unnoticeable. You are adding unnecessary complexity.Quote:
Originally Posted by sandman_1
I love FLAC, its open source and its great. Its a perfect format for backup, its almost %40 smaller than raw files, replay gain support, very easy to work with and easy to encode. When an audio expert talks about it I respect them, they can hear the difference, but many of the time FLAC supporters are bunch of noobs trying to brag about their audio skills. FLAC is 6times larger with unnoticeable quality difference, it drains battery very fast on portable players, its not for everyday use.
there must be some misunderstanding. i'm just saying that if space isn't an issue, then why not sticking with WAV, especially if you burn your music onto discs ? unlike FLAC, WAV is compatible with any CD player and you don't have to convert anything before burning.Quote:
Originally Posted by sandman_1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Expeto
Yes it is for archival purposes. If you are at your place of residence, why listen to something inferior, i.e. some lossy format, when you have the lossless version available? And there is noticeable difference if you know what to listen for. You do not need to have bionic ears to know the difference. Personally I can spot the difference with PC speakers with Foobar and its Double Blind component just to prove that it wasn't just a coincidence.
And I never said use it on portable players. MP3 has its uses, i.e. portability. Also I would like to know how keeping your music, in its original bit exact form, is somehow being a "noob" as you so eloquently put it?
Wav is a Windows format. It is a RAW audio file with a header. AFAIK, plain jane CD players will not play WAV files unless it explicitly says so in the spec's.Quote:
Originally Posted by cinephiliathere must be some misunderstanding. i'm just saying that if space isn't an issue, then why not sticking with WAV, especially if you burn your music onto discs ? unlike FLAC, WAV is compatible with any CD player and you don't have to convert anything before burning.Quote:
Originally Posted by sandman_1
Still what applies to you doesn't not apply to me. FLAC, like any codec, is a trade-off. For me 6x space, lack of native player support does not worth a small quality difference. Same goes for most of the users, so there no point pushing FLAC into general use.Quote:
Originally Posted by sandman_1
First of all, I'm sorry, that noob thing wasn't intended for you. I was talking in general.
You are also speaking generally here. For a person, who is not going to work on the file, who can't tell the difference of quality, using a lossless form is not just noob but also idiotic. Its a fact that, many of the FLAC users are bunch of imitators trying to look like experts. Again, I'm not talking about you here.Quote:
Originally Posted by sandman_1
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExpetoStill what applies to you doesn't not apply to me. FLAC, like any codec, is a trade-off. For me 6x space, lack of native player support does not worth a small quality difference. Same goes for most of the users, so there no point pushing FLAC into general use.
First of all, I'm sorry, that noob thing wasn't intended for you. I was talking in general.
You are also speaking generally here. For a person, who is not going to work on the file, who can't tell the difference of quality, using a lossless form is not just noob but also idiotic. Its a fact that, many of the FLAC users are bunch of imitators trying to look like experts. Again, I'm not talking about you here.Quote:
Originally Posted by sandman_1
Well I suppose we will have to disagree on opinion here but I do see where you are coming from. Some people cannot tell a difference in MP3 as opposed to a CD track or other lossless source. Part of that I think is due to other things like Dynamic Range Compression and increased loudness in today's music. When you got that with clipping and limited range, it could be difficult to point out which is which with all of the distortion.
then, i must have confused with cda or whatever it's called.Quote:
Originally Posted by sandman_1Wav is a Windows format. It is a RAW audio file with a header. AFAIK, plain jane CD players will not play WAV files unless it explicitly says so in the spec's.Quote:
Originally Posted by cinephiliathere must be some misunderstanding. i'm just saying that if space isn't an issue, then why not sticking with WAV, especially if you burn your music onto discs ? unlike FLAC, WAV is compatible with any CD player and you don't have to convert anything before burning.Quote:
Originally Posted by sandman_1