Re: FLAC or mp3 ( 320 kbps ) ?
Im sick of uninformed ppl. Someone posted in here early about a study where no one can tell the difference in properly encoded 256 or higher and Flac. It is quite true. I produces music and play guitar/violin, quite well. At home, I have a sound blaster x-fi platinum and logitechs z-5500's. For headphones i have Ultimate ears triple fi 10. In the studio, I use a typical professional setup with 2 stereo speakers. Now heres the interesting part. With properly encoded 192, it is relatively easy for my (trained) ears to see the difference in high frequencies and low frequencies, especially with a powerful sub. The difference in the mid is barely noticeable, if it all between 192 and flac. Maybe on some occasions there is a more "surround" or "full" effect of the mid. When I ran comparison tests with a 320 bitrate and flac, there is NO DIFFERENCE. none, zip, nada. Even the bass is just as defined. So flac only has 2 purposes: 1. OCD ppl that need a "perefect rip" and 2. Ppl that need 2 show off thier e-diks by having a 500gb collection with 50 albums lol.
Re: FLAC or mp3 ( 320 kbps ) ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
zaa730
Im sick of uninformed ppl. Someone posted in here early about a study where no one can tell the difference in properly encoded 256 or higher and Flac. It is quite true. I produces music and play guitar/violin, quite well. At home, I have a sound blaster x-fi platinum and logitechs z-5500's. For headphones i have Ultimate ears triple fi 10. In the studio, I use a typical professional setup with 2 stereo speakers. Now heres the interesting part. With properly encoded 192, it is relatively easy for my (trained) ears to see the difference in high frequencies and low frequencies, especially with a powerful sub. The difference in the mid is barely noticeable, if it all between 192 and flac. Maybe on some occasions there is a more "surround" or "full" effect of the mid. When I ran comparison tests with a 320 bitrate and flac, there is NO DIFFERENCE. none, zip, nada. Even the bass is just as defined. So flac only has 2 purposes: 1. OCD ppl that need a "perefect rip" and 2. Ppl that need 2 show off thier e-diks by having a 500gb collection with 50 albums lol.
Absurd.
You're assuming that every album ever made is recorded the same way.
I'd gladly submit myself to A/B comparisons of MP3/lossless, or any other comparison between striking the spectrum. Would I get it "right" 100% of the time? I don't suspect so, but I bet I would notice a lot of the time. Heck, I do notice a lot of the time.
The whole reason I bothered with lossless was because I accidentally loaded a Grateful Dead show in shn and in MP3 in WinAmp and noticed the drastic change as it switched from one to the other. I used to grab lossless and then use Razorlame on the highest sensitivity setting to 224base/320high VBR encode. I did this for several weeks until this little mishap with throwing both types files into WinAmp at once. I admit that it was stupid to not do this comparison from the beginning, but years ago file storage was all new to me. I could hardly believe the difference as I continued to compare for a few weeks after that.
I grew up around a stereo nut for a father, so I don't know if listening to details is learned or innate. It just seems pretty obvious to me most of the time.
Also, if you want accurate answers, submit your questions to the Music section and not the Bittorrent section. :dabs:
Re: FLAC or mp3 ( 320 kbps ) ?
Skizo, if u hate me so much, just ban me
Re: FLAC or mp3 ( 320 kbps ) ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
zaa730
Im sick of uninformed ppl. Someone posted in here early about a study where no one can tell the difference in properly encoded 256 or higher and Flac. It is quite true. I produces music and play guitar/violin, quite well. At home, I have a sound blaster x-fi platinum and logitechs z-5500's. For headphones i have Ultimate ears triple fi 10. In the studio, I use a typical professional setup with 2 stereo speakers. Now heres the interesting part. With properly encoded 192, it is relatively easy for my (trained) ears to see the difference in high frequencies and low frequencies, especially with a powerful sub. The difference in the mid is barely noticeable, if it all between 192 and flac. Maybe on some occasions there is a more "surround" or "full" effect of the mid. When I ran comparison tests with a 320 bitrate and flac, there is NO DIFFERENCE. none, zip, nada. Even the bass is just as defined. So flac only has 2 purposes: 1. OCD ppl that need a "perefect rip" and 2. Ppl that need 2 show off thier e-diks by having a 500gb collection with 50 albums lol.
What test did you run?
Just think, if 320 sound the same as flac (=.wav) then why ain't CDs made compressed to 320;
Some thing just does not sound right here and I am not uninformed.
Re: FLAC or mp3 ( 320 kbps ) ?
I prefer flac at the moment because it's new to me i'm still trying to learn about this format besides it not being compressed in anyway i can't tell the difference much i may hear the intraments more but that's just a guess i have no really compared the two yet i don't know what to look out for.
Personaly i think if the general user can't notice any difference it really does not matter for the majority of us i guess the majority being mp3 listeners.
Re: FLAC or mp3 ( 320 kbps ) ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
zaa730
Skizo, if u hate me so much, just ban me
Wow, you're fearless!
:O
Re: FLAC or mp3 ( 320 kbps ) ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
xxzzxx
Quote:
Originally Posted by
masterbat
this thread is actually for those members who are part of FLAC trackers like E and btmusic .
do you really find any difference in quality ? i cant really tell the difference with my 7.1 creative speaker system and soundcard , so just curious :unsure:
just of curiosity, which 7.1 creative and sound card do u use ?
i use creative gigaworks s750 and xfi platinum.
.
inspire t7900 with x-fi elite pro :)
ok . so you need a real high end audio system to enjoy the FLAC . correct ?
and most people use it for backup purpose .
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Skizo
Also, if you want accurate answers, submit your questions to the Music section and not the Bittorrent section. :dabs:
sorry about that . this question was aimed at Btmusic and E users that is why i posted in the BT section
i only listen to music on my pc , so i think for me wasting my HDD space for the tiny difference isnt worth it
thanks everyone for those valuable comments
Re: FLAC or mp3 ( 320 kbps ) ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Submission
Quote:
Originally Posted by
th0r
So you speak for all lossless enthusiasts now? I can distinguish between qualities of lossy and lossless music ... And yes, it does serve useful for backing up and ripping from vinyl.
dont bullshit, they have done studies. Above 256kbps no one can tell the difference. 192kbps, some experts can tell the difference.
not bullshit at all. If you have a GOOD speaker system, they you can hear the difference. For me, mp3s can't capture the dedth of the music that was encoded and ends up sounding metalicy. I have used 320Kbps and have also adjusted the lowpass in many configurations, but the mp3s simply are not capable of the same fidelity.
Re: FLAC or mp3 ( 320 kbps ) ?
i cant ever hear the difference so long as its over 192 kbps so i have no use for flac but as its been said here it makes it nice so you can rip to any other quality you want. atm i have no need to do that though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DyNast
Quote:
Originally Posted by
zaa730
Skizo, if u hate me so much, just ban me
Wow, you're fearless!
:O
we call that stupid.
Re: FLAC or mp3 ( 320 kbps ) ?
High bitrate vinyl rips and sometimes Aucoustic or electronic FLAC is better. But I only download FLAC if possible.
BTW since asked. Both BTMusic and E user
