Flac will be a lot better if you have a decent set of speakers and sound system or if you can personally tell the difference. All you can do is listen to a flac rip and a 320kbps mp3 and tell if you can hear a difference between the two.
Printable View
Flac will be a lot better if you have a decent set of speakers and sound system or if you can personally tell the difference. All you can do is listen to a flac rip and a 320kbps mp3 and tell if you can hear a difference between the two.
i can see a huge difference in FLAC/APE and mp3 320kbps practically
If I may ask, what's your sound system?Quote:
Originally Posted by whatcdfan
5.1 channel woofer system attached to my PC
Could you be more specific?Quote:
Originally Posted by whatcdfan
What kind of woofer sys you have (brand, model, specs, etc...)?
I don't have more than 1.25 TB space for storage/seeding so I stick to v0's. Have and have done a fair bit of flac ripping myself but my equipment must be sh*t as I really can't hear anything to justify me using 5x the space! Rarely downloaded FLAC any more.
To me FLAC is like HD. Why not have the best quality of a file. FLAC can easily be converted into mp3 and moved to ipod or whatever you want and still have the FLAC album and etc..
If you have really bad sound system mp3's sounds better than FLAC...
So it's not like FLAC always will sound better than mp3's.
I would gather that the person with a POS sound system wouldn't probably know or even deal with FLAC files. If you have ok speakers, even PC speakers, you can notice a difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeadPoet
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.
because of size? :idunno:Quote:
Originally Posted by GlazeKing
What's the point of flac if you can't notice any difference?Quote:
Originally Posted by GlazeKing
It's like downloading full bluray movie and watch it on laptop with 15.6" screen wearing acme 2$ headphones...
HDD's are becoming cheaper everyday and you can get 1tb's storage under 100$ which is pretty affordable, in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottK
Plus, I don't think you need TB's of music whether it's lossles or lossy format. Download what you enjoy/will listen not all discography of Bob Marley (including live recordings) if you like only "No woman no cry" etc...
my favourite player is winamp..so you know.. :P
Yeah, mine too.
Lot of my friends using foobar though. Is there any noticible difference in terms of quality?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Humbucker
I can and it isn't hard to do if you know what to look for. I have done ABX with Foobar 2000 with a MP3 320k CBR vs Flac.
Instead of ABX, add some FLAC and mp3 files in Foobar. Shuffle them, close your eyes and out of 10 songs, make guesses between FLAC and mp3....Mathematically, 5 of your answers should be wrongQuote:
Originally Posted by sandman_1Quote:
Originally Posted by Humbucker
I can and it isn't hard to do if you know what to look for. I have done ABX with Foobar 2000 with a MP3 320k CBR vs Flac.
Out of curiosity, you prefer 320 CBR over V0? :o
there shouldn't be a loss in sound quality (if that's what you're referring to) unless foobar, for some reason, is downsampling your flac filesQuote:
Originally Posted by DeadPoet
i can, too, but what humbucker's saying is an interesting test for those (like myself) who prefer flac over mp3. if you look at flac files verses mp3 files structurally (as in an audio editing program) you can see the obvious differences in bitrate, clipping, etc., but that's a biased test that isn't really applicable in a debate over sound qualityQuote:
Originally Posted by sandman_1
I haven't found any difference between them except for the size as FLAC is way heavier than mp3 ;)
What do you think a double blind ABX test is? :blink: Mathematically? I did it 20+ times correctly identifying the lossless from the lossy track and vice versa, so your mathematics is really messed up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Humbucker
No I do not prefer 320K CBR. I did that only for the test since that is the highest quality setting for MP3.
Double Blind ABX test
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABX_test
Foobar 2000 ABX component which is what I used to conduct the test. Try it out yourself.
http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx
Also, Mathematically, the probability of me getting 20 right out of 20 just by mere coincidence is
1/(2^20)= 0.00000095367431640625% a very very minute chance.
If you had good audio system, you would find ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Galardo
Only on speakers and good headphones
Easy answer to the dilemma! Depends on where do you here the songs from and if your storage is big!! If it's a big stereo and your hdd counts lots of TBs then flac is made for you!! On the other hand if you use 2 little speakers and not a huge Hdd mp3 @ 320kbps seems ideal!!
It's FLACtastic!Quote:
Originally Posted by forbidden
Yeah, It's good when you have good speakers or headphones. And it slightly depends on type of the music you are listening.
Yes of course!! You can enjoy Instrumental music or music including lots of instruments easier with the flac format!!Quote:
Originally Posted by MoRbIdAnGeL
FLAC with Foobar better than mp3, but I almost find everything in mp3.
I agree, i've ripped all my music into Flac.Play it in Foobar2k.
If you have a good soundsystem which is capable of portraying a nice "3D image", (with two speakers by the way) you can best use a lossless format like flac.
it's bit by bit identical to the orriginal.
On good recordings you can really hear the room-information thats in the music.I like not to loose anything when i rip my music.
well the two of them are the same to me
Flac is like getting the CD from the store for free only reduced in size, but not quality. This thread is basically asking if a CD is better than an mp3. What do you think the answer is?
Offcourse it's better but the main question is - whether it's worth the space...
it is better
FLAC is indeed quality music format. If you have poor output device and think FLAC will turn you face into a Gusta guy, then Bitch please.
Well I mostly download mp3 for portable media devices and Bitrate matters
Oddly I've never thought anything would turn me into a Gusta guy probably owing to the fact I have absolutely no idea what that is.:unsure:Quote:
Originally Posted by v3ctor
lol I think the following link will be a bit useful. They have explained most of the stuff regarding FLAC and bitrate.Quote:
Originally Posted by IdolEyes787Oddly I've never thought anything would turn me into a Gusta guy probably owing to the fact I have absolutely no idea what that is.:unsure:Quote:
Originally Posted by v3ctor
http://lifehacker.com/5810575/does-b...ce-in-my-music
http://filesharingtalk.com/fst/usera...r251257_11.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by hatemmonir
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2f-MZ2HRHQQuote:
Originally Posted by v3ctorlol I think the following link will be a bit useful. They have explained most of the stuff regarding FLAC and bitrate.Quote:
Originally Posted by IdolEyes787
http://lifehacker.com/5810575/does-b...ce-in-my-music
I think FLAC is really better than MP3. It's main reason I'm only download FLAC music on Internet. I can feel different between FLAC and MP3 when listen in my Jamo D500 :D
flac > MP3 period.
its better for sure but I bet not everyone from ppl who downloading FLAC format see diffrent then MP3.... its not worth to keep FLAC ( more space you need ). Its just mine opinion
Yes of course , just try a good player , I use AIMP2 ...