I just download FLAC to transcode to LAME VBR V0
Printable View
I just download FLAC to transcode to LAME VBR V0
320kbps and FLAC. I like most.
FLAC is too mainstream. I prefer AHX.
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Busaum
I used to like memes, but they're too mainstream now.
Most people can't tell the difference betwen 320kbps and flac. I'm sure you could tell the difference if you looked out for them. But i feel a lot of people only listen to flac because they are OCD'ed and wanting the best of everything even if the difference is very marginal and a much slower download speed. But that's just my opinion, if u like flac i can't stop you but flac doesn't justify it for me :)
I'm sure that lossless is better, because all the data is there, however without an outstanding setup and a phenomenal ear, the difference could be reduced to almost nothing compared to a 320. I love it when guys who've been listening to loud music for 20 years claim to be able to hear the most minute differences, but when they get a hearing test, they're found to be practically deaf.
Well sure they can PROVE that FLAC is better quality-wise than MP3, but for practical listening, it makes no real difference.
It's like high def tv or 1440dpi printing it's just numbers to re-market the same old idea. The human ear can't hear all that and FLAC are just larger files to upload onto ratio topsites for extra credits..Quote:
Originally Posted by Tecato97
I can never hear the difference between a good 320kbp MP3 and an avg FLAC
Use the right format for your needs. FLAC is good for archiving your golden masters or similar. If you ever have to encode something at a lower bit rate than 320kbp, say 128kbp, then it's better to start from a FLAC source than from an already degraded 320kbp version.
I do a lot of headphone listening and, you're right, 128 kbps mp3s are unlistenable for me. I honestly can't tell the difference between 320 kpbs and FLAC, though.
Neither can I. But, given a choice between the two. I'll choose a FLAC download, even though I know there's no noticeable difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamer_155
I think you need to have some decent gear to really appreciate the difference.
I generally find that bit rates are dependent on the method of playback. If you're using a basic non hifi setup, then 128k is fine for those without a discerning ear. But as a rule of thumb I use a flac or cda source & rip down to 320k mp3 as standard. It all depends on how picky you are and if you're a grade A audiophile then you're guaranteed to notice the difference. For background noise, 128k is fine.
It all depends on your set up. I'm an audiophile so CDA source / FLAC and mp3 at 320 is the bare minimum for me. Anything else, I really notice the drop in quality. My other half on the other hand could probably listen to 96k to without noticing. It's in the ear of the listener to coin a phrase.
I was always listening at 256/320kbps stuff but after I bought the B&W P5 then FLAC is the only choice for me :)
Congrats on your purchase. During better times, I purchased a pair of their speakers. Even now that things are much tighter, I still cannot bring myself to part with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by prossi109
I have mediocre earphones but I compensate by taking a lot of Quaaludes before listening to anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by megabytemeCongrats on your purchase. During better times, I purchased a pair of their speakers. Even now that things are much tighter, I still cannot bring myself to part with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by prossi109
yes it is, i never understood why if something is free and better than paid or restricted codec why not use it in devices. Android finally added native support
I would agree. My setup at home on my PC includes:Quote:
Originally Posted by PJay
Attachment 139870 as my DAC and headphone amplifier to drive
Attachment 139871
But I can hear a drop in sound quality with any mp3 at 192k or less.
FLAC is 2400 bit against 320bit of MP3
By the same type of logic,all V8's are inherently better than all v6's.
If this "logic" thing was so grate, wouldn't they teech it in skools? :ermm:Quote:
Originally Posted by IdolEyes787
Wait, what?Quote:
Originally Posted by dvir_grn
Although I usually listen to mp3 versions of the music I prefer lossless versions when I can get them. It allows me to encode to mp3 at different bit rates and decide how much I'm willing to sacrifice audio clarity for file space.
:slap:Quote:
Originally Posted by dvir_grn
I used to have that mentality, but with hard drives becoming cheaper than before, I prefer all my music to be lossless.
Lossless is great and my preferable file type for archiving my material. However there is a reality of the weakest link in the chain. Often times we are listening to music on bundled iPhone headphones sitting on a bus or down in the gym. The extra bits are somewhat wasted as to really appreciate the difference you need speakers, amp, cabling , an entire chain of good quality equipment.
You will need a good audio equipment in order to tell a difference . That includes a good pair of headphones , amplifier and dac if you are using it with pc
I prefer FLAC. I ripped my CD collection and chose FLAC so I could have exact copies of the source. That said, its not so convenient for mobile use.I
i can hear it ( i think ) but is it worth trouble. Not for me.
I'm pretty much the same. I prefer FLAC but mostly use mp3.Quote:
Originally Posted by frosty2
It depends on the music for me. I typically notice the mp3 compression most in very "noisy" songs, eg. World's end girlfriend's stuff or Kashiwa Daisuke's.
I archive my music/CDs in FLAC but as far as listening to music on my phone or laptop it's stored as mp3. Yeah I doubt I can tell the difference between 320kbps and FLAC.
I can't tell the difference between 320kbps and FLAC.
I'm downloading mp3 only. I don't care about the format - i mean mp3 or flac is for me the same. I would compare analog or digital source.. I have a old technics 1210 mk2 and of course listening to vinyl is different than listening to mp3.
It's for the discerning ear and sometimes even depends on the way the final product was produced / recorded. Honestly, there are too many variables to make a generic observation.
Let's compare FLAC
I'm looking at 3 releases:
- Hans_Zimmer-Inception_Music_From_The_Motion_Picture-OST-CD-FLAC-2010-FORSAKEN | 229.22 MiB
- [TEAM ELITE] Hans Zimmer - Inception - Original Soundtrack - Flac | 499.89 MB
- Inception 5.1 Soundtrack (2010, Hans Zimmer) FLAC | 1,045 MB
1. is a scene release. If we look at the NFO the presets are: 640 kbps / 44.1kHz / 2 channels preset.
Attachment 157238
2. Is a p2p release which is double the file size.
3. Is a p2p release, 24bit/44khz. Pretty sure its an extra from the 2 disc edition of the film. Double the size again of previous rls
Spectrograms:
How are you supposed to read these? I know they're supposed to be a visual representation to a track but what exactly do the colours mean? A brief game of spot the difference reveals there appears to be more red in the scene track ... meaning?
1. Attachment 157240
2. Attachment 157239
3. Still downloading
The only thing those are good for is spotting lossy transcodes where you'll see a delineation @16K and a cutoff at or below 18-19.Quote:
Originally Posted by iLOVENZB
I was okay with the scene when they were still using V2 on their mp3s. I have tin ears though.
What do they use now? It's been a while since I last downloaded a Scene rip.Quote:
Originally Posted by piercerseth
LAME 3.98.4 set to V0 iircQuote:
Originally Posted by anonWhat do they use now? It's been a while since I last downloaded a Scene rip.Quote:
Originally Posted by piercerseth