Printable View
Has anyone ever posted the top 1000 albums in FLAC format?
Or even the top 100 albums?
I have seen the top 1000 songs and some single albums but very little in the way of a large collection.
I don't understand why there is so little interest in high quality recordings.
MP3's sound so flat to me compared to FLAC's, even on my cheap computer speakers. I know they are large, but man if you have one you have the real thing, not 10% of the real thing.
1000 flac albums would be insanely huge.
If 500M was the average album then
500x1000 / 1024 = 488.3G
and at 800K/s thats 177h 46m 40sec or just over a week to download.
I'm sure you don't want to get into a giant argument about FLAC vs. MP3 because there are just too many on the 'net.Quote:
Originally Posted by wholelotaphun
I believe it's <10% of people can hear the difference between FLAC and a 320Kbps MP3, I doubt you're one of them. You probably just WANT to hear the difference, so you do.
Most people would (such as myself), would just convert the FLAC audio files to a high-quality MP3 format (320Kbps) for portable listening. There's no need to be running around with FLAC if the equivalent MP3's are available.
1000 FLAC albums would be huge, as stated above.
And I just realized you said MP3''s sound flat on your cheap computer speakers...maybe you should get a real sound system (I have a $2,500 BOSE system) and then try to see the difference, I wouldn't believe you otherwise.
Tale care :happy:
That's the reason, they're huge. Also, my sound card is great, but my speakers aren't, so there's no point in grabbing FLAC. I have about 40 gigs worth of music and to convert them to FLAC would take too much time and wouldn't be worth it. My ears are not going to be able to tell the difference from a V0 and FLAC anyways. Unless I'm listening to something that's instrumental only, which needs to be in high quality to hear everything, I'm not going to bother.Quote:
Originally Posted by wholelotaphun
Quote:
Originally Posted by link2009I'm sure you don't want to get into a giant argument about FLAC vs. MP3 because there are just too many on the 'net.Quote:
Originally Posted by wholelotaphun
I believe it's <10% of people can hear the difference between FLAC and a 320Kbps MP3, I doubt you're one of them. You probably just WANT to hear the difference, so you do.
Most people would (such as myself), would just convert the FLAC audio files to a high-quality MP3 format (320Kbps) for portable listening. There's no need to be running around with FLAC if the equivalent MP3's are available.
1000 FLAC albums would be huge, as stated above.
And I just realized you said MP3''s sound flat on your cheap computer speakers...maybe you should get a real sound system (I have a $2,500 BOSE system) and then try to see the difference, I wouldn't believe you otherwise.
Tale care :happy:
may i suggest you get a box of these: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/175/4...c8a492.jpg?v=0
...or would that be too forward of me ?
:music:
It does not work that way. It's not about such quality you system can't play it. Your missing information across the whole frequency spectrum. It's like looking at a low resolution picture. If you did the same thing to a picture you would see it right away. There are a few sites on the web that have extracted the information that was removed from a FLAC to make an MP3 and played just that to make the point. The missing information is HUGE, and while many can't "hear" it, under controlled experiments almost everyone finds the FLAC files more emotionally charged, moving. In other words, you don't know what you are missing.Quote:
Originally Posted by link2009I'm sure you don't want to get into a giant argument about FLAC vs. MP3 because there are just too many on the 'net.Quote:
Originally Posted by wholelotaphun
I believe it's <10% of people can hear the difference between FLAC and a 320Kbps MP3, I doubt you're one of them. You probably just WANT to hear the difference, so you do.
Most people would (such as myself), would just convert the FLAC audio files to a high-quality MP3 format (320Kbps) for portable listening. There's no need to be running around with FLAC if the equivalent MP3's are available.
1000 FLAC albums would be huge, as stated above.
And I just realized you said MP3''s sound flat on your cheap computer speakers...maybe you should get a real sound system (I have a $2,500 BOSE system) and then try to see the difference, I wouldn't believe you otherwise.
Tale care :happy:
Playing MP3's on a 2,500 BOSE system is like hooking up your HDTV to
component-video.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wholelotaphunIt does not work that way. It's not about such quality you system can't play it. Your missing information across the whole frequency spectrum. It's like looking at a low resolution picture. If you did the same thing to a picture you would see it right away. There are a few sites on the web that have extracted the information that was removed from a FLAC to make an MP3 and played just that to make the point. The missing information is HUGE, and while many can't "hear" it, under controlled experiments almost everyone finds the FLAC files more emotionally charged, moving. In other words, you don't know what you are missing.Quote:
Originally Posted by link2009
Playing MP3's on a 2,500 BOSE system is like hooking up your HDTV to
component-video.
i think u mean composite...about to google flac cuz i have no idea what it is
[QUOTE=wholelotaphun;3164361]Can anybody point me to sites that have done the extraction you're talking about to simulate the MP3 data loss? Or to the "controlled experiments" where people responded positively to higher quality sound?Quote:
Originally Posted by link2009
Thanks!
I can't even hear teh difference, am I suppossed to? My it's because I've had big booming bass system's in ever car I've ever owned...coudl that be it?