so far I I've mostly been finding v0 and v2 (as far as variable bitrate goes). Which trackers have a bunch of v3s?
Printable View
so far I I've mostly been finding v0 and v2 (as far as variable bitrate goes). Which trackers have a bunch of v3s?
Hmmm v3 is that like 160kbps vbr, why v3 ?
There's none at What, and I can't see any on waffles or er anywhere really.
You'd need to encode them yourself I guess if it's for a specific application
v0 is the most popular VBR format, and then scene releases in v2 which has made v2 popular as well. I don't think there's any tracker that releases in v3.. You could grab flac and then EAC to convert it but that's very inefficient lol
Let the FLAC vs v0 Battle commence, Handbags at 20 paces... :)
op is on topic...Quote:
Originally Posted by formos
On topic. You'll never find v3's anywhere.
ok, I guess I stick with v2s... but I have heard that its hard to notice a difference between v3 and v2, but v3 takes up less space. what ever..
It's hard to notice a difference in sound quality between v2 & v3 because they are already heavily compressed and basically sound shit, switching to v0 will give you a sound much closer to the original CD without using up much more space on your mp3 player / phone or whatever you use.Quote:
Originally Posted by starless
don't listen to Ghostbusters, the average person can't tell the difference between a V5 and flac on a blindtest. v2 is great for most people
I beg to differ even on low end audio equipment v2 sounds a little scratchy and rough around the edges trebles and high end drop offs are especialy distorted, on higher end components and interconnects the differences are magnified considerably.Quote:
Originally Posted by T.S.O.L.
v0 sounds much cleaner but can still sound a little lifeless on a good setup depending on the original recording levels of the album.
I would say the difference between v2 & v0 is similar to the difference between an xvid & an x264.
Can you tell that I'm a FLAC & DVD-R monster ? :)
***Edit***
*Apologies for dragging this way off topic*
Stop talking out of your ass. Just because you might not have a high end sound system, doesn't mean that others don't. You shouldn't tell a person not to listen to someone else's advice, just because you're obviously ignorant on the subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by T.S.O.L.
And yes, you most certainly can tell the difference between lossless and lossy on a good system. Now on an mp3 player...no. If you're listening on a good system, there's no reason not to go with the best format. If you're just stocking your mp3 player, then you should go with V0 or V2.
How about we direct this guy over to hydrogenaudio forums, which specializes in audio and where actual audiophiles gather. Then they will give the OP the same answer I gave him. Don't fuckin accuse ME of talking out my ass when for all we know you're probably just another clueless torrenter who hopped on the flac bandwagon craze and now thinks everything but flac sounds like crap, when in reality the frequency spectrum difference from flac compared to v0 or v2 is ridiculously small, and is only cut off at the really low and high ends which we can't really hear anyways.
Ghostbuster and Funkin, the flac is probably having a placebo affect on you, and you saying v2 or v0 sounds 'distorted' or 'rough around the edges' holds no value unless you've done a properly set up blind test. I bet both you are too lazy to get one set up so we can't really argue about this. Anyways, the BTT section of FSt is no place to be having this discussion. http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/
Yeah...I'm the clueless one.
I was just trying to persuade you from acting like a douche everytime somebody brings up FLAC or V0. But I guess that's not going to happen. We get it. You like lower bitrate mp3's. But because of this, you shouldn't be mis-informing other users.
Well, I'm not going to keep going back and forth with you spouting insults like some teenager. You do enough of that around here for the both of us.
Your posts haven't informed anybody of anything except your opinion that music ripped in VBR is bad quality. I at least suggested that users do a blindtest and make up their own mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Funkin'
Ignorance is bliss... :)
ABX anyone?
some people hear the difference, some don't. here you can see the difference:
http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/8201/comp1ek1.png
http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/752/comp2hy5.png
http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/7210/comp3fb5.png
Maybe the record makers should start releasing the cds in 128, if the average person can tell the different.:P
because we listen to music with our eyes, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Polarbear
it's more like - some people know they hear the difference; some people think they hear the difference; some don't.
hey man thanks for the advice.. I have done a blind test myself and since then have been looking for lower bitrate torrents. so would ever download something which wasn't VBR? like 192 or 128?Quote:
Originally Posted by T.S.O.L.Your posts haven't informed anybody of anything except your opinion that music ripped in VBR is bad quality. I at least suggested that users do a blindtest and make up their own mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Funkin'
naw i stick with VBR unless it's not an option. CBR bitrates are alot less efficient spacewise. V2 is about the same size as 192 CBR but the quality is better. Also VBR is great on tracks with long amounts of empty space ie bonus tracks. Lastly VBR is encoded using LAME which is generally considered the best mp3 encoder, whereas CBR could be encoded various ways. At the end of the day it doesn't really make much of a difference unless you're dealing with a transcode or a very low bitrate (128 is pushing it, i'd say 192 CBR or v5 is the lowest I'd be happy downloading), as long as you end up listening to the music you like
+1
VBR is awesome in terms of size in respect to quality as opposed to CBR.