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.
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?Originally Posted by whatcdfan
Could you be more specific?Originally Posted by whatcdfan
What kind of woofer sys you have (brand, model, specs, etc...)?
Last edited by DeadPoet; 12-09-2010 at 09:02 AM.
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.
Last edited by DeadPoet; 12-09-2010 at 08:55 PM.
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.
Bookmarks