| Page 1 of 1 |
|
|
 Posted: Tue, 31st Jul 2007 07:04 Post subject: FLAC vs. MP3 |
|
 |
Personally, I always used MP3 VBR, but recently I moved to FLAC; the quality is on par with the original CD and the files are not SO big if you compare it to the massive HD rips and HDVD/BLURAY Discs that are flowing the net these days. I think it is time we gave music its proper space and not compress it to bits. If we can store huge HD video files, we sure as hell can store lossless music in this day and age.
Anyway, let's see who's already using FLAC...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 31st Jul 2007 10:37 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Parallax_
VIP Member
Posts: 6422
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Tue, 31st Jul 2007 10:56 Post subject: |
|
|
Should be MP3 vs. OGG really.
Both the aforementioned formats running at 320kbit gives the same quality as a CD, unless you're an audiophile.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 31st Jul 2007 11:31 Post subject: |
|
|
audiophile being the operative word there, if you were to play a 320kbps mp3 on a rig, you notice certain frequencies (low bass and high treble) are cut. Even on my stereo at home, i can tell the difference between 320kbps and a FLAC.
Now im not saying FLAC is better, because i still have reservations about the size. 300mb for an normal length album is too big. Plus, for home listening i am still perfectly happy with v0 vbr.
So i didnt vote, there are advantages to both sides.
| Cohen wrote: | I'm a troll! well done, you caught me lying my ass off on a forum. I post pictures so that it makes you angry and that you wish you could have my awesome material things   |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 31st Jul 2007 13:46 Post subject: |
|
|
lame --alt preset standard ftw!
people who encode at 320kbps CBR w/ true stereo are retarded
though FLAC is fine for archieving purposes if you have enough much space to waste
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 31st Jul 2007 22:53 Post subject: |
|
|
MP3 here, the sound difference isn't noticeable enough to me to justify the larger file size. Not to mention it's not supported like MP3's are. Even if MP3 players could play them, your track list would be significantly reduced due to the large file size. Not saying FLAC sucks, I'm just used to my MP3's 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nouseforaname
Über-VIP Member
Posts: 21306
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 31st Jul 2007 23:19 Post subject: |
|
|
The beauty of FLAC is that you can decode it to wave in seconds and then encode it to MP3 and what not. It's very future-friendly. (That way you always have the original.)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
docertabum
Posts: 829
Location: Slovakia (not Slovenia :)
|
| Posted: Thu, 2nd Aug 2007 09:22 Post subject: |
|
|
mp3 files are enough for me...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SuTuRa
Posts: 2445
Location: NFOHump
|
| Posted: Sat, 8th Sep 2007 19:58 Post subject: |
|
|
Music should come in iso format, that´s what a retail version is! To me theres nothing like the cd, besides, the place where I listen more music is in the car.
And if you want to convert the cd to files, you can choose your favourite format.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lutzifer
Modzilla
Posts: 12740
Location: ____________________ **** vegan zombie **** GRRAAIIINNSS _______
|
| Posted: Wed, 12th Sep 2007 13:51 Post subject: |
|
|
i did alot of double-blind testing with mp3s & original cds on my hifi-setup and also with good headphones. With 128 i still hear differences, but everything over 192 usually sounds indistinquishably the same. If you go into nitpicking mode and know which version is which you might still find details missing, but i m fine with any mp3 of 192 or higher bitrate. If i like the songs i usually buy the album anyways. And for mobile listening the headphones wouldnt be audiophile quality anyways, so it doesnt matter either...
edit: other formats like ogg or mp3pro for example do very well at lower bitrates than 192, so if you re into making everything as tiny as possible, thats the way to go
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
_SiN_
Megatron
Posts: 12108
Location: Cybertron
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lutzifer
Modzilla
Posts: 12740
Location: ____________________ **** vegan zombie **** GRRAAIIINNSS _______
|
| Posted: Wed, 12th Sep 2007 15:07 Post subject: |
|
|
I d rather go with ogg than, as that sounded better in comparison to mp3pro with lower bitrates imho.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 11th Oct 2007 00:11 Post subject: |
|
|
| SuTuRa wrote: | Music should come in iso format, that´s what a retail version is! To me theres nothing like the cd, besides, the place where I listen more music is in the car.
And if you want to convert the cd to files, you can choose your favourite format. |
This is exactly NOT the way to go. Ripping Audio CDs to .iso/.img/.nrg/.mdf... does not guarantee an error free rip.
Data discs contain error correction data which is used to verify the files you copy to your harddrive. But Audio CDs were not intended to be copied to PCs, so they don't have any checksums or correction data. When you rip it to an image, it will be copied blindly. It can turn out to be a perfect copy, but it can be full of errors as well....
The safe way is to use EAC or dBpoweramp. They re-read the data until it can be considered as safe.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
_SiN_
Megatron
Posts: 12108
Location: Cybertron
|
| Posted: Thu, 11th Oct 2007 08:14 Post subject: |
|
|
Plus, if all music came in .iso format, what a fucking pain to convert them all to use in your mp3-player..
Watercooled 5950X | AORUS Master X570 | Asus RTX 3090 TUF Gaming OC | 64Gb RAM | 1Tb 970 Evo Plus + 2Tb 660p | etc etc
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SycoShaman
VIP Master Jedi
Posts: 24468
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu, 11th Oct 2007 16:09 Post subject: |
|
|
I dont see the fuss over mp3's - relatively small in size, sound decent, easy to manipulate...whats the problem? Why switch formats and have to get all your music over again?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wawrzul
Posts: 2336
Location: Cracow, Poland
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lutzifer
Modzilla
Posts: 12740
Location: ____________________ **** vegan zombie **** GRRAAIIINNSS _______
|
| Posted: Tue, 8th Jan 2008 15:11 Post subject: |
|
|
what speakers do you use on your pc? Because the quality of the speakers / headphones usually degrades the signal much more than the encoding when comparing with ipods and the like.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 8th Jan 2008 15:31 Post subject: |
|
|
i have a pioneer gold series amp with panasonic surround sound uprights and a panasonic sub.
the amp sounds a helluva lot better using spdif than basic phono.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lutzifer
Modzilla
Posts: 12740
Location: ____________________ **** vegan zombie **** GRRAAIIINNSS _______
|
| Posted: Tue, 8th Jan 2008 16:08 Post subject: |
|
|
have you dont some bitrate-quality-comparisons on your system kaiko?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 9th Jan 2008 12:07 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 9th Jan 2008 12:40 Post subject: |
|
|
| Lutzifer wrote: | | have you dont some bitrate-quality-comparisons on your system kaiko? |
yeah Lutz, as stated above, on my amp at home i can tell the difference between 320kbps and FLAC, but 320kbps does not impede the listening experience, in fact im quite happy with v0. however, i would much prefer to use a FLAC on a rig. FLAC is just crisp and clear, like you are listening to a brand new CD on a brand new B&O system. But then again, when it comes to that level, it all depends on the actual musics production and mastering.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Panoramix
Posts: 181
Location: Essen/NRW/Germany
|
| Posted: Wed, 9th Jan 2008 14:48 Post subject: |
|
|
ape ,flac and wv for me. I have a very good hifi setup and the difference in terms of quality is noticable even with 320kbs mp3 compared to lossless formats.... at least for me. hm,i think it really depends on the audio setup-many people i know prefer mp3 over lossless compression formats due to the capacity issue. For me that point is negligible because i consider storage drives with 500gigs and more (wich are common today) more than enough to spare me a headache in this regard. DSL is offering enough bandwith so that aspect is also futile in this discussion imho. I merely dwl mp3 albums to get an impression on the music i'm interested in and afterwards download it as flac or ape if the music suits me well enough.Losless FTW!
Nun, so soll es denn sein!
Reiche mir Schwert und Wein,
reiche mir Panzer und Gebein!
Zerschmettern will ich mit Hass!
Ich, das schwarze Nass!!!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 19th Jan 2008 19:39 Post subject: |
|
|
i have all my radiohead rips as .flac i don't know why but the bigger file size turns me on for such a band 8DDDDDDDD
everything else can be small and mp3
YEHAHHA
cockcockcockcockcockcockcockcockcockcockcockcock
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 25th Jan 2008 21:14 Post subject: |
|
|
Never heard of .flac actually
I will try to download some radiohead flac..... Im an experienced radiohead listener
with old b&w speakers...
| Quote: | | PC awesome button = Uninstall! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 25th Jan 2008 21:41 Post subject: |
|
|
i remember 4-5 years ago when OGG was the hype , seems like it slowly faded away since then , not saying only a few still use it .
80% of my collection is mp3 , trying to get them all above 192kb/s , then i got 15% OGG from the days like i said above most albums came in ogg only , and then i try to get FLAC for non electronic music where possible.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
