EPT.flac Music - Page 2
| Blogs > Azera |
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
| ||
|
Azera
3800 Posts
On October 01 2011 11:33 cam connor wrote: no ABBA is GOAT Haha yea, my favourite is Voulez Vous On October 01 2011 11:34 skyR wrote: There's no difference between alac and flac assuming the encoder isn't shit. You're just a click away from the other so who cares? It's why lossless is used for archiving. So how do I go about doing this conversion thing? | ||
ZeromuS
Canada13379 Posts
On October 01 2011 11:30 Azera wrote: Is there a difference between the Apple lossness and .flac?  You're making fun of me right?Well apple lossless still can apply some form of compression depending on your settings. While technically FLAC also can have compression if you have an EAC FLAC file then there is 0 compression so its the best for archival purposes. Apple lossless is fine for listening though theres a certain something about FLAC that is subjectively better than ALAC though not objectively. Maybe its the fact i personally first heard FLAC and that memory is the main thing that sticks out in my mind. | ||
|
IskatuMesk
Canada969 Posts
It makes me mad when people ask me to save an mp3 as flac for "higher quality", though. More than it should. | ||
|
Azera
3800 Posts
On October 01 2011 11:42 IskatuMesk wrote: Love Flac when I can get it. Don't use/need an mp3 player and have around 10tb of space available so, storage is pretty irrelevant. It makes me mad when people ask me to save an mp3 as flac for "higher quality", though. More than it should. Yeah I love it when people think they can just convert .mp3 to .flac . (Does it work?) | ||
|
GigaFlop
United States1146 Posts
| ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
You can thank me when you're considering paying 500 dollars for cables and you remember what I told you about the audiophile community. | ||
|
Azera
3800 Posts
On October 01 2011 11:54 GigaFlop wrote: Does the girl of your other blogs seem like she would be interested in this? I dunno, she uses an iPod. But if we ever get together I'll definitely introduce her to .flac =P On October 01 2011 11:55 Chef wrote: Do an abx test with foobar and use a recent codec at 192 kb/s or higher compression. Then weep because you're a fool. Everyone goes thru this phase, but only intelligent people can make it out. HydrogenAudio.org is your one-stop shop for legitimate audiophile discussion, and just about everywhere else people have no idea what they're talking about and don't adhere to any scientific principles. You cannot hear the difference between FLAC and the latest version of mp3 at 192 kb/s encoding on most tracks unless you have super-human hearing. The ones that you can hear the difference on it's only for a second and you'll only find it if you scrutinize the file for an hour, and even then you're proving nothing because you wouldn't notice in a normal listening environment (ie listening for pleasure). You can thank me when you're considering paying 500 dollars for cables and you remember what I told you about the audiophile community. So you're saying that the difference between .mp3 and .flac isn't significant or am I misunderstanding the text? | ||
|
APurpleCow
United States1372 Posts
Out of 15 trials, I was only right 8 times. I don't think .flac is for me. | ||
|
Cam Connor
Canada786 Posts
http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2009/03/mp3-sound-quality-test-128-320/ | ||
|
Cam Connor
Canada786 Posts
cam "plebe" connor | ||
|
Azera
3800 Posts
On October 01 2011 12:07 cam connor wrote: to be honest a large number of people can't tell the difference between 128 and 320 http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2009/03/mp3-sound-quality-test-128-320/ If I say that I can does that give me a grandiose elitist aura? | ||
|
PoopLord
537 Posts
| ||
|
APurpleCow
United States1372 Posts
On October 01 2011 11:55 Azera wrote: I dunno, she uses an iPod. But if we ever get together I'll definitely introduce her to .flac =P So you're saying that the difference between .mp3 and .flac isn't significant or am I misunderstanding the text? I think that's pretty much exactly what he's saying. If you disagree, then I'd definitely be interested in the results of the abx test with foobar, as he described. Do it and post results. | ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
On October 01 2011 11:55 Chef wrote: Do an abx test with foobar and use a recent codec at 192 kb/s or higher compression. Then weep because you're a fool. Everyone goes thru this phase, but only intelligent people can make it out. HydrogenAudio.org is your one-stop shop for legitimate audiophile discussion, and just about everywhere else people have no idea what they're talking about and don't adhere to any scientific principles. You cannot hear the difference between FLAC and the latest version of mp3 at 192 kb/s encoding on most tracks unless you have super-human hearing. The ones that you can hear the difference on it's only for a second and you'll only find it if you scrutinize the file for an hour, and even then you're proving nothing because you wouldn't notice in a normal listening environment (ie listening for pleasure). You can thank me when you're considering paying 500 dollars for cables and you remember what I told you about the audiophile community. Some people can ABX modern LAME 320 kbps mp3 or say modern Vorbis or AAC ~320 kbps from lossless, on many tracks. Personally with some tracks in some places I can ABX LAME -V0 (didn't try 320 kbps) from lossless. At about 192 kbps on many tracks I can tell the difference without much effort, and that bitrate (or -V2 or whatever) will sometimes even give noticeable compression artifacts like sizzles and pre-echos. For portable (storage-constrained) use, in any kind of noisy environment, and if not for concentrated listening, I'd definitely just go with some lossy ~256 kbps or so personally. That's like beyond good enough for most all situations. Everybody should just use whatever works for them though. Anyway, you don't need to be a shithead to prove a point. In fact, it does the opposite. Moral of the story is to just test for yourself, if you want to save storage space. Encode a lossless file to some lossy format and ABX compare. You may be surprised at "differences" you're hearing that don't actually exist in reality. It's easy to imagine changes when none exist, and that's the point that should be made. | ||
|
Azera
3800 Posts
On October 01 2011 12:16 APurpleCow wrote: I think that's pretty much exactly what he's saying. If you disagree, then I'd definitely be interested in the results of the abx test with foobar, as he described. Do it and post results. I have no idea what that is... | ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
He pretty just means a blind test. This is a convenient way of doing it though. Here is a music player: http://www.foobar2000.org/download Download this plugin: http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx And extract and put the plugin in the "components" folder. Select two tracks, right click, and select the ABX test. You'd first want to get a lossless track and transcode that to a lossy format, so you have two suitable tracks to compare in that way. edit: the way the test works is that it randomly calls one of the tracks A, and the other as B (without telling you which are which). It also assigns one to X and the other as Y. It allows you to listen to A, B, X, and Y as much as you please. Then you guess if A was X and B was Y; or if A was Y and B was X. Repeat as many times as you want. This is just a helpful way to see if differences you hear are still discernible when you don't already know which is which (i.e. blind testing, the basis of most properly-controlled scientific tests). It's not an infallible method, but it's a good start. | ||
|
Azera
3800 Posts
On October 01 2011 12:20 Myrmidon wrote: He pretty just means a blind test. This is a convenient way of doing it though. Here is a music player: http://www.foobar2000.org/download Download this plugin: http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx And extract and put the plugin in the "components" folder. Select two tracks, right click, and select the ABX test. You'd first want to get a lossless track and transcode that to a lossy format, so you have two suitable tracks to compare in that way. How do I do that? | ||
|
tube
United States1475 Posts
listen to a 320/v0 mp3 and then listen to a flac if you think you hear a difference either you're one of the few people who have actually trained their ears to hear the difference between the two (which is minute) or you have a transcode the point of lossy music formats to begin with is to cut off the frequencies human ears cant discern | ||
|
ryan1894
Australia264 Posts
Right click, and convert to mp3 128kbps, then shift select the flac version and the mp3 version and ABX it. I've done maybe 3 songs in comparison between MP3 and FLAC, and I can only tell the difference (when I'm paying ridiculous amounts of attention) between 128kbps mp3(LAME) and FLAC. Most sane (no ocd) agree that 192kbps is probably the point of transparency (i.e. unable to hear a difference) The LAME mp3 formula is ridiculously good and if you can hear a difference, James Randi will pay you $1 million dollars. EDIT: If you have a space confined device, MP3 128 or 192 VBR or MP3 v5 should be where you should be ripping your music... BTW I run Audio Technica ATH-AD900's off onboard audio. I guess it isn't the best but I cant tell the difference between my iPhone and onboard - and I'd guess iPhone isnt very (electrically) noisy. Also I correctly answered the 128 vs 320 kbps mp3. If you listen carefully at the hi hat - its a little muffled on 128kbps. Cymbals are the easiest way to differentiate different bitrates imo - so there. | ||
| ||
