|
The majority of us have our entire music library in the .mp3 extension. Even some self-proclaimed audiophiles that I know only have .mp3 music. Why is this so? I have quite an extensive collection of .flac files, and yes, they take up an enormous amount of space (An average of 20 Megabytes per song), but to me, it's worth it.
The first time I've listened to .flac, it just felt so fresh and new, it's like putting on glasses (if you need one) for the first time. It's like washing your face with a cleansing formula.
![[image loading]](http://www.face-wash.com/images/face-wash-man.jpg)
It's like putting in your mouth a salad made of the freshest vegetables
![[image loading]](http://juliesmenus.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/rocket-salad.jpg)
(Rocket Salad is my favourite kind)
Now, obviously you need good earphones as well and not just .flac files to have the perfect sound. I use a pair of Jays which are excellent. Something that most of you should take note of is that iTunes/iPhones/iPods/iPads do not play .flac files which is really upsetting. Also, the standard music player for HTC also does not support .flac files (I use an app called PowerAMP, it's really good.). I'm unsure about other Android phones / Blackberriers' / Nokias' too.
I guess the purpose of this blog is just to tell you guys who have never heard of .flac music before to try it. It will change your life. Have you ever heard the finale of the 1812 Overture by Tchaikovsky in .flac? It's utterly staggering; the blast of the cannons almost turns into a roar; what was once just a bundle of murky and muddy sounds of the Violin becomes unbelievably crisp and clean-cut, you can just hear and feel every single Violin in the orchestra. Have you even heard Queen on .flac? Dear Lord it's mind blowing.
If you are a classical music aficionado like me, you will just simply adore .flac music.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lYDqU.png)
This is my library of .flac music
So all of you should go and torrent buy your favourite album in .flac now
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's some music if you don't know where to start acquiring .flac files
If you prefer Instrumental
+ Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUmq1cpcglQ
If you prefer the Oldies (I hesitate to use this term)
+ Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAf2S6ij2gk&ob=av2e
  
|
You need more music my friend. Much, much more.
|
On October 01 2011 11:07 scottyyy wrote:
You need more music my friend. Much, much more.
It takes time to get them and I there isn't much music that I really want in .flac ... because I don't have much exposure to music I guess T.T
Suggestions? I don't listen to Metal/Rap/Dubstep (Save for some)
|
It doesn't go on my mp3 player.
That's why I don't use flac.
|
Lossless is really just for archiving purposes =\
|
Canada13389 Posts
On October 01 2011 11:12 skyR wrote:
Lossless is really just for archiving purposes =\
Not if you buy a Large capacity player like an ipod classic or enjoy music off your hard drive
|
On October 01 2011 11:11 Torte de Lini wrote:
It doesn't go on my mp3 player.
That's why I don't use flac.
What player do you use? Just curious.
On October 01 2011 11:12 skyR wrote:
Lossless is really just for archiving purposes =\
Oh? Even so, I just want the quality =P
On October 01 2011 11:14 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2011 11:12 skyR wrote:
Lossless is really just for archiving purposes =\ Not if you buy a Large capacity player like an ipod classic or enjoy music off your hard drive
Is there such a thing?
|
Except Apple doesn't support flac Lol.
And depending on the song and enconder used, there really isn't that much of a difference between 320 and lossless.
|
On October 01 2011 11:15 skyR wrote:
Except Apple doesn't support flac Lol.
He said something like an iPod Classic
|
FLAC is great and all, but since most mp3 players are incompatible its unpractical for most people.
Apple has their own version of flac called ALAC (apple lossless audio codec) which is totally unnecessary, it might work on their junk tho.
Flac is great for archiving , and certainly smaller than keeping everything in uncompressed WAVs. So its indeed quite awesome, and if you have a proper soundsystem to enjoy it with, then quite wonderful too
|
On October 01 2011 11:15 skyR wrote:
Except Apple doesn't support flac Lol.
And depending on the song and enconder used, there really isn't that much of a difference between 320 and lossless.
Yeah. I had to corrupt my wonderful library of all the Mahler symphonies by converting them from .flac to some sort of .mp4 file so that I could get them into iTunes and onto my iPod.
Still sounded decent, but nothing can compare to listening to the end of Mahler 2 with the highest possible audio quality. I get nerd chills just thinking about it.
|
England2662 Posts
Your flac library makes me cringe. Abba in flac seems like a polished turd.
Also, why not just buy a CD? It's the best quality you're likely to get. Audiophilia is all or nothing as far as I'm concerned. If you don't have a $400 (minimum) set of headphones plugged into a $1000 cd player, you're not doing it right.
CDs are normally cheaper than flac downloads too.
|
On October 01 2011 11:19 eviltomahawk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2011 11:15 skyR wrote:
Except Apple doesn't support flac Lol.
And depending on the song and enconder used, there really isn't that much of a difference between 320 and lossless. Yeah. I had to corrupt my wonderful library of all the Mahler symphonies by converting them from .flac to some sort of .mp4 file so that I could get them into iTunes and onto my iPod. Still sounded decent, but nothing can compare to listening to the end of Mahler 2 with the highest possible audio quality. I get nerd chills just thinking about it.
What is Mahler?
On October 01 2011 11:20 Flicky wrote:
Your flac library makes me cringe. Abba in flac seems like a polished turd.
Also, why not just buy a CD? It's the best quality you're likely to get. Audiophilia is all or nothing as far as I'm concerned. If you don't have a $400 (minimum) set of headphones plugged into a $1000 cd player, you're not doing it right.
CDs are normally cheaper than flac downloads too.
Is it bad if I like Abba? T.T
|
On October 01 2011 11:21 Azera wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2011 11:19 eviltomahawk wrote:On October 01 2011 11:15 skyR wrote:
Except Apple doesn't support flac Lol.
And depending on the song and enconder used, there really isn't that much of a difference between 320 and lossless. Yeah. I had to corrupt my wonderful library of all the Mahler symphonies by converting them from .flac to some sort of .mp4 file so that I could get them into iTunes and onto my iPod. Still sounded decent, but nothing can compare to listening to the end of Mahler 2 with the highest possible audio quality. I get nerd chills just thinking about it. What is Mahler?
Gustav Mahler is a German composer from the early 20th century. He was known to straddle the musical period between the late-romantic era and the early-modern era. He is most known for his 9 symphonies, many of which are quite epic and very popular to fans of works for large orchestra.
|
Canada13389 Posts
On October 01 2011 11:19 eviltomahawk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2011 11:15 skyR wrote:
Except Apple doesn't support flac Lol.
And depending on the song and enconder used, there really isn't that much of a difference between 320 and lossless. Yeah. I had to corrupt my wonderful library of all the Mahler symphonies by converting them from .flac to some sort of .mp4 file so that I could get them into iTunes and onto my iPod. Still sounded decent, but nothing can compare to listening to the end of Mahler 2 with the highest possible audio quality. I get nerd chills just thinking about it.
I too have many apple lossless files and they remain the best option compared to any mp3s I could possibly have
|
T.O.P.
Hong Kong4685 Posts
On October 01 2011 11:20 Flicky wrote:
Your flac library makes me cringe. Abba in flac seems like a polished turd.
Also, why not just buy a CD? It's the best quality you're likely to get. Audiophilia is all or nothing as far as I'm concerned. If you don't have a $400 (minimum) set of headphones plugged into a $1000 cd player, you're not doing it right.
CDs are normally cheaper than flac downloads too.
CD quality is exactly the same as FLAC quality if both uses same resolution (bits) and range (hertz).
These days, there's no reason at all to get a CD player. FLAC has the same bit representation as a CD and you store and organize music much better on a flash music player. What matters is the DAC and the Amplifier. There are audiophile Desktop DAC + Amp solutions as well as ones made for portable use.
As for me, I take FLACs and convert them AAC for my portable use.
FLAC -> wav -> Itunes AAC Encoder 320Kbps VBR (best encoder that I know of) -> Winamp's auto tagger.
AAC is better than MP3s imo.
|
On October 01 2011 11:14 Azera wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2011 11:11 Torte de Lini wrote:
It doesn't go on my mp3 player.
That's why I don't use flac. What player do you use? Just curious. Show nested quote +On October 01 2011 11:12 skyR wrote:
Lossless is really just for archiving purposes =\ Oh? Even so, I just want the quality =P Show nested quote +On October 01 2011 11:14 ZeromuS wrote:On October 01 2011 11:12 skyR wrote:
Lossless is really just for archiving purposes =\ Not if you buy a Large capacity player like an ipod classic or enjoy music off your hard drive Is there such a thing?
Creative Vision Zen: M
![[image loading]](http://compareindia.in.com/media/product/2007/aug/creative_zen_vision_m_350x263.jpg)
|
if you have ABBA's greatest hits you don't need more music
|
On October 01 2011 11:26 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2011 11:19 eviltomahawk wrote:On October 01 2011 11:15 skyR wrote:
Except Apple doesn't support flac Lol.
And depending on the song and enconder used, there really isn't that much of a difference between 320 and lossless. Yeah. I had to corrupt my wonderful library of all the Mahler symphonies by converting them from .flac to some sort of .mp4 file so that I could get them into iTunes and onto my iPod. Still sounded decent, but nothing can compare to listening to the end of Mahler 2 with the highest possible audio quality. I get nerd chills just thinking about it. I too have many apple lossless files and they remain the best option compared to any mp3s I could possibly have
Is there a difference between the Apple lossness and .flac?
On October 01 2011 11:29 cam connor wrote:
if you have ABBA's greatest hits you don't need more music
 You're making fun of me right?
|
|
|
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.
|
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?
|
Canada13389 Posts
On October 01 2011 11:30 Azera wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2011 11:26 ZeromuS wrote:On October 01 2011 11:19 eviltomahawk wrote:On October 01 2011 11:15 skyR wrote:
Except Apple doesn't support flac Lol.
And depending on the song and enconder used, there really isn't that much of a difference between 320 and lossless. Yeah. I had to corrupt my wonderful library of all the Mahler symphonies by converting them from .flac to some sort of .mp4 file so that I could get them into iTunes and onto my iPod. Still sounded decent, but nothing can compare to listening to the end of Mahler 2 with the highest possible audio quality. I get nerd chills just thinking about it. I too have many apple lossless files and they remain the best option compared to any mp3s I could possibly have Is there a difference between the Apple lossness and .flac? Show nested quote +On October 01 2011 11:29 cam connor wrote:
if you have ABBA's greatest hits you don't need more music 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.
|
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.
|
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?)
|
Does the girl of your other blogs seem like she would be interested in this?
|
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.
|
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?
|
My library is entirely 190kbps MP3. As a test, I took a selection of songs and converted them to 80 kbps MP3, then put both versions of the songs in a folder and randomly played, trying to guess whether they were 190 or 80.
Out of 15 trials, I was only right 8 times. I don't think .flac is for me.
|
|
|
i know i can't
cam "plebe" connor
|
If I say that I can does that give me a grandiose elitist aura?
|
It seems like diminishing returns to me.
|
On October 01 2011 11:55 Azera wrote:Show nested quote +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 Show nested quote +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?
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.
|
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.
|
On October 01 2011 12:16 APurpleCow wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2011 11:55 Azera wrote: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? 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...
|
On October 01 2011 12:17 Azera wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2011 12:16 APurpleCow wrote:On October 01 2011 11:55 Azera wrote: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? 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...
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.
|
On October 01 2011 12:20 Myrmidon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2011 12:17 Azera wrote:On October 01 2011 12:16 APurpleCow wrote:On October 01 2011 11:55 Azera wrote: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? 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... 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/downloadDownload this plugin: http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abxAnd 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?
|
hate to burst your bubble but what you're experiencing is very very likely to be the "placebo" effect
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
|
+ Show Spoiler +On October 01 2011 12:24 Azera wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2011 12:20 Myrmidon wrote:On October 01 2011 12:17 Azera wrote:On October 01 2011 12:16 APurpleCow wrote:On October 01 2011 11:55 Azera wrote: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? 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... 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/downloadDownload this plugin: http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abxAnd 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?
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.
|
On October 01 2011 12:24 Azera wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2011 12:20 Myrmidon wrote:On October 01 2011 12:17 Azera wrote:On October 01 2011 12:16 APurpleCow wrote:On October 01 2011 11:55 Azera wrote: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? 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... 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/downloadDownload this plugin: http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abxAnd 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?
Use any number of many many programs. foobar can do that (right click and go to Convert), but it just calls an encoder to do the dirty work so you could just use the encoder itself.
You can download a modern Vorbis (ogg container format) encoder here:
http://www.rarewares.org/ogg-oggenc.php
Modern (LAME) mp3 encoder here:
http://www.rarewares.org/mp3-lame-bundle.php
You should be able to just select "Convert" in foobar, and if it asks you where the encoder is, select one of the above.
|
On October 01 2011 12:16 Myrmidon wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Can I tell you that anecdotes like that are really frustrating for scientifically minded, skeptical people? I don't mean to be a 'shithead,' but in order for your test to be scrutinized, much less repeatable, details about the encoder you used, your audio equipment, the specific tracks, your actual empirical results would all help immensely in making your claim convincing. As it stands it's impossible to peer review, and therefore unscientific. It would note be difficult to save the details in a text file for future reference if you cared about contributing knowledge (especially when you get involved in discussions like this), so please do so if you ever decide to test yourself again. I know that in the aggregated results where data is actually recorded on HydrogenAudio, they've gotten transparency at around 160 kb/s with most songs, so to think you need FLAC means you have incredible hearing or have mucked up the testing somehow. I'm willing to believe the former, but it's not good to give generalized advice based on your hearing, superman.
|
On October 01 2011 12:31 tube wrote:
hate to burst your bubble but what you're experiencing is very very likely to be the "placebo" effect
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
Bingo! Whether or not you'd be able to hear the difference also greatly depends on the type and complexity of the music. People should probably spend some time understanding how MP3 and other lossy audio compression works compared to lossless before they run around making blogs about how Tchaikovsky sounds so much more amazing in FLAC.
|
On October 01 2011 12:31 tube wrote:
the point of lossy music formats to begin with is to cut off the frequencies human ears cant discern
Most lossy encoders will (though it's often an option) do a lowpass filtering and thus cut off some higher frequencies that most people can't hear, but that's not the only thing they're doing, by any stretch. They're overall just doing an approximation in a way that most humans can't detect.
It's like lossy videos. Some super-duper high quality 1080p Bluray is going to look great, and there's already a huge amount of compression done to get down to Bluray size. There has been information thrown away. Or more accurately, you would say that the decoded bits do not match the original perfectly. But this is probably beyond the point of transparency. Somebody's 1080p SC2 stream? Maybe not quite as good, and people can tell. There's some point where most people aren't going to be able to tell that they're not getting the 100% bit-perfect version, and this will depend on the person, their playback gear, listening/seeing environment, and the source material.
|
|
|
On October 01 2011 12:37 Chef wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2011 12:16 Myrmidon wrote: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. Can I tell you that anecdotes like that are really frustrating for scientifically minded, skeptical people? I don't mean to be a 'shithead,' but in order for your test to be scrutinized, much less repeatable, details about the encoder you used, your audio equipment, the specific tracks, your actual empirical results would all help immensely in making your claim convincing. As it stands it's impossible to peer review, and therefore unscientific. It would note be difficult to save the details in a text file for future reference if you cared about contributing knowledge (especially when you get involved in discussions like this), so please do so if you ever decide to test yourself again. I know that in the aggregated results where data is actually recorded on HydrogenAudio, they've gotten transparency at around 160 kb/s with most songs, so to think you need FLAC means you have incredible hearing or have mucked up the testing somehow. I'm willing to believe the former, but it's not good to give generalized advice based on your hearing, superman.
I didn't save the logs, but I have plenty of 8/10, 13/17, etc. type results on lots of tracks for LAME -V2, -V1, etc. encoding. One 8/10 or so for -V0 on at least one track. I don't think logs are that convincing since they can be faked, unfortunately, and there are ways to cheat the process so one can never be sure about trusting others' results.
Most of the tests were just using a AKG K601. I'm currently away from it right now, but maybe I can still get the -V2 ABX with my worse IEMs. brb.
edit:
Was away doing other stuff for a while but got back to this.
Okay, being realistic, the difference is generally pretty small unless you go to very low bitrates. As I said, it's better to just ask people to test for themselves, than apply blanket statements telling them what bitrate is or is not okay.
I tried a couple pieces and got like 7/8 in one part (and the artifact with the tubular bell strike was getting obvious), but only like 12/17 or just 5/8 (might be just plain guessing) in other parts. It really depends on the music. This was with LAME 3.98 -V2, and I don't claim to have the best of ears at all, especially for these kinds of details. As I mentioned before, my better gear is elsewhere atm. Used laptop onboard sound -> FiiO E5 -> Klipsch Custom 2 (kinda mediocre discontinued $70 IEMs, though they were $200 MSRP).
I'm not sure if ~160 kbps recommendation for transparency is that good. To be safer, I'd go higher. No need for 320 kbps or better than that for most people, but again, test for yourself if you're interested or need to make a decision for portable use.
Lossless is great for archiving though, and storage for desktops and even laptops is pretty cheap, so why not? I'd rather have like 3x or 4x more songs on my phone than very slightly better quality that would probably go unnoticed while on the go, that's for sure.
|
On October 01 2011 12:41 Myrmidon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2011 12:31 tube wrote:
the point of lossy music formats to begin with is to cut off the frequencies human ears cant discern Most lossy encoders will (though it's often an option) do a lowpass filtering and thus cut off some higher frequencies that most people can't hear, but that's not the only thing they're doing, by any stretch. They're overall just doing an approximation in a way that most humans can't detect. It's like lossy videos. Some super-duper high quality 1080p Bluray is going to look great, and there's already a huge amount of compression done to get down to Bluray size. There has been information thrown away. Or more accurately, you would say that the decoded bits do not match the original perfectly. But this is probably beyond the point of transparency. Somebody's 1080p SC2 stream? Maybe not quite as good, and people can tell. There's some point where most people aren't going to be able to tell that they're not getting the 100% bit-perfect version, and this will depend on the person, their playback gear, listening/seeing environment, and the source material.
Not really the same thing. MP3 operates on the fact that when two similar frequencies occur at the same time, one of them becomes inaudible. This is not really at all similar to video encoding, which operates on completely different principles (video compression deals mostly with clever ways to transfer the data with lower cost, not physical limitations). MP3 can still reach a point where it is killing too many frequencies, but the kbps required for audio encoded in MP3 to be indiscernable from the uncompressed version is MUCH lower than that required for 1080P video.
For more info on that effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_masking
|
Canada13389 Posts
On October 01 2011 12:41 Myrmidon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2011 12:31 tube wrote:
the point of lossy music formats to begin with is to cut off the frequencies human ears cant discern Most lossy encoders will (though it's often an option) do a lowpass filtering and thus cut off some higher frequencies that most people can't hear, but that's not the only thing they're doing, by any stretch. They're overall just doing an approximation in a way that most humans can't detect. It's like lossy videos. Some super-duper high quality 1080p Bluray is going to look great, and there's already a huge amount of compression done to get down to Bluray size. There has been information thrown away. Or more accurately, you would say that the decoded bits do not match the original perfectly. But this is probably beyond the point of transparency. Somebody's 1080p SC2 stream? Maybe not quite as good, and people can tell. There's some point where most people aren't going to be able to tell that they're not getting the 100% bit-perfect version, and this will depend on the person, their playback gear, listening/seeing environment, and the source material.
Agreed the difference between 192 and 320 let alone lossless is huge on my Shure 840s I own. The headphones are quite as punchy in the base or as clear on the high end when going down in bitrate. Heck 128 sounds very hollow compared to the others. 192 is ok but I still prefer the lossless since even in my car through the digital port and my head unit the sound difference is there. Just generally clearer and more distinct when i listen to higher quality files for me the difference between 320 and lossless is lossless is generally Louder too which puts less stress on my amps since i can hear the music at lower volumes.
Furthermore having a flac file gives me more options: I can compress it for use on a phone or to send via email. I can listen to it on my computer and keep it archived at full quality and i can choose to leave it at full quality in order to backup on my ipod instead of having a second hard drive.
|
On October 01 2011 12:47 tec27 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2011 12:41 Myrmidon wrote:On October 01 2011 12:31 tube wrote:
the point of lossy music formats to begin with is to cut off the frequencies human ears cant discern Most lossy encoders will (though it's often an option) do a lowpass filtering and thus cut off some higher frequencies that most people can't hear, but that's not the only thing they're doing, by any stretch. They're overall just doing an approximation in a way that most humans can't detect. It's like lossy videos. Some super-duper high quality 1080p Bluray is going to look great, and there's already a huge amount of compression done to get down to Bluray size. There has been information thrown away. Or more accurately, you would say that the decoded bits do not match the original perfectly. But this is probably beyond the point of transparency. Somebody's 1080p SC2 stream? Maybe not quite as good, and people can tell. There's some point where most people aren't going to be able to tell that they're not getting the 100% bit-perfect version, and this will depend on the person, their playback gear, listening/seeing environment, and the source material. Not really the same thing. MP3 operates on the fact that when two similar frequencies occur at the same time, one of them becomes inaudible. This is not really at all similar to video encoding, which operates on completely different principles (video compression deals mostly with clever ways to transfer the data with lower cost, not physical limitations). MP3 can still reach a point where it is killing too many frequencies, but the kbps required for audio encoded in MP3 to be indiscernable from the uncompressed version is MUCH lower than that required for 1080P video. For more info on that effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_masking
Thanks for the more technical details. The underlying principles are nothing at all the same and I should not have implied that. Since the OP was being confused, I thought a less technical comparison would be better, but a less accurate explanation is probably not the best one.
Yes most of the space saving in video is from adjacent pictures containing so much similar information, which is not true for audio.
|
Ok so what should I do then? Do I continue wasting space with the 921 kpbs files or do I just convert them all to 192/320?
|
About ~90% of my music is FLAC.
Using Meier Audio StageDAC -> Schiit Audio Lyr Headphone Amplifier -> Audeze LCD-2 Orthodynamic Headphones
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tBD4r.png)
|
Not sure if insane audiophile...or really clever troll making fun of audiofiles.
On October 01 2011 12:57 Gatsbi wrote:
About ~90% of my music is FLAC.
Using Meier Audio StageDAC -> Schiit Audio Lyr Headphone Amplifier -> Audeze LCD-2 Orthodynamic Headphones
Cool brag. You're in the 0.1% willing (and able) to throw away over $1000 on an audio setup. Gratz, I guess? Does it really sound 5 times better?
|
Germany2896 Posts
On October 01 2011 12:54 Azera wrote:
Ok so what should I do then? Do I continue wasting space with the 921 kpbs files or do I just convert them all to 192/320?
Keep the FLAC files. Hard disks are cheap(perhaps 5ct per CD). The cost of storing lossless files is negligible compared to buying a CD and ripping or even just the time spent searching and downloading a file.
Then use a lossy encoder when you transfer the files to a space constraint device. For example I use vorbis when transferring music to my phone since it's more efficient than mp3, but if I came across a device that doesn't support vorbis I could encode to mp3 from the original instead of transcoding.
This also helps you avoid transcodes, i.e. encoding from one lossy format to another in the future. If you encode in one lossy format and throw away the original, you're pretty much forced to stay with that format, since each transcode loses additional quality.
|
lol the only reason my computer has not exploded into oblivion because of the space FLAC takes up is due to my handy-dandy 1TB ext HD.
|
On October 01 2011 18:15 MasterOfChaos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2011 12:54 Azera wrote:
Ok so what should I do then? Do I continue wasting space with the 921 kpbs files or do I just convert them all to 192/320? Keep the FLAC files. Hard disks are cheap(perhaps 5ct per CD). The cost of storing lossless files is negligible compared to buying a CD and ripping or even just the time spent searching and downloading a file. Then use a lossless encoder when you transfer the files to a space constraint device. For example I use vorbis when transferring music to my phone since it's more efficient than mp3, but if I came across a device that doesn't support vorbis I could encode to mp3 from the original instead of transcoding. This also helps you avoid transcodes, i.e. encoding from one lossy format to another in the future. If you encode in one lossy format and throw away the original, you're pretty much forced to stay with that format, since each transcode loses additional quality.
Thanks!
|
On October 01 2011 12:33 ryan1894 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 01 2011 12:24 Azera wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2011 12:20 Myrmidon wrote:On October 01 2011 12:17 Azera wrote:On October 01 2011 12:16 APurpleCow wrote:On October 01 2011 11:55 Azera wrote: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? 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... 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/downloadDownload this plugin: http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abxAnd 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? 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.
No. Don't encode your music on 128 kbps plz. Ever. Even if it isn't fully obvious to you in a blind comparison test, your ears will notice your listening to slightly shittier stuff than they need to be listening to. At least do over 200. There's no point in even testing for the difference; there physically is quite the difference from the original
Also OP lol your collection is small. Also, why would you get the remastered versions of the beatles? Read up on the loudness war and compare those remasters to the originals because right now you are truly a chobo audiophile.
And to anyone slightly interested in FLAC music, you needn't be to be honest. Here is over 50 gigs of FLAC music:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/J2xdi.png)
Note: Each of those folders have 1-10 albums on them, from 30mins to 1 hour long. I have like 100 more gigs of FLAC on my comp but I'm too lazy to spend the hours required to organize that shit into a single folder.
Pretty pathetic huh? Sure, most of those are full discographies of those artists (Discography is a word Mr. OP should look up) but still, a single album takes up over twice the size of an mp3. Even if you do have 2TB of harddrive space on your computer, if you have any sort of portable audio player you will want to convert all those .FLAC files to mp3s (Or Ogg Vorbis if your a true hipster), and then you have to store that as well on your computer. In comparison, that is probably 10% of all my music and I have 200gigs of MP3s on my comp as well.
The main reason I collect flac at all (Besides the hipster cred to impress chobos who don't know what bitrate is) is because if you get flac you know you are essentially getting an exact digital copy of the original digital CD, which is a lot more than you can say than about an MP3 download. Also, if a cool new super hipster format comes around (Maybe Super Saiyan Ogg Vorbis?) it is possible to simply reformat your collection and throw out those lame mp3s (See what I did there?). Also, there's quite a lot of shitty MP3 [c]torrents[/c] legitimate online audio vendors around so if you look for FLAC first you at least know that the [c]torrenter[/c] legitimate online audio vendor knows at least to an extent what the hell is actually doing.
A 5 minute song will take 40 MB of space, if you are encoding 320kbps lame mp3s instead (Which, to some audiophiles is also a waste of space as it is not a variable encoding and 99.9999% of the population wouldn't be able to tell even a ~220kbps mp3 from flac) you get the same song for 11 MB. It's your choice.
TL;DR FLAC sounds virtually and entirely the same as a 320 kpbs MP3 file, and takes up ~4 times the space. Literally the only advantages are 1) It's lossless, so you can convert to any other format as much as you want 2) Hipster cred ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
Yeah I have 100GB of music that I simply wouldn't have the space to convert to flac, or is very alternative and would almost be impossible to get in flac without buying the cd (and even that's hard for a lot of the music I listen to). So I don't bother.
@OP If you have trouble finding flac music I suggest you go join a private tracker, like what.cd. You have to pass a test to get in, but its worthwhile if you enjoy listening to flac. You will be put on a waiting list and someone will ask you questions on their IRC, if you pass the test you will get an invite. Make sure you do lots of research beforehand. Happy listening 
|
Really annoyed over how hard it is to acquire high quality audio online. I understand the logistical reasons for iTunes not having lossless but it makes everything so complicated. Not everything makes it to CD. There are several remixes i simply can't get a hold of.
On October 02 2011 01:07 Geovu wrote:
TL;DR FLAC sounds virtually and entirely the same as a 320 kpbs MP3 file, and takes up ~4 times the space. Literally the only advantages are 1) It's lossless, so you can convert to any other format as much as you want 2) Hipster cred ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
^ This is completely wrong. You just don't have the equipment to hear the difference. I have several 320 mp3 tracks that i eventually find in FLAC and i listen to both to make sure it's not just an upscale (so i can stop searching).
|
On October 02 2011 01:25 Thrill wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2011 01:07 Geovu wrote:
TL;DR FLAC sounds virtually and entirely the same as a 320 kpbs MP3 file, and takes up ~4 times the space. Literally the only advantages are 1) It's lossless, so you can convert to any other format as much as you want 2) Hipster cred ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ^ This is completely wrong. You just don't have the equipment to hear the difference. I have several 320 mp3 tracks that i eventually find in FLAC and i listen to both to make sure it's not just an upscale (so i can stop searching).
Go tell that to the people in the hydrogenaudio forums. They will immediately ask you to do a blind listening test and if you don't back up your claims you will most likely be laughed away.
If you can actually tell the difference and have blind tested yourself then in that case it is pretty impressive, however.
(google the site, dunno if links to forums are allowed)
|
Properly ripped 192 kbps will sound the same as properly ripped 320 kbps tracks, which will sound the same as properly ripped lossless tracks. And unless your entire music collection was shit before, you will not notice a huge, let alone any, difference in sound quality.
The reason most "audiophiles" want flac is that they don't need to worry about encoding, and whatever may fuck shit up there. And they don't want to convert their 2TB library into .mp3 and later on realize one of the settings messed up. They rip their music the first time to a lossless format, and then leave it at that. Also, most don't care because hard drive space is stupid cheap compared to the equipment they're using.
When you have shitty encodes like most people release, you're going to hear static, crackling or anything that might suggest 192 kbps is worse than 320 kbps. Simply changing to lossless is going to make your world magical, but so will going over to any well done encode.
If done properly, you're not going to hear the difference between 192 kbps, 320 kbps, v0 VBR and lossless 99% of the time.
The main reason I get flac is because then I don't have to deal with the stupidity of downloading a bunch of 320 kbps rips and finding out that it's an upscale. No one bothers to mess around with flac people.
Also, there are a ridiculous amount of flac and high quality music sites around. If you're only looking on iTunes and complaining, you're just mindlessly saying stuff that you've heard people say several years ago.
I'm at about 80% flac, and 20% 320 kbps, while my portable runs on v0 or 192 kbps or down to v4 depending on how many songs I want on it.
|
On October 02 2011 02:14 Geovu wrote:
If you can actually tell the difference and have blind tested yourself then in that case it is pretty impressive, however.
I'm serious :p Had to try it again just to be sure. I'm 5/5 with the blind test. Skrillex remixes of cinema and promises (only 320 compressions i had handy), most apparent change happens as the lyrics fade: the voice drowns in the mids earlier on the 320.
|
It's very reasonable to want to do your own encodes. I also do that. I keep FLAC on an external harddrive though, because I find myself running out of space on my laptop/PC all the time. I don't know how I do it... probably because I do a lot of video encoding too. Space is 'cheap' but most people don't have more than 500/1TB on their actual machine, and playing files off an external harddrive is not the best thing you can do for it. Especially for music, if you commute at all then you're using an mp3 player, and if it's a flashdrive mp3 player you definitely have space constraints. Not only that, but different formats take up different amounts of battery power (I believe it depends on the device, but Sansa Clip played mp3 with the most efficiency, FLAC with the worst, and ogg somewhere in between). Actually it's one of the reasons you see 'audiophiles' make a lot of hilarious threads about how they're not getting the battery life they're supposed to! Gosh I wonder why, since virtually all companies use 128 kb/s mp3 to run their battery life tests, not FLAC.
|
On October 02 2011 03:16 Thrill wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2011 02:14 Geovu wrote:
If you can actually tell the difference and have blind tested yourself then in that case it is pretty impressive, however.
I'm serious :p Had to try it again just to be sure. I'm 5/5 with the blind test. Skrillex remixes of cinema and promises (only 320 compressions i had handy), most apparent change happens as the lyrics fade: the voice drowns in the mids earlier on the 320.
You allegedly have golden magical elven ears imbued with The Power of Chuck Norris' left foot and yet you listen to Skrillex? Surprising to say the least. Shameful to say a bit more
Also, I am assuming your mp3 conversions were done by yourself from your own lossless files, otherwise it may very well be a poor rip.
|
Alright guys, right now I'm considering whether to stick with Ogg Vorbis or AAC, I've read better things about Ogg, but AAC seems to be more flexible. Any advice?
|
51449 Posts
if i posted my flac collection, people would be flaming me left and right
|
On October 02 2011 20:28 Azera wrote:
Alright guys, right now I'm considering whether to stick with Ogg Vorbis or AAC, I've read better things about Ogg, but AAC seems to be more flexible. Any advice?
What's flexible about AAC? AAC only works with Apple products. OGG will work with anything that you can rockbox (including some older iPods), most Korean players, the Clip + etc. But if flexibility is your concern, use mp3 since literally everything on the market plays mp3. The main appeal of OGG is that it isn't proprietary, the main appeal of AAC is if you're a MAC user and don't care.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
