EPTmp3 vs flac - Page 2
| Blogs > PH |
|
DatTheMighty
Vietnam122 Posts
| ||
|
omninmo
2349 Posts
| ||
|
rwong48
United States105 Posts
On April 18 2009 12:54 sexsexpussyhair wrote:i doubt there is noticeable difference, its like playing at 60fps and 100fps, can't be detected by human. it so can. have you ever used a CRT with 60/75/85/100/120 Hz refresh rates? I can tell the difference between ALL of them. 100/120 Hz counterstrike FTW (which leads to 120 Hz starcraft, which might be what they use in PL/MSL/OSL?) as for mp3 vs flac, I'm an audiophile (not necessarily with all the gear though), and i tweak my sound heavily to have it sound exactly the way I want it.. and I still cannot tell the difference between a well-encoded 192+ kbps VBR/CBR MP3 and FLAC. i have various sets of Sennheiser headphones and earbuds. I use Winamp with DFX on an integrated sound card (lol) and Rockbox on my Sansa with bass/treble way high (+12-16 dB each). | ||
|
FirstProbe
1206 Posts
On April 18 2009 14:18 rwong48 wrote: it so can. have you ever used a CRT with 60/75/85/100/120 Hz refresh rates? I can tell the difference between ALL of them. 100/120 Hz counterstrike FTW (which leads to 120 Hz starcraft, which might be what they use in PL/MSL/OSL?) as for mp3 vs flac, I'm an audiophile (not necessarily with all the gear though), and i tweak my sound heavily to have it sound exactly the way I want it.. and I still cannot tell the difference between a well-encoded 192+ kbps VBR/CBR MP3 and FLAC. i have various sets of Sennheiser headphones and earbuds. I use Winamp with DFX on an integrated sound card (lol) and Rockbox on my Sansa with bass/treble way high (+12-16 dB each). I think the reason why you won't be able to is because of your setup. | ||
|
Knickknack
United States1187 Posts
lke others said it comes down to your hardware and what your listening abilities are, as to whether the quality of encoding will matter. foobar supports abx testing so you can see what what your limit is. I keep stuff mostly V0 (~256kpbs variable) and i can only very rarely hear a difference between that and lossless with my equation rp21s. The real reason to keep in lossless is so you can rerip into whatever you want at any time. | ||
|
hideo
Canada1641 Posts
My cowon d2 supports both flac and ogg, but in a portable setup flac isn't really worth it: hp out is not that great, noisy listening environment, etc. etc. What flac is useful for is archival purposes. You rip a cd to flac you don't have to worry about reencoding issues in the future, when you upgrade your system. It's gonna be identical quality to the original cd. | ||
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
On April 18 2009 14:12 omninmo wrote: FLAC is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much better quality. anyone who says otherwise doesnt have the ear to appreciate it. test for yourself. flacs are much larger files however.. but the difference is noticeable to anyone with a good ear. I'm sure it is...but like everyone else has said...without the hardware to make use of that, you won't be able to tell the difference. My hardware is bottlenecking it, and I don't have the money, nor a good reason to go out and purchase a sound system that can make use of flac. So... | ||
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On April 18 2009 13:37 benjammin wrote: lossless is great for certain applications, just make sure you have one of those applications (also FLAC is the best lossless format out there, despite some having fractionally better compression ratios) if not, v0 all the way Lol its lossless as long as it plays in terms of quality it's all the same. | ||
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On April 18 2009 14:22 FirstProbe wrote: I think the reason why you won't be able to is because of your setup. Lol 120hz sc you do know sc doesn't acutlly display any frames over 23.793? or something like that. | ||
|
benjammin
United States2728 Posts
On April 18 2009 15:27 IzzyCraft wrote: Lol its lossless as long as it plays in terms of quality it's all the same. uh, what? | ||
|
vAltyR
United States581 Posts
But seriously, for lossy codecs, AAC or even Vorbis is better than MP3. It's kind of like comparing jpg to png. Both viewed at resolution, you probably won't notice the difference, but if you magnify them, the differences can be rather striking. | ||
|
SonuvBob
Aiur21549 Posts
On April 18 2009 15:27 IzzyCraft wrote: Lol its lossless as long as it plays in terms of quality it's all the same. I guess he means FLAC is widely supported and requires minimal CPU usage for playback. | ||
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
| ||
|
vAltyR
United States581 Posts
On April 18 2009 16:14 IzzyCraft wrote: jpg would be loosy and png would be lossless in that. Yeah, like MP3 is lossy and FLAC is lossless. | ||
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
| ||
|
kartoffel
Germany38 Posts
i suggest encoding at least classical music with flac or if you want to build a digital archiv of all your music cd's flac would be better. i encode all cd's in flac btw. | ||
|
PriitM
Algeria181 Posts
| ||
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
I've DL'd many (more than a couple dozen) albums in flac format, and they come all in one big .flac file and some kind of .cue file. I can play the flac file just fine in VLC and whatnot, but it's all the tracks of the album packed together. What am I supposed to do with that? | ||
|
xxsaznpride
United States506 Posts
128 v 256/320k mp3 = obvious difference 320k v Lossless = not so much. The only difference I can think of is in the upper spectrum of sound. If you're older, there's a chance you won't be able to hear it in the first place. Even if you CAN hear, you're going to need balls-to-the-walls expensive sound devices (nice sound card, dedicated amp, ~$200+ headphones, etc) to appreciate it. I'm going to a headphone store tomorrow to buy my first nice headphones, hopefully =D | ||
|
-orb-
United States5770 Posts
320kbps or v0 for me please | ||
| ||
