|
|
weatheredstoner
from same shit babes. (United States) on 2005-05-11 20:46 [#01595560]
Points: 12585 Status: Lurker
|
|
I can hear the difference, but its barely noticeable. . . and thats the highest bitrate there is... how much longer till a better medium like ogg and flac become popular? 5 years?
|
|
i_x_ten
from arsemuncher on 2005-05-11 20:47 [#01595561]
Points: 10031 Status: Regular
|
|
whats flac how does it work does it have a bit/rate? i dont know much about these things, and dont really care, but i guess i oughta know if its gonna be the next big thing
|
|
nlogax
from oh, you must be the brains (Norway) on 2005-05-11 20:49 [#01595563]
Points: 4653 Status: Regular
|
|
I'm the next big thing.
|
|
weatheredstoner
from same shit babes. (United States) on 2005-05-11 20:50 [#01595564]
Points: 12585 Status: Lurker
|
|
sorry i meant to say 320kbps is the highest bitrate for an mp3 that there is...
|
|
r40f
from qrters tea party on 2005-05-11 20:52 [#01595566]
Points: 14210 Status: Regular
|
|
flac is the best. i don't know when or if it will become popular. probably not going to be popular for a long time if ever. i guess once everyone has high speed connections and huge hard drives they might possibly want to look into flac, but even then, i doubt it.
the thing is that the average mp3 listener thinks 128 is good and they don't really care about quality to begin with or they'd have bought the cd. flac is good for archivers and bootleggers. but there's no reason the average mp3-downloader would want a giant file like that.
|
|
i_x_ten
from arsemuncher on 2005-05-11 20:52 [#01595567]
Points: 10031 Status: Regular | Followup to nlogax: #01595563
|
|
you're one of these:
|
|
i_x_ten
from arsemuncher on 2005-05-11 20:53 [#01595570]
Points: 10031 Status: Regular | Followup to r40f: #01595566
|
|
so whats the size of a 1 min file then? surely if the filesize is massive you may as well have it in a non compressed wav?
|
|
brokephones
from Londontario on 2005-05-11 20:55 [#01595573]
Points: 6113 Status: Lurker
|
|
If I own it, I rip it lossless. If I download, i try to do at least 192.
Will the popular format change from mp3 to something else? Probably not. 90% of people are happy with their 128kbps linkin park album downloads.
|
|
r40f
from qrters tea party on 2005-05-11 20:55 [#01595574]
Points: 14210 Status: Regular | Followup to i_x_ten: #01595570
|
|
it's still significantly smaller than a wav and it is lossless.
|
|
i_x_ten
from arsemuncher on 2005-05-11 20:56 [#01595575]
Points: 10031 Status: Regular | Followup to r40f: #01595574
|
|
so the quality of the original wav and flac would be exactly the same? how does that work?
|
|
weatheredstoner
from same shit babes. (United States) on 2005-05-11 20:56 [#01595576]
Points: 12585 Status: Lurker | Followup to i_x_ten: #01595570
|
|
Its the same quality as a .wav, only half the data size.
|
|
xf
from Australia on 2005-05-11 20:56 [#01595577]
Points: 2952 Status: Lurker
|
|
man, if you have a decent pair of monitors of headphones, comparing a lossy format like mp3 to flac is hugely noticable.
|
|
r40f
from qrters tea party on 2005-05-11 20:56 [#01595578]
Points: 14210 Status: Regular | Followup to xf: #01595577
|
|
i definitely notice the difference.
|
|
mappatazee
from ¨y¨z¨| (Burkina Faso) on 2005-05-11 21:08 [#01595583]
Points: 14294 Status: Lurker | Followup to i_x_ten: #01595575
|
|
compression algorhithms, much the way .zip files are compressed regOlar files. mp3's are even more compressed because they leave out ranges beyond human hearing and stuff. flac includes all data, no loss. approximately 2x larger than a 320kbps mp3, and approximately half the size of a wav. file
|
|
b6662966
from ? on 2005-05-11 22:06 [#01595597]
Points: 1110 Status: Lurker
|
|
this has been tested/discussed on hydrogenaudio before. The difference between a eac/lame ripped alt-preset-insane (320kbps) MP3 and the actual Wav can only be noted by a very small 2-3 percent of listeners, and even these had to be trained to look for the very tiny artifacts that only appear in very specific moments within the sound/song using very high end equipment. as you can imagine this is hardly enjoying the music...
|
|
elusive
from detroit (United States) on 2005-05-12 06:54 [#01595868]
Points: 18368 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag
|
|
That's fine with me. I have the hdd space, I am going all-flac from here on out.
Might as well,
especially in electronic music where I can def. tell a difference between 192, 256, and flac (really noticable)
320 im not totally sure yet ... but i dont hav emuch in 320 to test anyways
like i keep telling myself, MIGHT AS WELL JUST GET THE FLAC
|
|
isnieZot
from pooptown (Belgium) on 2005-05-12 07:03 [#01595878]
Points: 4949 Status: Lurker | Followup to weatheredstoner: #01595560
|
|
oh comeone dude, you can't possibly hear the difference between a 320 kbps mp3 and Flac. you just think you hear a difference because you WANT to hear one.
|
|
big
from lsg on 2005-05-12 07:05 [#01595883]
Points: 23730 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag
|
|
ogg is shit imo flac is the future because in a few years 700kbps doesnt cause too much space problems on your disk or downloading
|
|
weatheredstoner
from same shit babes. (United States) on 2005-05-12 07:17 [#01595906]
Points: 12585 Status: Lurker | Followup to isnieZot: #01595878
|
|
Dont tell me what I can hear/cant hear.
Go try it yourself. Download Untilted in Flac, then compare it to 320 kpbs.
I can also hear a difference in Analord, but i was comparing 320kpbs with the original wav.
Theres a fuckin difference.
|
|
weatheredstoner
from same shit babes. (United States) on 2005-05-12 07:23 [#01595917]
Points: 12585 Status: Lurker | Followup to big: #01595883
|
|
ogg is exactly the same as mp3, only smaller size.
|
|
shibumi
from United States on 2005-05-12 07:25 [#01595920]
Points: 359 Status: Lurker
|
|
Good equipment = Noticeable difference in Mp3 and Flac
Depends on the listener ultimately, but if you've gone as far as researching, testing, and getting good equipment, your ears are probably there.
|
|
elusive
from detroit (United States) on 2005-05-12 07:34 [#01595934]
Points: 18368 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag
|
|
here's the best test
listen to the 320 (or whatever mp3) for days, months, years.
then, one day, get the flacs,
and start to listen to that
since ive had the same mp3s for years, ive memorized all the little glitches and whatnot that are part of the compression.
when i hear the flacs now, i start picking up on all these little subtlties and the like.
it's really cool, it's like "whoa ive never heard that before"
right now it's been happning a lot on squarepusher music
|
|
elusive
from detroit (United States) on 2005-05-12 07:34 [#01595935]
Points: 18368 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag
|
|
mp3 cannot keep up with ipacial station off untilted, IMO
|
|
xceque
on 2005-05-12 07:36 [#01595937]
Points: 5888 Status: Moderator | Show recordbag
|
|
You don't even need good equipment to hear a difference. I keep saying it and I'm gonna say it again: listen to the surround speakers on a surround system that's playing an mp3. You can *really* hear a difference.
I have a surround system. I can hear a difference. I use flac.
|
|
thethirdball
from Polly Pisspot (Canada) on 2005-05-12 07:39 [#01595943]
Points: 1629 Status: Lurker
|
|
I doubt MP3 will be replaced unless there is a powerful marketing campaign by the majors to get people to switch to something with DRM. Why?
Most people out there don't give a flying fuck about the size of their media files. An MP3 at 320 is barely distinguishable from a CD. For people to switch there is going to have to be a compelling argument to switch. Slight sound improvement and smaller file sizes are not it.
|
|
big
from lsg on 2005-05-12 07:45 [#01595951]
Points: 23730 Status: Lurker | Followup to weatheredstoner: #01595917 | Show recordbag
|
|
ow
|
|
elusive
from detroit (United States) on 2005-05-12 07:49 [#01595954]
Points: 18368 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag
|
|
^^agreed
but at least it's there for people who will take advantage and enjoy it (read: us).
fuk the mainstream
they don't care about details
|
|
weatheredstoner
from same shit babes. (United States) on 2005-05-12 10:06 [#01596186]
Points: 12585 Status: Lurker | Followup to big: #01595951
|
|
I'm sorry
*kisses boo-boo*
|
|
big
from lsg on 2005-05-12 10:07 [#01596192]
Points: 23730 Status: Lurker | Followup to weatheredstoner: #01596186 | Show recordbag
|
|
but it's the same calculations or something? why are there different mp3 rippers then?
|
|
weatheredstoner
from same shit babes. (United States) on 2005-05-12 10:16 [#01596220]
Points: 12585 Status: Lurker | Followup to big: #01596192
|
|
Different companies make different mp3 rippers.
Ogg, i dunno. I'll have to do some research, but the .ogg files on archive.org vs. 192kbps mp3s sound exactly the same, and the .ogg are half the file size.
|
|
Archrival
on 2005-05-12 12:11 [#01596412]
Points: 4265 Status: Lurker
|
|
I atually thought it wasnt that much diffrence between a 192 mp3 and a cd before....I been listening tp geodaddi a long time on 192...then I got the real cd!!! and damn, I hear a lot of difference, yall should listen to the CD of Geogaddi! the surround sound and all those details....its lovely
what about those flac rips of Analord 10, sounds worse than those rips 224 bitrate rips dps made?????....then I did a spectral analyze of those files I made both files to wav and saw a big difference...the flac "died" at 20000hz (good quality, but very low sound)... the dps died at 16000 hz...
I mean both these were ripped from vinyl, but I think the dps rips sounds better even tho its a 224 bitrate mp3, so dont get fooled by the flacs if they are ripped from vinyl...its about how u rip them...from a cd then flac is obviously better.
what about converting flacs to mp3?
|
|
gerbik
on 2005-05-12 12:18 [#01596428]
Points: 441 Status: Lurker
|
|
FLAC has already gained alot of popularity.
And I think once bleep.com offers everything in flac, it will be used even more round these here parts.
|
|
Archrival
on 2005-05-12 12:23 [#01596431]
Points: 4265 Status: Lurker
|
|
its sad I cant play flac files in my portable mp3 player, so then I have to make the flacs to mp3...and then the quality is lost....right :)
|
|
Archrival
on 2005-05-12 12:25 [#01596435]
Points: 4265 Status: Lurker
|
|
top
|
|
elusive
from detroit (United States) on 2005-05-12 12:28 [#01596438]
Points: 18368 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag
|
|
yeah : /
ive been getting bOc flacs lately, and have been WOW'd 0_0 all over again
|
|
epohs
from )C: on 2005-05-12 12:31 [#01596442]
Points: 17620 Status: Lurker
|
|
flac is awesome, and it's open source... which is nice.
|
|
Archrival
on 2005-05-12 12:44 [#01596464]
Points: 4265 Status: Lurker
|
|
open source??? what does that mean?
|
|
epohs
from )C: on 2005-05-12 12:48 [#01596469]
Points: 17620 Status: Lurker | Followup to Archrival: #01596464
|
|
it means you are free to use the FLAC format however you want to use it. it is patent free.
i'm not sure if anyone enforces patents on the mp3 format or not, but it isn't free.
|
|
epohs
from )C: on 2005-05-12 12:50 [#01596473]
Points: 17620 Status: Lurker | Followup to epohs: #01596469
|
|
Ah... yes. yes they do enforce it.
Companies using the MP3 format must pay royalties to a company called Thomson, which owns the MP3 format. The royalty payment for media player programs like Windows Media Player is $15,000 per year plus per-user costs. These costs make their way down to you in the form of higher computer prices and more expensive portable MP3 players.
linky
|
|
epohs
from )C: on 2005-05-12 12:52 [#01596476]
Points: 17620 Status: Lurker
|
|
Also, if all of a sudden Thomson decides that they want to charge 47 bzillion dollars, or only allow microsoft to use mp3s they could (i guess)... which would basically leave you fucked if your collection is all in mp3.
|
|
AlbertoBalsalm
from ReykjavÃk (Iceland) on 2005-05-12 13:19 [#01596523]
Points: 9459 Status: Lurker | Followup to Archrival: #01596412
|
|
"what about those flac rips of Analord 10, sounds worse than
those rips 224 bitrate rips dps made?????"
you just don't have the right flac. i have a newer flac which sounds much louder.
|
|
elusive
from detroit (United States) on 2005-05-12 13:21 [#01596528]
Points: 18368 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag
|
|
as stated above,
since recording from a vinyl player, that is the "weakest link in the chain"
if someone's recording techniques aren't up to par, then the flac is meaningly compared to a better recording and encoded @ mp3.
vlari ripped the ones i have, i think they sound great (haven't listened to his 10 copy yet) but keep in mind he also didn't touch these at all (they are str8 from the player)
this DPS group might have touched them up and played with them to get them to sound better ; something vlari left up to you guys.
|
|
denniscpearce
from Canada on 2005-05-12 13:25 [#01596531]
Points: 1562 Status: Regular
|
|
flac 4 life
|
|
Archrival
on 2005-05-12 13:27 [#01596535]
Points: 4265 Status: Lurker
|
|
yeah maybe that, but the flac I got was poorly ripped. Even if I amplified it sounded not that fresh, but maybe I should check out those Vlari rips...I wont buy that 70pound vinyl, maybe the cd release tho of analord 10.
|
|
epohs
from )C: on 2005-05-12 13:29 [#01596536]
Points: 17620 Status: Lurker
|
|
there ain't gonna be a cd release of analord 10...
... is there?
|
|
denniscpearce
from Canada on 2005-05-12 13:33 [#01596539]
Points: 1562 Status: Regular
|
|
flac 4 life
actually i mean that literally. while all you suckas are re ripping every time the in-style lossy compression is improved or replaced, i always have my flacs here. and i can always fully automatically transcode to any lossy format i want without about 2 minutes work required on my part.
even though all my cds are sitting pretty in a chest of drawers over, i feel confidant in my current rips that they are as good are exact and perfect, so transcoding from flac to whatever lossy codec has the same outcome as spending forever re ripping from cd directly to lossy codec, except it takes a few minutes rather then hundreds of hours.
basically if you refuse to understand why flac has benefits, then you are a cocklock who should shut the fuck up.
|
|
vlari
from beyond the valley of the LOLs on 2005-05-12 13:33 [#01596540]
Points: 13915 Status: Regular | Followup to elusive: #01596528
|
|
Thanks for the quick intro ;)
I think E-Man wrote in another thread that some flacs he downloaded was slightly distorted, and I got a bit curious/anxious that it was mine. So I compared my rips the the 12" and I found that they were identical. Some of the Analord tracks have a slight distortion on the bottom end, which may be due to the recording of the actual track and not faulty equipment. I did a level check and the they were almost the same too.
I'm therefore confident that I've ripped them as well as I could. And as elusive said, I haven't touched them with any post-production software, as I feel the recordings ought to be as honest as possible.
|
|
epohs
from )C: on 2005-05-12 13:35 [#01596541]
Points: 17620 Status: Lurker | Followup to denniscpearce: #01596539
|
|
your message probably turned away more potential flac users than it gained.
|
|
elusive
from detroit (United States) on 2005-05-12 13:35 [#01596542]
Points: 18368 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag
|
|
I can vouch for Ali's rips
<3 <3 <3
|
|
denniscpearce
from Canada on 2005-05-12 13:41 [#01596553]
Points: 1562 Status: Regular | Followup to epohs: #01596541
|
|
your message probably turned away more potential flac users than it gained.
the brotherhood of the flac is not concerned with gaining new members who need to be convinced.
but yeah, speaking of vinyl rips.... it is very easy with free, good, software and a decent cd drive to get 100% accurate rips of cds. EAC is designed with that purpose, and if you set it up properly, and it rips with a good report, you can be absolutly sure that your flac copy is exactly the same as the cd. with vinyl there are all sorts of issues between the source and the flac file. as elusive mentioned, theres like the turntable, the cables, the preamp, the soundcards digitizing process, and even something such as the levels that everything is set at is pretty important. so im not surprised that people have complaints with vinyl rips. although this has nothing todo with the final distribution format, if someone ripped vinyl poorly and distributed uncompressed wavs, it would sound just as bad.
flac by its design, cannot make the source recording (once its on your computer) sound any worse (or better for that matter)
|
|
Messageboard index
|