snowball Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 So what is the best?? Flac or 320kbps mp3??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puck Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 FLAC I suppose since it's lossless... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ov3rdos3 Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 So what is the best?? Flac or 320kbps mp3??? 629038[/snapback] Obviously Flac is. There is zero quality loss with Flac. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowball Posted October 28, 2006 Author Share Posted October 28, 2006 Yeah that what I thought too... A shame that there isnt much FLAC going around in the net....or maybe I just dont know where to look at....(wink,wink) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reger Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 Yeah that what I thought too... A shame that there isnt much FLAC going around in the net....or maybe I just dont know where to look at....(wink,wink) 629047[/snapback] this is not my entire flac collection tho, only those two comps are ripped flacs from cd's by me, 3 etnicas tracks, spirallianz folder with one track aswell . other tracks ive got from other members. rest of my music collection is still on cd's, not much tho . im sure im not the only one who has flacs, but i think ive seen someone sharing flacs only once, btw, some hubs even permit users from sharing "useless" stuff like wavs, so flacs apply to same category, i think. people still choose to share mp3s and not flacs, there are several reasons for this, imo - flacs take up several times more space than mp3s, and if you are not on some really good line with 10mb or higher connection then i doubt that many people will enjoy flac downloading from you and vice verse. its just too big for current average internet speed, thus too slow. got some flacs ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAH Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 Yeah that what I thought too... A shame that there isnt much FLAC going around in the net....or maybe I just dont know where to look at....(wink,wink) 629047[/snapback] http://www.resonantearth.com/ * wink wink * there's a few other options coming as well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rezwalker Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 of course FLAC. I have the "phototropic" album from Transwave in FLAC quality and sounds crystal clear (525 mb) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Time_Trap Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 FLAC. It can even reach 800kbps or so sometimes [winamp shows so] , and never seems to fall under ~440 or something.. i guess it also depends on the FLAC encoder but still... FLAC obviously rulez Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reger Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 FLAC. It can even reach 800kbps or so sometimes [winamp shows so] , and never seems to fall under ~440 or something.. i guess it also depends on the FLAC encoder but still... FLAC obviously rulez 629248[/snapback] 1001 and more here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike A Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 size depends on the music. it's not like mp3 where you have 320 for example, so the size remains constant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veracohr Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 If you want better than mp3 but smaller file sizes than FLAC, go OGG. It's lossy, but sounds better than mp3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emmanuhell Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Flac with no doubts... Forget mp3, especially for music where many frequencies are created not to be heard but to be physically felt. I'm not a super pro, but it is allways obvious when tested on a real sound system: mp3, even 320, are not as dynamic as flac, even so the output is at the same levl, the compression in mp3 is obvious (you can do the test with a very good monitoring headset, it works too). If you don't like flac, there is other lossless audio compressor like FLAC, for example, Monkey Audio: http://www.monkeysaudio.com/index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reger Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Flac with no doubts... Forget mp3, especially for music where many frequencies are created not to be heard but to be physically felt. I'm not a super pro, but it is allways obvious when tested on a real sound system: mp3, even 320, are not as dynamic as flac, even so the output is at the same levl, the compression in mp3 is obvious (you can do the test with a very good monitoring headset, it works too). If you don't like flac, there is other lossless audio compressor like FLAC, for example, Monkey Audio: http://www.monkeysaudio.com/index.html 630160[/snapback] ape isnt totally free, is it ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emmanuhell Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 ape isnt totally free, is it ? 630497[/snapback] yes, it is... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reger Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 yes, it is... 630682[/snapback] it used to be non-free format, for "corporate" clients that is, you know, sort of Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louis 8D Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Personally I really like mp4 when I rip my cds on my computer because they take much less place than any other format, and I really can't see any difference with a lossless format on my computer speakers. But maybe it would be different if I had a better soundsystem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 FLAC, though excellent, is not lossless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emmanuhell Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 All you want to know about free audio loseless compressors: http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?ti...ess_Audio_Codec Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reger Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 FLAC, though excellent, is not lossless. 630963[/snapback] Free Lossless Audio Codec Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Free Lossless Audio Codec 631248[/snapback] If I call my son Jesus will he be the son of God? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reger Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 If I call my son Jesus will he be the son of God? 631252[/snapback] no its losless when you uncompress to wav as for while listening, i think there is no difference that human ear could hear, atleast thats what is said mp3 goes max up to 320kbs, flac can go up to 1000kbps and probably more, depends on music played Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 no its losless when you uncompress to wav as for while listening, i think there is no difference that human ear could hear, atleast thats what is said mp3 goes max up to 320kbs, flac can go up to 1000kbps and probably more, depends on music played 631326[/snapback] I agree, it would be very difficult telling the difference between a 1000 kbps recording and an uncompressed 1411kbps original sample. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Buddha Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 WAV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Time_Trap Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 I agree, it would be very difficult telling the difference between a 1000 kbps recording and an uncompressed 1411kbps original sample. 631330[/snapback] So practically lossless, in theory i agree it can't be lossless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acido Domingo Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 of course FLAC. I have the "phototropic" album from Transwave in FLAC quality and sounds crystal clear (525 mb) 629181[/snapback] Not a big gain though, WAV would be 600-700 and plays even on your old 386. FLAC. It can even reach 800kbps or so sometimes [winamp shows so] , and never seems to fall under ~440 or something.. i guess it also depends on the FLAC encoder but still... FLAC obviously rulez 629248[/snapback] Winamp's bitrate display is pants. It shows the data flow from the disk but doesn't tell anything about quality. Flac with no doubts... Forget mp3, especially for music where many frequencies are created not to be heard but to be physically felt. I'm not a super pro, but it is allways obvious when tested on a real sound system: mp3, even 320, are not as dynamic as flac, even so the output is at the same levl, the compression in mp3 is obvious (you can do the test with a very good monitoring headset, it works too). 630160[/snapback] At 320 I don't hear a difference to CD, and I guess even with OGG-VBR~256 it's more the knowledge that it's lossy that makes me think I heard it. A few years ago a German computer mag did a double-blind test with quite a few audiophiles and top-notch audio equipment. Most couldn't tell the difference even at MP3/192. The biggest source of distortion is still cheap audio hardware. On-board sound cards, noisy power supplies, stuff like that. To test properly, you have to convert your stuff to MP3 and back to WAV, burn everything on CD and play it on a good stereo. If I call my son Jesus will he be the son of God? 631252[/snapback] No, but FLAC is still lossless. If a WAV compressed to FLAC and decompressed back to WAV equals the original to the bit, that's lossless. So practically lossless, in theory i agree it can't be lossless. 631467[/snapback] It can. There have been EXE-packers for ages---used for executable programs that react highly allergic if even one single bit is wrong. More here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.