Tired of this lossy MP3 bullshit. Does anyone know where I can get music in FLAC, WAV, or some other uncompressed format where I get full quality?
I know there are more audiophiles out there! Where do you get your super high quality music?:dance:
legally? dunno. label/artists websites sometimes.
FLAC CD rips.
Buy the CD, get the right software and rip the files on it in FLAC.
[QUOTE=thisBrad;30886712]Tired of this lossy MP3 bullshit.[/QUOTE]
Nothing wrong with it, it's all in your head. :smug:
I hear that audacity strips [I]some of the fidelity[/I] out of your tracks. All in all, I don't care about digital fidelity. :smug:
Well I use Sound-Juicer to make a library of FLAC files.
Then I compress to MP3 for my phone, separately.
But that's a linux program.
Is the extra 25 megabytes really worth the quality?
Pretty much nobody can hear a difference between a 320 mp3 and a FLAC in a blind test. The only reason to download FLAC is for archival purposes, and anyone who tells you otherwise is an idiot.
FLAC is pretty much musical placebo.
[QUOTE=KmartSqrl;30895378]Pretty much nobody can hear a difference between a 320 mp3 and a FLAC in a blind test. The only reason to download FLAC is for archival purposes, and anyone who tells you otherwise is an idiot.[/QUOTE]
I would disagree to a point. The average listener certainly isn't going to notice. As far as mixing goes, there is a big difference. I know you know this and that you weren't claiming anything about mixing, so I'm more explaining it for others. You should never ever base your mix off an mp3. I found that out the hard way, and there huge differences between the MP3 and wav export. The MP3 version actually sounded better, but it was because it hid mistakes. Of course the proper way to do it is to base your mix off the uncompressed file, but I was dumb and exporting mp3's to save space. Anyway, what I find a bit interesting is that it is now common to do CD and mp3 masters meaning that they don't just convert the song into an MP3. There is of course a reason for this, but nothing an average person would really notice.
Certain genres don't do well with lossy compression. Classical music is the best example of this and there are good reasons for it. There is of course not a huge difference, but is something that the average listener would notice. Most kinds of music aren't noticeably impacted by the MP3 format, but a few are.
Yes, but we're talking about casual listening here, not mixing lol. I'm using $2000 studio monitors. I can't really hear a difference, none the less tell which is which if I blind A/B a 320 and a FLAC, and I guarantee that most people aren't going to be listening on anything that will reveal any potential compression artifacts nearly as well as these would.
Yes, spend $30'000 on pristine equipment then put on some good FLAC editions of Nickelback.
Worth it. 8)
Or some Merzbow in FLAC.
if I can find my music in FLAC then I'll listen to it in that. If not then too bad. My Zune doesn't even support FLAC anyway so if I want to put it on there I have to convert it anyway.
If you want the best possible lssless music in a legal way you should get Exact Audio Copy and rip your CDs to FLAC.
It probably isn't worth the extra storage space. 320kbps MP3's are good enough for casual purposes.
[QUOTE=Z3r0747;30903207]It probably isn't worth the extra storage space. 320kbps MP3's are good enough for casual purposes.[/QUOTE]
I prefer MP3 Variable Bitrate at V0 setting, same quality but it's smaller filesizes since when theres total silence for example it goes down to 32kbps and all the way up to 320 where needed.
I recommend ripping to wav first and then flac
past 320kbps MP3s, the minute difference in detail isn't worth it unless you're mixing (if you mix for MP3s, kill yourself)
rofl flac isn't uncompressed
ignorant elitism is the funniest
I think Folstream is the only one who knows what (s)he's talking about.
lol at plebeians who don't know anything about FLAC.
[quote]Hearing the difference now isn't the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is 'lossy'. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA - it's about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don't want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.
I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrange…well don’t get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. FLAC rips from the same period still sound great, even if they weren’t stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to FLAC, you may not be able to hear the difference now, but in a year or two, you’ll be glad you did.[/quote]
Seriously if you truly love your music you'll listen to FLACs or else the demon that is rotational velocidensity will destroy it like it did with most of my favourite music.
although if you do store your MP3s in a cool, dry place they will degrade much less over time.
if you rip straight to flac you're going to lose a lot in the transfer in most cases (in my experience). most people wouldn't notice the difference but it's worth noting
Uhm, okay... I could have sworn it was an [i]exact[/i] copy, only smaller.
Like converting a BMP to a PNG. That's not true? Is that ever true?
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;30907133]Uhm, okay... I could have sworn it was an [I]exact[/I] copy, only smaller.[/QUOTE]
I don't know, it depends on the software/hardware you use. either way the difference between mp3, flac, and wav is so small to the listener that in the end it's really just a placebo effect
You don't know shit, FLAC is raw audio (i.e. what's in a WAV file) compressed, there's no difference in quality and nothing "rips straight to FLAC", it rips the raw audio data and encodes it with lame or flac or whatever.
[QUOTE=pie_is_good;30906986]lol at plebeians who don't know anything about FLAC.
Seriously if you truly love your music you'll listen to FLACs or else the demon that is rotational velocidensity will destroy it like it did with most of my favourite music.[/QUOTE]
Files don't just 'rot' over time. They aren't vegetables.
[QUOTE=Sanius;30907019]if you rip straight to flac you're going to lose a lot in the transfer in most cases (in my experience). most people wouldn't notice the difference but it's worth noting[/QUOTE]
FLAC is lossless, meaning you lose no data when you encode to FLAC, meaning you are wrong.
[editline]4th July 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=dkamm65;30907807]Files don't just 'rot' over time. They aren't vegetables.[/QUOTE]
ya they do most files just have lots of preservertives
[QUOTE=Tabarnaco;30907698]You don't know shit, FLAC is raw audio (i.e. what's in a WAV file) compressed, there's no difference in quality and nothing "rips straight to FLAC", it rips the raw audio data and encodes it with lame or flac or whatever.[/QUOTE]
I think that you might find life more enjoyable if you don't go out of your way to be offensive
Just rip in WAV, windows media player can do it
[QUOTE=Folgergeist;30908354]Just rip in WAV, windows media player can do it[/QUOTE]
OR
spend 5 minutes configuring EAC for flac rather than ripping to wav like an idiot
also, get a what.cd account
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
