How can a smaller file size give the same amount of 1's and 0's? doesn't make sense to me
I like the format where you [I]see[/I] the music
[img]http://i51.tinypic.com/11w80fm.jpg[/img]
See look at that... great tune that is, even with just a photograph I can tell. :smug:
[QUOTE=AK'z;30909396]I like the format where you [I]see[/I] the music
[url]http://www.synthgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/record_groove.jpg[/url]
See look at that... great tune that is, even with just a photograph I can tell. :smug:[/QUOTE]
no hotlinking bro
[IMG]http://i51.tinypic.com/11w80fm.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Lazor;30909047]OR
spend 5 minutes configuring EAC for flac rather than ripping to wav like an idiot
also, get a what.cd account[/QUOTE]
that's warez
[QUOTE=Tabarnaco;30912210]that's warez[/QUOTE]
He could be talking about the free custom albums that are available there, you know what he means?
vanity house, sure, that works
[editline]5th July 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sanius;30908017]I think that you might find life more enjoyable if you don't go out of your way to be offensive[/QUOTE]
I'm not going out of my way not to be when you're spreading bullshit like you know what you're talking about.
[editline]5th July 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=dkamm65;30907807]Files don't just 'rot' over time. They aren't vegetables.[/QUOTE]
rofl
If you're using Itunes rip it from the CD using the apple lossless encoder and it'll do nicely. I'm converting my stuff to lossless at the moment.
I'm not going to be an elitist here because I like keeping copies of mp3s for my ipod (for obvious reasons) but when it comes to home recordings I would never pass up on FLAC or other forms of lossless encoding bar WAV because it's so big.
iTunes isn't a proper ripping program. EAC or XLD.
[QUOTE=Tabarnaco;30913128]iTunes isn't a proper ripping program. EAC or XLD.[/QUOTE]
hmm, alright
I've spotted a noticeable difference using the Apple lossless through Itunes but I'll give EAC a try
Need to configure it properly.
[url]http://blowfish.be/eac/[/url]
[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]
Holy crap your avatar just gave me a huge nostalgia hit
[QUOTE=Folgergeist;30909382]How can a smaller file size give the same amount of 1's and 0's? doesn't make sense to me[/QUOTE]
If the data you're compressing is just random noise, then yes, you won't be able to compress it without loss of quality. If there's some amount of order and repetition in the data, then you can represent the same data in a shorter way. If for example you had a text file like this:
"blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah "
You could represent the same data like this:
"blah x13"
That's the basic idea.
[QUOTE=Folgergeist;30909382]How can a smaller file size give the same amount of 1's and 0's? doesn't make sense to me[/QUOTE]
Ever heard of a RAR archive? Or Zip? Or 7z, ace, bzip, gzip?
A FLAC file is similar, except that it is designed around audio. I.e. it supports metadata, only one song per file, etcetera.
As pebkac said, the most simple kind of compression is "run-length encoding". But FLAC uses more complex encoding than that, that we could never explain here.
[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]
you can hear a difference in ultra high frequency sine waves if your hearing and audio equipment even goes up to 22kHz
[editline]5th July 2011[/editline]
the most simple kind of compression is limiting frequency to 20Hz-20kHz since very few people can hear outside that range and the sounds outside that range take up a large amount of the information
[editline]5th July 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Folgergeist;30909382]How can a smaller file size give the same amount of 1's and 0's? doesn't make sense to me[/QUOTE]
[img]http://imgkk.com/i/8yba.png[/img]
a.zip contains the pictured a.txt
Well if you want to get a bit technical, whenever you lower the sampling rate the bass will take up more of the spectrum. This is because it filters out higher frequencies. There is a bit of science behind this and a formula that states the minimum sample rate to accurately portray a sound, and this of course increases with frequency.
So of course the most common sampling rates are chosen to really only include 0-20khz, but I am not sure if it would be considered compression because it is just a loss of data.
Vinyl Records are better to own.
vinyl has that issue with dust though
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;30917620]vinyl has that issue with dust though[/QUOTE]
Not if you take proper care of them.
There are specialised cleaners/brushes. But in all seriousness, unless your house is filthy this shouldn't be an issue if you have a normal vinyl brush.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;30916792]you can hear a difference in ultra high frequency sine waves if your hearing and audio equipment even goes up to 22kHz[/QUOTE]
Which is why I said almost nobody can hear the difference in a real world A/B test... You can throw all the theoretical knowledge you want at it, but I guarantee that if you do a blind A/B test you're not going to pick the FLAC out with an accuracy that can be attributed to anything but chance.
Stop talking about these "blind" tests bullshit, just let them enjoy what they want.
There is a somewhat cleaner presence with FLAC but it doesn't make a WHOLE lot difference to the music art in my opinion. Maybe the thrill is better, I don't know.
The reason I enjoy Vinyl and even cassette is just that it feels as though I'm playing something real. It's a personal thing.
yeah I'm not arguing with you, just saying out that any difference there is is negligible.
This isn't an arguement about hearing frequencies either because why would lower and higher frequencies at the very peak cause the music to be a whole lot better.
[QUOTE=AK'z;30917921]Stop talking about these "blind" tests bullshit, just let them enjoy what they want.[/QUOTE]
How is approaching the discussion at hand from a scientific standpoint that is the perfect way to prove what I'm saying bullshit? Chill the fuck out hahaha.
[QUOTE=KmartSqrl;30918078]How is approaching the discussion at hand from a scientific standpoint that is the perfect way to prove what I'm saying bullshit? Chill the fuck out hahaha.[/QUOTE]
I'm chilled bro, sorry if I seemed a bit erratic. But in reality, it isn't about technicalities as much as experience matters.
Would you hear a difference between flac and mp3 with really expensive audio equipment?
if you knew what you were listening for, maybe
I own all of my music on CD format so idgaf
[QUOTE=TheChantzGuy;30921720]I own all of my music on CD format so idgaf[/QUOTE]
Then why did you even post?
I only really go out of my way for 320kbs, I don't actually enjoy downloading .flac because it's so damn large.
[QUOTE=Seohyun;30918226]Would you hear a difference between flac and mp3 with really expensive audio equipment?[/QUOTE]
Depends on what is playing and your ears. Professional mixers and masterers would likely be able to tell the difference. Something some engineers do for practice is to take a graphic EQ and have someone lower one band, and then try to figure out what band is being changed and by how much. They eventually start getting into what band and how much (though it's all rough db estimates, they wouldn't because 4.2db of gain). Masterers usually hear things that are minute but changing them makes a big difference. I am guessing they hear the difference, but they are on a totally different level.
Would you or other ordinary people be able to tell the difference? Likely not, though I do argue that you would notice some difference with classical. MP3 at 320kbs is generally quite solid so it holds up quite well against FLAC, so much so that it's hard to hear a difference with most music.
The quality difference becomes most noticeable in music at lower bit rates where there is a lot going on. This really isn't that noticeable with 320kbs mp3, but with at lower sampling rates you often run into an ambiguous wall of sound. If you listen to music on youtube at low quality, you likely run into this. You can kind get a idea of what is going on, but all of the instruments kind of muck together to make a mess that is hard to separate. The chorus of the video below shows what I'm talking about pretty well. Listen to is in low and high quality.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh7tsMKv0Lo[/media]
Usually when I run into a wall of sound I'm tipped off that the sample rate is low, and it always is, though I must admit that I'm wrong occasionally. Most music isn't prone to this wall of sound effect, but a lot seems to be because I notice it a decent bit. An issue I find with many of these blind tests is that they always have music that doesn't have too much going on.
[editline]5th July 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rooster Assassin;30923851]I only really go out of my way for 320kbs, I don't actually enjoy downloading .flac because it's so damn large.[/QUOTE]
If you're like me and have 3 gigs of storage space you don't really care. Though it starts to become an issue when recording instruments at professional quality. Like each song I make has a 3-7gb size, and that really adds up with new songs. I usually try to throw away what I don't need, but a lot of the times I want to keep certain parts just in case.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
