[QUOTE=sin2051;18735601]Want to try for yourself? Get Foobar2000 and its ABX component. Then come back and tell me you can tell FLAC from 192kbps MP3.[/QUOTE]
I've done it before. It depended more on the genre of music than anything else. Some songs I cannot differentiate between 128kbps and FLAC, some songs I can tell the difference between 256 and FLAC. The distortion sounded different, and a lot of instruments with a "clean" sound (some guitar solos with very little effects, background instruments) sounded a lot cleaner and more crisp on the FLAC version.
[QUOTE=gparent;18737022]I've done it before. It depended more on the genre of music than anything else. Some songs I cannot differentiate between 128kbps and FLAC, some songs I can tell the difference between 256 and FLAC. The distortion sounded different, and a lot of instruments with a "clean" sound (some guitar solos with very little effects, background instruments) sounded a lot cleaner and more crisp on the FLAC version.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I noticed this during my testing.
I find the difference comes more from the hardware than the software (or format of the file). The difference between a bad pair of headphones and a solid one (nothing too expensive, just sufficient) makes more of a difference between 192 and 300.
If you don't have a soundcard I am not entirely sure you will notice a difference in audio quality.
[QUOTE=ilolled;18736801]I'll bet that some people can hear higher frequencies than others.[/QUOTE]
this is common knowledge, the older you get the less you can hear, etc
[QUOTE=Edthefirst;18737924]I find the difference comes more from the hardware than the software (or format of the file). The difference between a bad pair of headphones and a solid one (nothing too expensive, just sufficient) makes more of a difference between 192 and 300.[/QUOTE]
And this, of course. It won't make much of a difference on your average portable music player either.
128 kbps MP3 sounds exactly like FLAC if you don't have the hardware to hear the difference.
All the points made in this thread are effectively moot since they are not scientific, even if you discount the fact that sound quality is subjective. No one has listed their test rig or monitors.
From my experience with integrated audio chipsets on high-end motherboards, the sound quality is crap. You could just as well use 192 kbps lossy MP3 for everything, since you won't be able to hear a difference.
If, however, you have decent hardware - even just a codec-driven Creative Audigy SE - you're a step closer to realizing the actual difference between the formats. Actually, [i]from my experience[/i], the difference between an Audigy SE and an X-Fi Titanium is very small, if existent, in terms of audible sound quality. Still, you need a decent pair of monitors/speakers to [i]hear[/i] it.
Granted you have the proper sound card, if you can't tell the difference between a set of $80 studio monitors/headphones and $600 worth of Bose speakers, or if you think the Bose speakers sound better, you either have a shit selection of headphones or you won't benefit from higher audio quality. I'm in said situation, and I can tell you that Sony MDR-v6 direct from X-Fi Titanium > Bose 301s thru Pioneer VSX-917V from X-Fi Titanium.
Regardless of your current setup, who is to say that hardware will not advance and that better hardware will be unattainable in the future?
And now that storage is cheap as hell ([b]$80 for 1.5 terrabytes?[/b]), why the hell wouldn't you rip in FLAC?
[editline]08:41PM[/editline]
Oh yes, I'm dumb because I have 1.3 terrabytes of disk storage and nothing better to do with it than rip in FLAC. Go get a job and buy a hard drive.
Help me out, guys, I need more boxes to haul my CDs to storage - I won't be needing them for a long time.
flac is for dumb audiophile nerds
200 fps is for dumb gamer losers
These are all truisms. Are they meant to have an impact on opinion of hardware?
[QUOTE=angry black man;18740427]flac is for dumb audiophile nerds[/QUOTE]
FLAC is for people who want 1:1 copies of their physical media.
[QUOTE=sin2051;18736327]I'm going to err on the side of more intelligent people and say that scientists and people who study encoders as a hobby (the Hydrogen-Audio folk) know more about the subject than you. And are right. And you are wrong.
if you can tell the difference at 192kbps you are either:
a) fooling yourself (see: placebo effect)
b) encoding to 192kbps poorly (see: quick and dirty transcodes with no regard for quality, you might as well download off limewire etc)[/QUOTE]
Unless of course you have a good sound card and good speakers. I did a little testing of my own on my X-Fi and very large speakers, and there is most definitely a difference between a 192kbps MP3 and a ~900kbps FLAC. The more subtle sounds and instruments clearer, and all the different sounds are more distinguishable. I totally agree that there's a lot of placebo's in the industry, but FLAC isn't one of them. However, a 192kbps song encoded with say, Nero MP4, is substantially better than the MP3 counterpart. But at that point, the filesizes are pretty comperable to FLAC's anyway.
Stop posting in this thread, or stop being a nerd with his undies in a bunch because he can't tell the difference and likes to be right all the time
Would angry black man mind posting the model of his sound card, monitors (speakers/headphones), and preferred music format? It lends you credibility if you actually have experience with decent equipment.
If so, we are more open to your opinions.
If not, don't over-feed the troll. I don't have enough Pepto Bismol for the incident.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;18740921]However, a 192kbps song encoded with say, Nero MP4, is substantially better than the MP3 counterpart. But at that point, the filesizes are pretty comperable to FLAC's anyway.[/QUOTE]
this is the most hilarious part of your post because it shows that you really have no clue about audio formats or encoding
kbps = kilo bits per second
aka 192kbps MP3 and AAC are essentially the [i][b]same file size!!!!!![/b][/i]
the AAC sounds better because it has a more efficient encoding algorithm
[QUOTE=Night-Eagle;18740805]200 fps is for dumb gamer losers[/QUOTE]
if you purchase additional GPUs for the sole purpose of running a game you own that runs at 60fps already, at 200fps, then yes, you are an idiot
s/60fps/however many FPS the eye can see at/
[QUOTE=sin2051;18741074]this is the most hilarious part of your post because it shows that you really have no clue about audio formats or encoding
kbps = kilo bits per second
aka 192kbps MP3 and AAC are essentially the [i][b]same file size!!!!!![/b][/i]
the AAC sounds better because it has a more efficient encoding algorithm
if you purchase additional GPUs for the sole purpose of running a game you own that runs at 60fps already, at 200fps, then yes, you are an idiot
s/60fps/however many FPS the eye can see at/[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm[/url]
the human eye does not see in frames therefore measuring the amount of of frames humans can perceive is null and void, it's more a question of what the monitor can display
and the reason people get additional hardware to better their fps is to ensure it doesn't go below 60 even in the most intense scenarios
[QUOTE=Rusty100;18741266]the human eye does not see in frames therefore measuring the amount of of frames humans can perceive is null and void, it's more a question of what the monitor can display[/QUOTE]
After a certain point, adding more FPS is pointless since you can't tell the difference.
The human ear doesn't hear in kbps. That doesn't mean that it's not a valid metric for estimation.
[QUOTE=Enishi;18726633]iTunes won't support FLAC. :([/QUOTE]
I hate that so much too... I have to use Nero to burn an NRG, mount it, then rip it to iTunes. So fucking annoying... -_-
Okay, okay, we've had this discussion before.
Let's make it interesting; the other way of interpreting the troll's post is to say that FLAC exists for dumb audiophile nerds. Thus, using symbolic logic, we arrive at the conclusion that there is a possibility that FLAC is used by persons who are not dumb audiophile nerds.
Using the same method, we can observe that the statement "200 fps is for dumb gamer losers" means that "200 fps" was "created" for dumb gamer losers. This also means that it is possible that there are people that "have" 200 fps who are not dumb gamer losers.
Thus, we reach the conclusion that both statements are subjective and truisms from agreeing perspectives.
...and, arguing over a truism is like arguing over a brick wall...
I guess if the bricklayers were unionized and had completed their work outside of the ample timeframe they were given whereas a competing non-union company had completed several projects in that same time span, there would be a discussion to be had...
[QUOTE=sin2051;18741305]After a certain point, adding more FPS is pointless since you can't tell the difference.
The human ear doesn't hear in kbps. That doesn't mean that it's not a valid metric for estimation.[/QUOTE]
except monitors don't display a difference after 60fps because they output at 60Hz. you do not have this limitation with audio
and did you even read my post? of course you can't SEE over 60fps. like i said, it's so that it NEVER goes below 60fps, because you can most CERTAINLY tell when it's under 60.
[QUOTE=Night-Eagle;18741317]Okay, okay, we've had this discussion before.
Let's make it interesting; the other way of interpreting the troll's post is to say that FLAC exists for dumb audiophile nerds. Thus, using symbolic logic, we arrive at the conclusion that there is a possibility that FLAC is used by persons who are not dumb audiophile nerds.
Using the same method, we can observe that the statement "200 fps is for dumb gamer losers" means that "200 fps" was "created" for dumb gamer losers. This also means that it is possible that there are people that "have" 200 fps who are not dumb gamer losers.
Thus, we reach the conclusion that both statements are subjective and truisms from agreeing perspectives.
...and, arguing over a truism is like arguing over a brick wall...[/QUOTE]
That's a whole lot of bullshit to type out to say "I have nothing to add to this argument".
Yes, FLAC has perfectly valid uses in archiving. To use it because you're a self-proclaimed audiophile is extremely daft, short-sighted, and self-absorbed.
Wow, you can tell the difference above 192kbps? Cool, now try it at 320 which is still a fraction of the size of FLAC!
[QUOTE=Rusty100;18741359]except monitors don't display a difference after 60fps because they output at 60Hz. you do not have this limitation with audio
and did you even read my post? of course you can't SEE over 60fps. like i said, it's so that it NEVER goes below 60fps, because you can most CERTAINLY tell when it's under 60.[/QUOTE]
You are aware that:
1) not all monitors output at 60Hz
2) the human eye isn't limited to 60 FPS
I think FLAC is an over-kill approach at keeping quality high. WMA lossless and Apple lossless do the same job, same quality, and use less space. Not only that, hardly any mp3/mp4 players support FLAC, and the files take up shitloads of precious harddrive space.
FLAC is not for me. 320Kb/s MP3s sound good enough for me, but I prefer apple's m4a (AAC) encoded @ 224Kb/s. It's a great quality sound at a descent file size. (Since I have two iPods, and it's easy to burn them back to Audio CD)
[QUOTE=sin2051;18741364]That's a whole lot of bullshit to type out to say "I have nothing to add to this argument".
Yes, FLAC has perfectly valid uses in archiving. To use it because you're a self-proclaimed audiophile is extremely daft, short-sighted, and self-absorbed.
Wow, you can tell the difference above 192kbps? Cool, now try it at 320 which is still a fraction of the size of FLAC![/QUOTE]
[img_thumb]s[/img_thumb]
[QUOTE=sin2051;18741364]That's a whole lot of bullshit to type out to say "I have nothing to add to this argument"[/QUOTE]
Actually, it was a way of saying "discussing frames per second in a thread about FLAC has nothing to do with FLAC."
[QUOTE=Pixel Heart;18741373]I think FLAC is an over-kill approach at keeping quality high. WMA lossless and Apple lossless do the same job, same quality, and use less space.[/QUOTE]
What? FLAC, WMA-L, and ALAC all encode to essentially the same size. They're [i]lossless[/i]. The algorithms they all use to keep filesize down don't cause much of a fluctuation between them.
[QUOTE=sin2051;18741364]That's a whole lot of bullshit to type out to say "I have nothing to add to this argument".
Yes, FLAC has perfectly valid uses in archiving. To use it because you're a self-proclaimed audiophile is extremely daft, short-sighted, and self-absorbed.
Wow, you can tell the difference above 192kbps? Cool, now try it at 320 which is still a fraction of the size of FLAC!
You are aware that:
1) not all monitors output at 60Hz
2) the human eye isn't limited to 60 FPS[/QUOTE]
uh actually it's you who isn't reading my posts because like i said, the human eye is not limited to 60fps (because it does not see in frames, because real life isn't made up of frames), it's limited to seeing what the monitor can display which is just most COMMONLY 60Hz
and I've never said i'm an audiophile, and I'm not. anything over 192kbps is listenable. but when i'm ripping my own music, i have a choice. i could rip at 192kbps, or I could rip in FLAC. Hard drive space is NOT an issue, and I'd rather have it as true to the source as possible rather than compressed to buggery.
Who cares? If you can tell the difference, go for it. If you can't, feel free to use something lower. But you're never going to win an argument by battling an opinion with another opinion.
[QUOTE=Kabolte;18741432]Who cares? If you can tell the difference, go for it. If you can't, feel free to use something lower. But you're never going to win an argument by battling an opinion with another opinion.[/QUOTE]
I'm not trying to win an argument for some personal reason, I'm just trying to make sure pragmatic scientific data is made common knowledge, so people don't get suckered into audiophilia.
Lossless codecs are ideal for when you don't want to or possibly can't keep all your physical media around.
If you never intend to invest in a high-quality sound system, and I mean [i][b]never[/b][/i], rip in MP3 and put your physical media in storage/just toss it out.
How many of you that prefer lossless encoding wouldn't mind if you lost all of your physical media? You don't need FLAC.
If you would mind, consider FLAC.
Why are people that don't understand audio rating everyone dumb. I mean I'm not an expert, but I can tell what the smart people in this thread are and they seem to get rated dumb.
[QUOTE=sin2051;18726340]the average person can't tell the difference past 192kbps, do NOT waste your time, HD space, and bandwidth with FLAC.
audiophiles fucking love it but audiophilia is a world of placebos and $5,000 cables anyway and isn't based on science at all
science says FLAC is a waste of time[/QUOTE]
If that 'average person' has a proper external sound card and some half decent speakers, then he/she should be able to tell the difference between mp3 192kbps or 320kbps or flac.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.