[QUOTE=Trogdon;18742402]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]
that's facepunch for you
[QUOTE=Bloodypalace;18742813]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.[/QUOTE]
320kbps and FLAC are not the same
though you'd be fucked trying to tell the difference between them
[QUOTE=Bloodypalace;18742813]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.[/QUOTE]
I use a $30 Stereo speaker + Sub (2.1) sound system I got from Fred Meyer, along with my onboard sound built into my EVGA 680i. 320Kb/s MP3s sound superb. Even in headphones, they sound flawless.
[QUOTE=sin2051;18743051]320kbps and FLAC are not the same
[/QUOTE]
and where exactly did i say they were the same?
[QUOTE=Rusty100;18741359]of course you can't SEE over 60fps.[/QUOTE]
It's relative. You can tell the difference between 30FPS and 60. You can tell the difference between 60 and 200. Between 200 and 10000. As you get more frames per second it becomes harder to differentiate, but you most certainly can see more than 60FPS.
But visuals are completely different than audio and shouldn't be compared.
About the Creative's, only the X-Fi² plays FLACs, not the X-Fi² or any other creatives play FLACs.
Yeah FLAC will keep more details in music, whether or not you hear said difference in details compared to 192kbps MP3 depends on whether or not you had decent audio [b]hardware[/b] (and decent [b]ears[/b]) beforehand. The people calling FLAC a 'placebo' and the people who hate MP3s, shut up already, it's a subjective thing. Some people will hear a difference, others won't, you've established that.
You may find that FLAC files from, say, Trent Reznor, where he releases his songs straight to internet with no CD conversion involved, sound higher quality than CD audio ripped to FLAC. It shouldn't be like that, but it is... you occasionally get dumbass music studios who record song > convert to mp3 > convert to cd audio > burn to CD instead of recording it straight to CD :\
Oh and flac and ogg will never have the problem with DRM. Neither will mp3s, but flac and ogg are completely open and mp3's a licensed technology. Opensourcefags like myself will appreciate that.
[QUOTE=sin2051;18743051]320kbps and FLAC are not the same
though you'd be fucked trying to tell the difference between them[/QUOTE]
Yes, which is the point that everyone is beating around.
Audio compression creates an inherent loss in information.
Permanent at that.
So, why would you keep an FLAC copy of your entire library?
To make sure you always have what you paid for.
Relevant chart:
[img]http://www.sony.net/Products/ATRAC3/tech/img/pic_tech01.gif[/img]
I've never listened to Flac files before, however I thought I'd compare a few tracks to see if I could hear a difference.
I had some MP3s around the 248kbps mark, I then had some FLACs (of the same track) at around 945kbps mark, I could here a difference despite not having a sound card. I used Foobar2000 with the ASIO drivers and 5.1 speakers. (I didn't buy them myself but I doubt they're very good, Creative ones.)
I think it's also important to note it was electro/house music.
To be honest when I did ABX, it was a lot harder than I expected, but I still managed to hear a difference in most of the samples. I'd say it's partially placebo, and partially actual difference.
Look morons, kbps is how much information is in the file per second, an uncompressed CD audio stream is some 1400 kbps, lossless compression will be able to compress this same information considerably, like zipping a wav, only much better because it's optimised for the kind of data found in audio. Lossy not only compresses it, it also throws stuff away to fit it better. This means loss of sound quality. But because they're made to throw away the stuff the mind is less likely to notice you'll still get the brunt of the sound at full quality.
[url=http://www.digitalhomethoughts.com/news/show/29760/my-experience-with-wma-lossless-and-the-implications-thereof.html]This doesn't mean the quality loss doesn't exist.[/url]
Personally I like the sound of a 192kbps mp3 better than lossless. Because [i]distortion sounds good[/i].
If you have good hardware you can notice the difference, and I can hear the distortions even on fairly high bitrate material. I know what to listen for for one part. This is part of the reason why double blind tests doesn't necesarrily represent any kind of reality. Back in the day there were double blind tests between stereo and mono, many thought mono was stereo. This doesn't mean mono is the same quality as stereo, that's absurd. An obvious falsehood. It just means people didn't have a clue what they were listening to and so went with whatever they thought sounded "best" based on the colour of their poop that day. And distortion sounds good.
Also get a better DAC than the integrated bullshit.
depends.
[url]http://www.overclock.net/sound-cards-computer-audio/330694-differences-between-flac-mp3-lossless-vs.html[/url]
this should solve everything..
Distortion doesn't sound good to me.
Although 320kbps is probably always gonna be enough, lossless is a bit overkill unless you're archiving something important.
A lot of pirated music out there has probably also been converted and compressed more than once, further ruining the sound quality despite an alright kbps.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;18744147]It's relative. You can tell the difference between 30FPS and 60. You can tell the difference between 60 and 200. Between 200 and 10000. As you get more frames per second it becomes harder to differentiate, but you most certainly can see more than 60FPS.
But visuals are completely different than audio and shouldn't be compared.[/QUOTE]
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say you can't tell the difference between 200 and 10,000 FPS
[editline]10:28PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=SGorilla;18745636]I had some MP3s around the 248kbps mark, I then had some FLACs (of the same track) at around 945kbps mark, I could here a difference despite not having a sound card. [/QUOTE]
You don't compare separate rips of the same pirated track. ABX testing doesn't work that way.
[QUOTE=sin2051;18752448]I'm gonna go out on a limb and say you can't tell the difference between 200 and 10,000 FPS
[editline]10:28PM[/editline]
You don't compare separate rips of the same pirated track. ABX testing doesn't work that way.[/QUOTE]
How can you NOT tell the difference between 200 and 10,000 fps?
[QUOTE=waxrock;18753545]How can you NOT tell the difference between 200 and 10,000 fps?[/QUOTE]
I think you could tell the difference. That bullet could of been in real time, but instead it wasn't. You're sooo right
[QUOTE=sin2051;18752448]You don't compare separate rips of the same pirated track. ABX testing doesn't work that way.[/quote]
This is true, however later I ripped some FLACS from a CD I had and could also notice the difference, not by much though. (Difference from the MP3's I'd ripped a while ago from the same CD.)
I supposed it could be placebo as I know which one's FLAC and which one's not.
Also, I don't know what ABX means.
[editline]01:12AM[/editline]
Oh the downloaded* tracks were from different sources, I don't really know what you meant, other than "downloaded from unreliable sources"* stuff doesn't count for reliable testing.
Get yourself a good audio card, headphones and headphone amp since good headphones usually can't be driven off the power from a normal audio card (unless its an asus xonar or something).
Maybe then, if you have a good ear, you can start to hear the difference.
I'm just throwin' another scenario into the discussion.
I doubt it's worth the money, specially since I already have some headphones of good-ish quality.
(They're big and look like a Dee Jay. Hurr)
I'm no Audio-Molester.
[editline]01:58AM[/editline]
I use the speakers and listen to music with a lot of bass. It makes me cool. :v:
With my medium-high end head phones, I can tell the difference between flac and mp3 like night and day. If you have the storage and quality equipment, I would recommend you use flac.
everyone here should ABX before they say anything
[QUOTE=BmB;18747178]Personally I like the sound of a 192kbps mp3 better than lossless. Because [i]distortion sounds good[/i].
[/QUOTE]
You could always rip your music in FLAC and just have someone rattling tin foil in the other room while you listen.
lol. True. Listening to those shitty little earbuds near sources of bass like a construction work or something also mnakes it sound fantastic. :P
[QUOTE=BmB;18763107]lol. True. Listening to those shitty little earbuds near sources of bass like a construction work or something also mnakes it sound fantastic. :P[/QUOTE]
The bus gives it a quality like no other.
Especially the crying babies.
Bliss.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
