THE BORE
General => The Superdeep Borehole => Topic started by: TakingBackSunday on May 20, 2008, 08:55:41 PM
-
I mean, maybe I'm just new at this whole audiophile thing, but I'm not sure if I'm totally convinced of this flac thing. I don't really care about having something incredible sounding, just as long as it sounds okay is all. I know that a lot of stuff sounds compressed these days due to mp3 and such, but I wish flac was something a bit more supported by software and hardware for it to seem more of a privilege than a hassle.
*shrugs* Maybe I'll get more into it in time.
-
Not really. I'm not an audiophile. I guess it's great for them.
-
It just seems like too much of a hassle for right now. If it had more software backers, even more artists that support it as well, then I'll consider thinking higher of it. But for someone who:
-only uses iTunes
-doesn't really have a sweet sound card
-Uses a digital turntable to upload vinyls anyway
I really don't see too many advantages to it yet. Maybe when I go into the actual recording industry later in my career, I will.
-
Yeah, I tend to grab V0 as well.
-
Just too fuckin' gigantic. Most of the stuff I listen to is noisy anyway, so I'm not sure I get the point. For me, anyway. And I suspect most people can't tell the diff. between FLAC and MP3.
-
i have two albums in flac, but I ripped them myself, I dont care enough to download flac over mp3
-
when i rip, i tend to rip @ 320.
i dislike flac because i find it too unwieldy.
-
i have a few flac songs, and i can tell the difference in quality, but not enough that I'm willing to sacrifice the storage space
-
I like flac in moderation, although I don't keep the enormo files around or put them on my iPod. I burn CDs or DVDs of it for use in my living room stereo (because this is technology my wife understands). With flac, you get the original CD audio quality.
-
192kbps mp3s :rock
-
There's no difference between a perfectly ripped mp3 cd and flac/original cd.
-
The advantage of lossless to me is more for archival purposes. i know that i won't lose any quality if a better format comes along later on, or if i want to make perfect copies of songs for a CD. i'm anal about that. It's not so much the sound quality because i don't have equipment that i could discern anything at or above 256kbps CBR from lossless anyways, and that's probably being a little generous.
The major downside to FLAC is that there is such poor mainstream support. iTunes is the only mainstream player that won't play them, but MP3 player support for FLACs is simply non-existant unless you get some brand you only see online. It really doesn't make much sense to play lossless music on a portable anyways, but i'm sure some would disagree.
i don't bother to download FLACs outside of live performances simply because the selection isn't there, they're large files, and having a less-than-CD quality version gives me some motivation to actually buy the CDs. i've got a hundred or so FLAC albums, and only a half dozen are actually downloaded. The rest is stuff i rip. 192kbps (CBR, VBR, -r3mix, etc.) is fine for causal listening, which is all i do these days.
-
There's no difference between a perfectly ripped mp3 cd and flac/original cd.
You wish there wasn't but there is. mp3 has a bitrate cap well below that of the original Redbook audio. Ergo, on the right audio equipment, with the right ears, there is a difference. Whether you think it's significant or not is your opinion but it don't change the facts.
-
No. 256kbps+ MP3 gets the job done. It's not perfect, but more than passable considering my setup.
-
There's no difference between a perfectly ripped mp3 cd and flac/original cd.
You wish there wasn't but there is. mp3 has a bitrate cap well below that of the original Redbook audio. Ergo, on the right audio equipment, with the right ears, there is a difference. Whether you think it's significant or not is your opinion but it don't change the facts.
There is no difference.