WHY ON EARTH DO PEOPLE STILL LISTEN TO mp3?!??!?! - Page 3

Guys rockbox is available for iPods (even the classic) and supports FLAC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnarlsagan 

Guys rockbox is available for iPods (even the classic) and supports FLAC.

The only problem with this is that it voids your warranty. So for those who have a library filled with FLAC and are looking for a new media player, looking elsewhere would still be a better option.

Really cool how freelance devs make stuff like that though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnarlsagan 


It can be easily undone. Also the warranty is only a year.

Can it be easily undone if your ipod is bricked though?

Just figured people should be warned before doing something that voids their warranty, even if it's only a year long one.

Already so many right answers, topic should be closed now.

I'm only adding that to be honest, CDs don't deserve being ripped into FLACs or Apple's Lossless. 44Khz/16 bits is not that much quality really. FLACs are worth it maybe if you're ripping some vinyls or DVD-Audios, maybe Blu-Rays.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD 

MP3 VBR v0 and CBR 320 kbps is still very fine for me, I've had cases where I got flac from one place and MP3 from another source and preferred the sound of MP3 lol. Most of the time it's not a noticable thing or slight advantage for flac possibly but there's cases when buying from online that I preferred the MP3 version for some reason (depending on how it's been encoded obviously), ofc with very subtle differences. Most of the time I prefer VBR V0 over 320 kbps CBR mp3 cuz the VBR algorithm is much newer and to me sounds at least as good if not better and I'm not alone with that opinion but it's a fairly "accepted" view due to the VBR having a new very good algorithm, but only V0 for VBR should be looked at tho, rest isn't good.

Hm... so in this case the MP3 VBR is also the same as good as 320 KBps CBR or even FLAC ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnSantana 

Hm... so in this case the MP3 VBR is also the same as good as 320 KBps CBR or even FLAC ?

The MP3 VBR V0, not just any VBR encoded, will sound about as good as FLAC to most people. I feel like I can hear a difference on my home audio speaker setup, but not sure I can tell a difference with many of my headphones. I think you need really good equipment--electronics and speaker/headphones--to be able to tell. 

However, FLAC is still best for archiving. So if you have a CD, rip it to FLAC with EAC (exact audio copy), and then you can make MP3s of it. Then your FLACs will be your perfect duplicate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnSantana 

Hm... so in this case the MP3 VBR is also the same as good as 320 KBps CBR or even FLAC ?

It's a matter of compromises.

Think of it this way, going from a high quality recording and ripping it to FLAC, mp3 320kbps CBR and mp3 VBR V0, the quality and size goes from larger to smaller. What RPGWiZaRD said regarding the VBR algorithm should be understood that VBR is getting better, meaning getting closer to CBR, which is obviously larger but not dependent on algorithms having to adapt bitrate according to what's going on the track at any given track.

My point is, and like others have pointed out already, that FLAC (lossless formats in general) is meant for archiving and the highest playback, while lossy formats like mp3 are meant for size convenience, be it on PMPs with low capacity, sharing and whatnot.

Because I cannot find the stuff I listen to in FLAC or other losless without jumping through so many hoops its not even funny. I still can't hear the difference between FLAC/ALAC and Mp3

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSurge 

Already so many right answers, topic should be closed now.

 

I'm only adding that to be honest, CDs don't deserve being ripped into FLACs or Apple's Lossless. 44Khz/16 bits is not that much quality really. FLACs are worth it maybe if you're ripping some vinyls or DVD-Audios, maybe Blu-Rays.

CD-level quality is 16-bit 44.1kHz. So ripping them to FLAC or ALAC is exactly what you want to do, at least for archival purposes. Whether or not you load a portable player with them or lossy files is another matter entirely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achmedisdead 

CD-level quality is 16-bit 44.1kHz. So ripping them to FLAC or ALAC is exactly what you want to do, at least for archival purposes. Whether or not you load a portable player with them or lossy files is another matter entirely.

I know, that's my point exactly. I don't believe the 44kHz/16 from a CD to be such a high quality source that requires a lossless format, when a good quality mathematically-lossy format (320 CBR or maybe AAC+) will give you almost similar quality for a fraction of the size.

If your source is a higher quality one such as vinyl, 192/24 or so, the difference would be worth it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSurge 

I know, that's my point exactly. I don't believe the 44kHz/16 from a CD to be such a high quality source that requires a lossless format, when a good quality mathematically-lossy format (320 CBR or maybe AAC+) will give you almost similar quality for a fraction of the size.

 

If your source is a higher quality one such as vinyl, 192/24 or so, the difference would be worth it.

It definitely doesn't work that way. Considering regular CD Audio has a PCM stream of 1536kbps on 16/44.1, ripping it with any lossy format will reduce the output files' SQ when compared to a lossless format. If you want absolute quality with reasonable file sizes, lossless is really the only viable way that can be safely archived for future playback usage as well as handling new codecs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roller 

 

It definitely doesn't work that way. Considering regular CD Audio has a PCM stream of 1536kbps on 16/44.1, ripping it with any lossy format will reduce the output files' SQ when compared to a lossless format. If you want absolute quality with reasonable file sizes, lossless is really the only viable way that can be safely archived for future playback usage as well as handling new codecs.

Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with that. It's just -as you previously said- it's a matter of compromise. In my humble opinion (and everyone can have their own POV) I believe that the cost/benefit ratio between disk space (as cheap as it is) and perceivable quality is not worth it for CDs. I'd do it with better quality sources though.

Let's be honest. You'd definitely need a pair of very well trained ears and some very high-end gear to truly notice. And after all, you're still going to own and archive the original CD, right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSurge 

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with that. It's just -as you previously said- it's a matter of compromise. In my humble opinion (and everyone can have their own POV) I believe that the cost/benefit ratio between disk space (as cheap as it is) and perceivable quality is not worth it for CDs. I'd do it with better quality sources though.

 

Let's be honest. You'd definitely need a pair of very well trained ears and some very high-end gear to truly notice. And after all, you're still going to own and archive the original CD, right?

I think you'd need just as good of a pair of ears to differentiate between 24/192 and 320kbps. There's a reason that it's not really used anywhere for anything.