Recent content by AudioBob1
-
320 kbps MP3 vs. normal audio CD listening Sound quality
You will have read through the posts.- AudioBob1
- Post #544
- Forum: Sound Science
-
320 kbps MP3 vs. normal audio CD listening Sound quality
You are still rambling on.- AudioBob1
- Post #541
- Forum: Sound Science
-
320 kbps MP3 vs. normal audio CD listening Sound quality
You could be a comedian man. That is funny.- AudioBob1
- Post #539
- Forum: Sound Science
-
320 kbps MP3 vs. normal audio CD listening Sound quality
You are beating a dead horse. I already addressed this yet you continue to ramble on.- AudioBob1
- Post #537
- Forum: Sound Science
-
320 kbps MP3 vs. normal audio CD listening Sound quality
You are a little late to the party, already addressed this. Its like you glossed over these things in attempt to find one thing where you could look right. I get it.- AudioBob1
- Post #535
- Forum: Sound Science
-
320 kbps MP3 vs. normal audio CD listening Sound quality
If the lossless can't be undone then its not Lossless its lossy. No I think you and the rest were getting confused mixing up terms. Very common, don't worry about it.- AudioBob1
- Post #532
- Forum: Sound Science
-
320 kbps MP3 vs. normal audio CD listening Sound quality
We are talking about two different things here. Audio signal compression and zip compression. I am talking about Lossless in which you loose no information. In zip files are you not loosing any information like you would with a jpeg file. As long as the file is properly decompressed...- AudioBob1
- Post #530
- Forum: Sound Science
-
320 kbps MP3 vs. normal audio CD listening Sound quality
It can't be compressed if its a LOSSLESS Flac. You can take a 128mp3 and turn it in to a Flac, that would be flac compressed. So flacs can be lossy in that case. But if you use a LOSSLESS Flac there will be ZERO difference. Look up the word Lossless before you reply.- AudioBob1
- Post #529
- Forum: Sound Science
-
320 kbps MP3 vs. normal audio CD listening Sound quality
A flac compared to 128MP3 people can tell. A Flac/wave compared to a 320MP3 is much more difficult, its not a WOW there is a huge difference type of experience. If playing on full range speakers and you have 20 year old hearing then why not using a wave or flac as the source? 320mp3 is...- AudioBob1
- Post #528
- Forum: Sound Science
-
320 kbps MP3 vs. normal audio CD listening Sound quality
It is NOT "Compressed" it is the same independent of how the wave was made.- AudioBob1
- Post #526
- Forum: Sound Science
-
320 kbps MP3 vs. normal audio CD listening Sound quality
You have just admitted that you are deluded then. It would be like saying When I play two identical wave files I can easily tell the difference in listening tests. Its that insane.- AudioBob1
- Post #524
- Forum: Sound Science
-
320 kbps MP3 vs. normal audio CD listening Sound quality
Well BLue records are selling snake oil. Flac = Wave. I believe you could compress a flac but then it would not be a lossless flac. The flac is the same as the source file. If its wave it will be = to the wave. Same information nothing is different but the extender. Flac is the...- AudioBob1
- Post #519
- Forum: Sound Science
-
320 kbps MP3 vs. normal audio CD listening Sound quality
WindowsX is either a fruitcake or imagines things. A flac and wave are the same in quality both lossless both the same as a CD. If you thought they sounded different it was all in your head. A flac made from a CD is the same as the wave except it has extra features in the metadata that...- AudioBob1
- Post #517
- Forum: Sound Science