aurabullet
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2011
- Posts
- 184
- Likes
- 10
alright thanks for the tips, I won't convert
As stated about twenty other times, there are zero benefits from converting files that have already been compressed to an uncompressed format. You will gain nothing but file size.
alright thanks for the tips, I won't convert
There are lots and lots of people out there complaining about how "horrible" 320k MP3's sound compared to FLAC, but I promise you, the vast majority would not be able to distinguish a 128k MP3 from a FLAC in a true double blind test.
I tried the blind test mp3 vs FLAC with my crappy Nano 3G and NC Denon and i still noticed a slight difference in sound.
As I don't have a High-Res Headphone yet, i would be interested to know whether then difference is more obvious on the more expensive models.
I tried the blind test mp3 vs FLAC with my crappy Nano 3G and NC Denon and i still noticed a slight difference in sound.
As I don't have a High-Res Headphone yet, i would be interested to know whether then difference is more obvious on the more expensive models.
+1,000,000
The bad rep that lossy gets, even among the more informed communities, is sometimes really surprising. I'd invite anyone to get a copy of Foobar and start ABXing FLACs against 320kbps or even 256kbps MP3s. Just use a recent implementation of the (free) LAME encoder and DON'T do a search to find those rare and elusive "killer samples." My prediction is that you won't be able to pass the tests beyond a coin's flip. Ever. The state of the art of compression is that good. Most naysayers hear someone with authority decry MP3 as a format, or say how 192kbps MP3s are "unacceptable," but without testing this is the same as letting someone else tell you why a pricier wine should taste better, or how that expensive line conditioner will buy you better soundstage.
Perorming the same tests with 128kbps files, especially the newest AAC implementations, you'd shock and surprise yourself.
The question remains "why would you ever go lossy when space is so cheap?" This is a good point, but practicality and saving money, even just a little of it, are perfectly reasonable ends. I have a LOT of music. Being able to store it ALL on my iPod is of significant value. I could save FLACs of the original files, but those would only seem practical were I to assume my ears would get better with age, and I'd magically be able to sense minute artifacts I couldn't hear today with a gun to my head.
1. Yes u are right, it doesn't play flac but it does play aiff.
2. I let other people "randomly" decide what to play. But yes, the difference was quite difficult to notice and not always consistent, but it was there.
1. Yes u are right, it doesn't play flac but it does play aiff.
2. I let other people "randomly" decide what to play. But yes, the difference was quite difficult to notice and not always consistent, but it was there.
No possible way that a lossless file of a lossy file sounds any better. Not at all.
why don't you try it yourself and see whether it works for you?
I'm using dbPowerAmp Music Convertor to get from lossy to lossless......why shouldn't it work
But honestly 192kbps is really worth converting, for me.
In my ears the difference between 192 and Flac in very noticeable.
i am very sorry, but i don't understand what you mean.
do you mean that converters only resize the songs?