[fewtch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emon Yes, true, I just get a little ansy around audiophiles and their placebo. Makes me want to punch things sometimes.

Stick around here awhile, you'll get over it...

 

[hugz]

i listen to flac. why not? whether there is an audible difference between it and 320vbr is arguable but i'mguessingthere isn't. however, data is cheap and flac is good for archiving, so why not? since i archive in flac, i listen in flac

 

[K2Grey]

I use FLAC for archival purposes and also because it provides a safe base from which to transcode from. If I decide I need LAME aps instead of LAME apm on my mp3 player, I can delete all my apm, transcode stuff to aps, and then copy it to mp3 player. If I did not have FLAC files, I would have to rip everything from CD and that takes forever.

I do not believe I could ABX LAME apm and FLAC from each other, but if I have FLAC there is no reason why not to listen to it.

 

[Nandro]

I use apple lossless myself. Considering iPods market stats, its about as standard as anything, and there are free converters if needed. My iPod plays them and with 60G drive I use them on it for tracs I think will show a difference. As far as archiving I guess having almost a terabyte, it dosent really matter to me.

 

[SDA]

Quote:

Yes, true, I just get a little ansy around audiophiles and their placebo. Makes me want to punch things sometimes.

You might want to avoid threads like these, then, or at least be very careful about what you say in them. As A/V forums go, Head-Fi is heavily subjectivist, so watch your step.


Quote:

Stick around here awhile, you'll get over it...

Hey, not all of us consider the scientific method something worth getting over

Quote:

I use FLAC for archival purposes and also because it provides a safe base from which to transcode from. If I decide I need LAME aps instead of LAME apm on my mp3 player, I can delete all my apm, transcode stuff to aps, and then copy it to mp3 player. If I did not have FLAC files, I would have to rip everything from CD and that takes forever. I do not believe I could ABX LAME apm and FLAC from each other, but if I have FLAC there is no reason why not to listen to it.

All good points, and the first is IMHO the single best reason to use FLAC. If you see yourself transcoding more in the future, FLAC is effectively a perfect copy of the CD.

 

[fewtch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDA Hey, not all of us consider the scientific method something worth getting over

Put it a bit differently then -- there's no need for the scientific method in a hobbyist forum. You can tell a car enthusiast that their Ferrari won't do 55 on the freeway any better than a Yugo, but which car do you think they'll buy?

I've been edging gently over into the "cable believer" spectrum lately, after coming here straight from Hydrogenaudio a couple years ago. Based on my experience, you might want to get outta here while the getting's good...

.

 

[Emon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDA You might want to avoid threads like these, then, or at least be very careful about what you say in them. As A/V forums go, Head-Fi is heavily subjectivist, so watch your step.

You don't need to tell me twice. :/

 

[james__bean]

To be honest, I have a pretty hard time telling the difference between 320 CBR Lame MP3's and FLAC. But I still started to archive all my stuff using FLAC for several reasons. First of all, my iaudio accepts FLAC and if I feel the need I can always encode to a 320 mp3 to save space. You can't go the other way around though. Second, storage is relatively cheap these days. You can get a 250GB SATA hard drive for under $100 without rebates or anything. Third and most importantly, why would anyone in their right mind listen to a $1000-1500 headphone setup with compressed audio? For many outside of head-fi, the crazy part of that equation is the money spent on audio gear. But its hard to argue with the fact that if you have that kind of gear, listening to compressed audio is just plain dumb.

edit: And flac seems like nothing compared to a DVD-A album where the 192 kHz stereo tracks alone take up almost 5GB. I should really get around to encoding all these in wavpack.

 

[SDA]

Quote:

Put it a bit differently then -- there's no need for the scientific method in a hobbyist forum. You can tell a car enthusiast that their Ferrari won't do 55 on the freeway any better than a Yugo, but which car do you think they'll buy?

That's an irrelevant comparison. "Ability to do 55 on the freeway" is not the only criterion one looks for in a car, and "Ferrari" and "Yugo" are not the only choices you have. Scientific testing of top speed, measurement of various acceleration times, aggregation of reliability data, brake performance with a variety of tires, performance on slalom tests, and more are all qualitative, scientific measurements that are exceedingly useful for buying a car.

While it is true that simply driving the car will tell you many things about it, and can be more valuable in many cases, driving alone will not give you exact comparisons or information about certain things (even the most extensive test drive won't tell you anything about reliability). More importantly, when comparing two cars, perceptions can easily be coloured by earlier beliefs. For example, a person comparing a Ferrari to a high-end Nissan might call the Ferrari faster even though the Nissan is, just because he/she thinks of Ferraris as sports cars and/or is biased by the amount of money he spent on the Ferrari. Conversely, someone who owns a high-end Nissan sports car might automatically be more dismissive of Ferraris and think one is slower than it really is on a test drive. This isn't just an attempt to parallel headphones-- it's actually true, something I've noticed in the auto forums I lurk in.

Mind, I'm not trying to force my philosophy on anyone. All I'm saying is that the scientific method CAN have a place in hobbyist forums if that particular hobbyists believes in its usefulness. It's all about how you personally like to look at things.

 

[ServinginEcuador]

On a somewhat side note, what software do you folks use to get the FLAC files? I have had to rip the same CD several times to convert to various file formats, and I'd like to avoid doing so again in the future. I see that LAME is one method, but since it means Lame Ain't an MP3 Encoder, I need some advice on getting the right software to get the best sound possible. I'm also going away from Apple iTunes for something more like WinAmp, but free!

 

[Riku540]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDA That's an irrelevant comparison. "Ability to do 55 on the freeway" is not the only criterion one looks for in a car, and "Ferrari" and "Yugo" are not the only choices you have. Scientific testing of top speed, measurement of various acceleration times, aggregation of reliability data, brake performance with a variety of tires, performance on slalom tests, and blah blah blah blah BLAH.

What's really irrelevant is you still going on about cars when he was simply attempting to make analogy related to AUDIO.

 

[K2Grey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ServinginEcuador On a somewhat side note, what software do you folks use to get the FLAC files? I have had to rip the same CD several times to convert to various file formats, and I'd like to avoid doing so again in the future. I see that LAME is one method, but since it means Lame Ain't an MP3 Encoder, I need some advice on getting the right software to get the best sound possible. I'm also going away from Apple iTunes for something more like WinAmp, but free!

Exact Audio Copy to rip to FLAC. I use foobar2000 for transcoding. LAME is a mp3 encoder, not a FLAC encoder or a ripper.

 

[Riku540]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ServinginEcuador what software do you folks use to get the FLAC files?

FLAC is just a format, and is not software-specific. If you go to FLAC's official site they have a default front end program, but you can use EAC and other encoders to get FLAC as well. Lossless doesn't always have to be FLAC; as long it's lossless, you will get the same identical sound quality of the source format. The only difference between different lossless formats and their encoders are compression ratios and compatibility; it's all a matter of preference.

 

[SDA]

Quote:

What's really irrelevant is you still going on about cars when he was simply attempting to make analogy related to AUDIO.

I guess there's some kind of communication problem here. (For future reference, if someone says that to you, they mean you're not reading their posts.) I'll try to itemize it for you...

He made an analogy related to audio.
He expanded that analogy to all hobbies.
I pointed out that the analogy couldn't stand on its own.
I extended my point and offered my own automobile analogy pertaining to subjectivism in general and thus audio.

 

[ServinginEcuador]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riku540 FLAC is just a format, and is not software-specific. If you go to FLAC's official site they have a default front end program, but you can use EAC and other encoders to get FLAC as well. Lossless doesn't always have to be FLAC; as long it's lossless, you will get the same identical sound quality of the source format. The only difference between different lossless formats and their encoders are compression ratios and compatibility; it's all a matter of preference.

Call me stupid, but I don't see FLAC as an option in EAC. I see that the f7 key is for copying without compression, and I would assume this means something like a FLAC format? As soon as EAC opens with a CD in the drive it gives me the actual size of the audio file on the CD, and a compressed audio size next to it. Since I got this to give me uncompressed audio for transcoding, how do I do this?