[abellaw]

I would love to be able to tell the difference between mp3 and flac. But unfortunately i cant so when i am on the go i use 320. At home i listen to WMA Lossless as i use the zune media player mostly. Or i just listen to the actual cds

 

[dongringo]

What is more beneficial about flac than wav? I just spent days ripping to wav.

 

[Smirk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dongringo /img/forum/go_quote.gif What is more beneficial about flac than wav? I just spent days ripping to wav.

Same quality and less space.

On the topic - rip in lossless and if you have enough space on your player listen in lossless too so that you know it just can't sound better

 

[dongringo]

Thanks Smirk. My Sony plays wav. That's why I decided to rip about 300 cds to that format. I'm not even half done and I need another hardrive though. haha

 

[Smirk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dongringo /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thanks Smirk. My Sony plays wav. That's why I decided to rip about 300 cds to that format. I'm not even half done and I need another hardrive though. haha

Most of the time WAV is twice the size of a compressed lossless. And yeah it sucks that players with a great SQ only support uncompressed WAV and no other lossless.

 

[nc8000]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dongringo /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thanks Smirk. My Sony plays wav. That's why I decided to rip about 300 cds to that format. I'm not even half done and I need another hardrive though. haha

Get dbPoweramp (it's free for the first 30 days) and have it transcode you wav files to flac and then you can wait yet a while before upgrading the harddrive

 

[elfary]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nc8000 /img/forum/go_quote.gif flac for archiving and 320kb aac for the portable rigs

The same policy here.aac 320 is way better than mp3 320.it's a damn good codec actually.

 

[syn_fx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by elfary /img/forum/go_quote.gif The same policy here.aac 320 is way better than mp3 320.it's a damn good codec actually.

Evidence? Blind Test results?

 

[ChuckWang]

Quote:

Originally Posted by syn_fx /img/forum/go_quote.gif Evidence? Blind Test results?

Yes please?! I also thought that WMA Pro has much better sq THAN mp3 but as it turned out,.. it's more or less the same.

 

[dongringo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nc8000 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Get dbPoweramp (it's free for the first 30 days) and have it transcode you wav files to flac and then you can wait yet a while before upgrading the harddrive

That is unbelievably great advice. Thank you, thank you, thank you, and just for emphasis THANK YOU!

 

[revolink24]

Flac for archival, Lame V0 for portables.

 

[kirtar]

FLAC for archiving specific songs that I really like, v0 or c320 LAME for everything else that I rip. Otherwise, it's whatever I get off of Amazon or w/e (some WMA stuff off of somewhere else, can't remember where).

I don't use vorbis or aac for portable because my player is old (Rio ce2100 if it helps), and only plays mp3 and wma (and Audible for whatever that's worth).

 

[Ra97oR]

ALAC! =D

 

[RedSky0]

Quote:

Originally Posted by syn_fx /img/forum/go_quote.gif Evidence? Blind Test results?

From what I've read the compression is more complex and it uses more CPU processing power so I would assume that'd be correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckWang /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thanx guys! They are all very nice ideas!! I think trusting our ears are the best option. I also think it depends on the quality of the recording itself. Some of my older Art Tatum are really not worthy of FLAC.

Exactly, and the main benefit of FLAC happens to be that nothing, even at the 18k Hz mark is chopped off when often in old songs there's simply nothing there.

 

[Cosmic Fool]

I prefer FLAC for well-recorded music and 320 kb/s mp3 for the rest.