[deadman_uk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mansize_tissue /img/forum/go_quote.gif Have a look here.

Thanks very much.

When I move to Vista 64bit next month, do I just repeat the steps or will this not work with Vista?

 

[Mansize_tissue]

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadman_uk /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thanks very much. When I move to Vista 64bit next month, do I just repeat the steps or will this not work with Vista?

No problem. It works in 32-bit Vista for me, so i assume it'll work with 64-bit Vista, too. However, i am not able to play certain file types through ASIO; this is down to a hardware limitation, though, i think. My Corda Move doesn't play nice with ASIO or kernel streaming.

 

[deadman_uk]

Ok another question if possible....

I am now obtaining a large amount of FLAC files but the filesizes of each song are large. Is there anyway I can reduce the filesize without losing obvious quality? What about recoding them in 320kbp MP3?

 

[jbloudg20]

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadman_uk /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ok another question if possible.... I am now obtaining a large amount of FLAC files but the filesizes of each song are large. Is there anyway I can reduce the filesize without losing obvious quality? What about recoding them in 320kbp MP3?

Then you lose the reason for obtaining FLAC. Again, I don't mean to be rude here, but have you searched at all? These are such basic questions.

 

[LeonvB]

Quote:

without losing obvious quality

MP3 is a lossy compression algorithm. By definition, you're losing things.
FLAC is a pretty good compression algorithm, it's on par with the other lossless compression programs.
Note: If the files are large, most of the time it means you're looking at good recordings.

 

[jilgiljongiljing]

here we go again...

 

[jbloudg20]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jilgiljongiljing /img/forum/go_quote.gif here we go again...

Nice addition.

 

[deadman_uk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbloudg20 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Nice addition.

I don't understand what you mean so I will just not bother asking.

What exactly should I search for? I am asking a question and if it's such a simple and basic question then could you spend 30 seconds typing me the answer?

From what you said, it appears I can not keep the quality of FLAC while at the same time keep a lower filesize. If an MP3 has a bitrate of 160 or 192 then I can in most cases hear a slight improvement with FLAC files, However @ 320 bitrate, I hear no difference in quality between this and a FLAC file. What differences should I hear between 320 and a flac file? I keep hearing "FLAC are superior in sound quality to MP3" whenever I read audio forums but I don't see a noticeable difference apart from the increase in filesize.

If someone could point out the differences THEY hear, then maybe I can look out for these things and notice them in my own audio.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadman_uk /img/forum/go_quote.gif What differences should I hear between 320 and a flac file? I keep hearing "FLAC are superior in sound quality to MP3" whenever I read audio forums but I don't see a noticeable difference apart from the increase in filesize. If someone could point out the differences THEY hear, then maybe I can look out for these things and notice them in my own audio.

I wish you luck!

There are people who think that a bigger file size automatically means that it must sound better. It doesn't matter if they can't hear the difference themselves. Laying in bed at night, they would worry about what has been lost in compression. To ease their minds, they spend a lot of money on massive hard drives to store all their lossless files.

Be thankful you trust your ears and don't have obsessions over file size.

Hint: I bet you can't hear any difference between 256 MP3 or 192 VBR AAC and lossless either. No need to encode at 320 if that's the case. Try it yourself and see.

See ya
Steve

 

[Joshatdot]

My ears must be in bad shape..I cannot hear difference between FLAC & LAME -V2, or even -V4.

 

[jlingo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshatdot /img/forum/go_quote.gif My ears must be in bad shape..I cannot hear difference between FLAC & LAME -V2, or even -V4.

Well it really depends on the overall system. the more higher end your system is then, the better you may be able to distinguish the difference. Higher end system is more picky with whatever components or settings you use.

 

[manaox2]

I worked with winamp for a long time and hated to drop it because I loved milkdrop and asio gave me decent results, but when I used foobar I got what I believe is a noticeably better sound, expecially in tighter bass. I have never heard anything that could deliver as well as winamp, though winamp wins in style, it just doesn't beat foobar2000 on my system in sound quality and small cpu footprint. If you have the XtremeMusic, you might want to try Kernal Streaming as well, it works better with my echo indigo IO in quality to me for sure.

 

[deadman_uk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif I wish you luck! There are people who think that a bigger file size automatically means that it must sound better. It doesn't matter if they can't hear the difference themselves. Laying in bed at night, they would worry about what has been lost in compression. To ease their minds, they spend a lot of money on massive hard drives to store all their lossless files. Be thankful you trust your ears and don't have obsessions over file size. Hint: I bet you can't hear any difference between 256 MP3 or 192 VBR AAC and lossless either. No need to encode at 320 if that's the case. Try it yourself and see. See ya Steve

I can imagine myself as someone who does just that. Laying in bed with music on wondering what details I've lost during compression.

I did a little test today. I borrowed 2 of my mums audio CDs and ripped 2 tracks using a number of different settings.

I ripped...

Haddaway - What is Love
ATB - 9AM (Till I Come)

Both songs I know fairly well.

I used Exact Audio Copy to rip the 2 tracks. using the following settings...

- Uncompressed (WAV)
- MP3 192 bitrate (Using LAME MP3 encoder)
- MP3 320 bitrate (Using LAME MP3 encoder)
- FLAC (Level 8, Replay Gain off)

I'm using Foobar (EQ off) with the ASIO4ALL V2 setting as my media player and a pair of Audiotechnica ART Monitor ATH-700 headphones. I'm using a Creative X-Fi XtremeMusic sound card with the latest Creative audio drivers. (Entertainment Mode, X-Fi Crystalizer enabled at 40%, CMSS off)

I started with the ATB song, comparing all 4 different versions. After hearing no difference, I compared the 192 bitrate MP3 to the WAV and after 5 minutes of flicking back and forth, I could't hear any difference.

It's the same story with the Haddaway song... I hear no difference between all 4 versions. I even put both songs on an audio graph and the graph does show a TINY difference but I certainly can't hear it. I've got 2 screenshots below...

I'm sure there are differences between FLAC and MP3 at a higher bitrate than 192 but I don't hear a difference with my current setup. Is my test fair?

 

[manaox2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadman_uk /img/forum/go_quote.gif I did a little test today. I borrowed 2 of my mums audio CDs and ripped 2 tracks using a number of different settings. I ripped... Haddaway - What is Love ATB - 9AM (Till I Come)

ATB's 9AM looks to be one of those songs that the studio digitally boosted... can't see the peak waves. I would be interested in seeing what happens if you try some heavy metal, complexity wise.

 

[deadman_uk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by manaox2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif ATB's 9AM looks to be one of those songs that the studio digitally boosted... can't see the peak waves. I would be interested in seeing what happens if you try some heavy metal, complexity wise.

Name me some heavy metal bands and I'll see if I can get the CD. Would the 80's group EUROPE be suitable?