[googleborg]

yeah the 4 pin was for analogue audio, totally archaic now and i've not seen it on any recent drive, got replaced by a 2pin spdif, but drives often dont have even that now.  i remember ripping some cds to wave files using 4pin in the days before mp3 and they were really poor quality, i was only like 13 then though so probably doing it wrong >_<
 
 
also programs like EAC and DBpoweramp use accurate rip which compares rips from a max of 200 sources (depending on how many rips of that cd that have on record) at once iirc, so if accurate rip says the rip is perfect, then it's perfect.

 

[Crazy*Carl]

anything 128 kbps or better is indistinguishable by 99% of people on 99% of equipment
 

 

[scannon18]

Quote:

anything 128 kbps or better is indistinguishable by 99% of people on 99% of equipment
 

Evidence?

 

[krmathis]

anything 128 kbps or better is indistinguishable by 99% of people on 99% of equipment

And?
The OP and the rest of use, besides you, are talking about cd and lossless audio - not lossy.

 

[ninjikiran]

Crown Software Audio Checker, it'll tell you if a FLAC or even APE file has any probability of being anything other than CDDA.
 
@ the 128kbps poster
Hard drive space is cheap, for the peace of mind beckons the question why not go lossless?
 
Personally I don't deal with FLAC since I rather not mess with its settings.  I just use EAC to rip to Wav and call it a day, though these darn import CD's often cost me an arm and a leg.

 

[Skylab]

The way the question was framed, it's hard to answer it.  The problem with the "illegally" obtained FLAC is one has no idea how it was created.
 
A FLAC created properly from a CD is going to be absolutely indistinguishable from the original CD.  FLACs downloaded from legitimate sources, like for example from burningshed.com that sells Porcupine Tree CD's as FLACs (among other artists), are also going to be indistinguishable from the CD.  And of course some places like HDTracks.com are starting to sell HIGHER that CD quality, 96kHz/24 Bit FLACs.
 
But when you get something illegally, you have no way of knowing exactly what you are getting.

 

[scannon18]

Quote:

And of course some places like HDTracks.com are starting to sell HIGHER that CD quality, 96kHz/24 Bit FLACs.  
 

What's this?  Higher fidelity than a CD?
 
And the quest continues. . .

 

[AudioNoob]

if you're getting them from me, they're pretty good. Jonathan is saving some loss going through a crappy transport and buffers with error smearing features as I make sure to override all to preserve the music closest to its original form. Unlike vintage photographs, digital music doesnt age well.

 

[Meliphcient]

I'd suggest getting your music from CD where you can. I've downloaded music (to see if I liked it) and subsequently bought the album only to discover that the 320/flac rip wasn't very well done. After getting burned on a recent album purchase I intend to sample all CDs online before giving my money to terrible artists, terrible mastering or both.

 

[krmathis]

What's this?  Higher fidelity than a CD?  
And the quest continues. . .

Higher bit depth and sampling rate than audio CDs.
Audio CDs are 16-bit/44.1kHz, while you can buy and download FLAC (and other) encoded files up to 24-bit/192kHz online. Same as DVD-Audio.

 

[TheAudioDude]

Quote:

Higher bit depth and sampling rate than audio CDs.
Audio CDs are 16-bit/44.1kHz, while you can buy and download FLAC (and other) encoded files up to 24-bit/192kHz online. Same as DVD-Audio.

24-bit/192kHz vinyl rips (from high-end players) are very nice too.

 

[Mr. B]

Quote:

How high of sound quality is a CD capable of? Is it worth it to buy the album?

"Hypothetical" FLAC torrents often include the rip log from EAC or whatever program which should offer some assurance as to the source including any read errors.

 

[TheAudioDude]

Well I mean I've never had a problem either, but the private sites are leaps and bounds beyond the public ones.  The only downside is it can be a bit tough to keep your ratio up.
 
I'll shoot you a PM today.

 

[Uncle Erik]

This discussion veered into illegal downloads, so I had to remove several posts.

Please this thread on topic and away from discussions of illegal downloading, otherwise, I'll have to remove this thread.

 

[Pratt]

 
Quote:

Higher bit depth and sampling rate than audio CDs.
Audio CDs are 16-bit/44.1kHz, while you can buy and download FLAC (and other) encoded files up to 24-bit/192kHz online. Same as DVD-Audio.

I thought this was all bull and Redbook cd's are as good as it gets.
 
http://theaudiocritic.com/plog/index.php?op=Default&Date=200710&blogId=1
 
Personally I don't really care, even though I have a DAC Magic and SACD/DVD-A player capable of the higher bit/khz. The 16/44 sounds really good to me on my setup anyway (where speakers and cans are the only thing that really improve it anyway). But I admit I'm no expert, but higher bitrate/khz sounds suspect to me.
 
Anyway, I rip cd's to FLAC myself. Not out of some allegiance to overpaid artists/industry, but because cd's are so cheap, why not make sure I get the best quality by doing it myself and also making sure that the 0.01% chance of getting into trouble for illegal downloading is actually 0.00%?
 
And when I say cd's are cheap, I also mean used ones of course. Especially when you buy used, rip, and then sell back. You lose little money in the process. And then of course there is the cd's at the library for free (or that your taxes are already paying for).
 
But I am interested in LEGAL lossless downloading sites where you pay to download, just like on amazon or i-tunes, only in an actually decent quality (lossless, not lossy) format (I never have and never will pay for lossy formats...I won't even listen to them after comparing lossy to lossless in depth years ago). I'd have to see which would be cheaper: the buying used/new cd's ripping and then selling them back (most of them anyway, some I do keep) method I'm doing now, or a paying for a service like that.