[jilgiljongiljing]

Go for it! Its worth it. Peace of mind, archival and a proper back up incase the cd gets @#%$ or your friend loses it. And to my ears, it definitely sounds better than mp3 on better recorded albums.

As for White Stripes, its totally overkill. I basically choose albums I want to rip and save as flac, only better than average and the best fall into that list. Stuff like Californication, or St.Anger, or the White Stripes albums dont deserve 250mb of space IMO even though some of them are amongst the top favourite albums of mine.

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bjarnetv /img/forum/go_quote.gif if you dont rip in lossless you will regret it in the future

So True!

 

[dantztiludrop]

For listening purposes @ home:
if you encode to a good quality lossy codec, you will probably not notice the difference audibly...but I just don't feel good knowing that I've had chunks of data removed from my music file that were intended to be there

For archival purposes:
it's simple....you remove it, you can't get it back. Best case scenario is you own the the CD & decide later on to re-rip it (= hassle). Worst case scenario is when you don't have the original source, you are not able to transcode it back up in quality....can't replace those chunks of data once you've removed them.

You only live once = go lossless!

 

[Al4x]

not really viable for my laptop, it does have 500gb of space, but still, games etc mean it will never be lossless

 

[bjarnetv]

then buy an external hd, they are almost free!

 

[Al4x]

id have 2 buy 2, they arent that cheap

 

[Punnisher]

You can get a 500gb external for just over $100.

I have 71gb of flac files, and that's a lot of music. About 3000 songs total. I'd be surprised if you could fill 500gb+ with your collection.

 

[asdf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bjarnetv /img/forum/go_quote.gif if you dont rip in lossless you will regret it in the future

For me, this is the best reason. I'm told that some people around here upgrade their systems. Presumably, if your system is of a high enough quality, there will be an audible difference between lossless and lossy formats. Whether your ears will ever hear it is a different matter.

As for flac, another poster mentioned that it depends upon your computer/software. There are other lossless formats that may work better with your player.

 

[The Legend]

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif Lossless = Yes (imo that is) FLAC = Depends. Depends on which software and hardware you use, since its not supported by all of them meaning that for some software and hardware you are better off with another codec.

I thought one advantage of FLAC was that it could still be re-converted bit by bit to the exact source?

 

[ezkcdude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Legend /img/forum/go_quote.gif I thought one advantage of FLAC was that it could still be re-converted bit by bit to the exact source?

Yes.

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Legend /img/forum/go_quote.gif I thought one advantage of FLAC was that it could still be re-converted bit by bit to the exact source?

Yes. Like all lossless audio codecs.

The OP asked if FLAC is worth it.
I meant to say that if its lossless audio he's after, then yes its worth it (imo). But if its FLAC in specific, then it depends on the software/hardware he use. As there are other codecs who are more suited for certain devices/applications.

Guess my previous post was not all that clear.

 

[pearljam5000]

how is it possible to re convert to the exact source?
and do you have to re convert it in order for it to sound exactly like the source, or do you just have to play it on foobar for example.
Quote:

Originally Posted by The Legend /img/forum/go_quote.gif I thought one advantage of FLAC was that it could still be re-converted bit by bit to the exact source?

 

[Punnisher]

That's right. When playing a FLAC file with a program, the program uncompresses the file and plays it. It will sound just like an uncompressed WAV file.

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pearljam5000 /img/forum/go_quote.gif how is it possible to re convert to the exact source? and do you have to re convert it in order for it to sound exactly like the source, or do you just have to play it on foobar for example.

1. Decode the FLAC file, and you will get an identical audio data stream as you earlier used as source for the FLAC file.
2. Just play the FLAC file in a supported application. It will decode the file on-the-fly...

 

[Aman]

FLAC is scientifically not worth the hard disk space, if your only goal in encoding to this format is to listen.

The reasoning behind this fact stems from the intelligent nature of the lossy encoding process. If you take any MP3 or AAC file of standard encoding rate (192K or higher), and polarity inverse it with the same file as a FLAC, you will hear very little difference between the two. This is because even though you've taken a lot of information out of that lossy file to make it so compact, the frequencies taken out of a compressed file are frequencies the ear does not respond well to. No human ear can detect the frequencies removed from any 320K MP3 file because the frequencies are either extremely high-pitched (well above 22k) or extremely obscure and irrelevant (a very specific frequency like 12.5008k or something like this).

Anybody who says they can hear the difference between a standardly-compressed MP3 file and its FLAC counterpart is either lying, suffering from placebo, or needs to tell me where I can get a drug that would heighten somebody's senses that much.

On the other hand, if you're planning on also keeping an archive of your CDs, or want to be able to convert to any other format on the fly, then I'd say go for it. FLAC is an incredible, advanced, and convenient format.