[Mr00000]

Holy, good god I cannot believe my ears. Its like the FLAC rip opens up some hidden level on the CD. The only bad thing is that I don't have all of my old CDs to re-rip.

Just felt like sharing. Thanks for being an awesome community.

Mr00000

 

[Sh0eBoX]

haha, enjoy! i have started gathering/ripping my music in FLAC, and at the end of the summer when i go back to my computer (i'm at my family's house in nevada) and reformat, i plan on re-archiving my music collection in FLAC as well. sounds great, eh?

 

[jbd]

You really hear that much of a difference? I started going back to high bitrate mp3s a while ago because I couldn't hear much of an improvement. Maybe I'll try flac again.

 

[Assorted]

Good choice (y)

 

[DSlayerZX]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbd /img/forum/go_quote.gif You really hear that much of a difference? I started going back to high bitrate mp3s a while ago because I couldn't hear much of an improvement. Maybe I'll try flac again.

not to be rude, but perhaps a source/headphone upgrade will help you to hear the difference between 192 and flac...

To me... 192 and 320 version of the same song is very noticeable, but 320 to flac is.. well... I can hardly tell the difference.

But anyway, yes, bit rate does matter, no matter what other people had claimed.

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr00000 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Holy, good god I cannot believe my ears. Its like the FLAC rip opens up some hidden level on the CD.

192 what? How were the files encoded?

And if you don't have the original CDs, where are the FLAC files coming from?

 

[jbd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSlayerZX /img/forum/go_quote.gif not to be rude, but perhaps a source/headphone upgrade will help you to hear the difference between 192 and flac...

I don't have any trouble hearing the difference between 192 and flac.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSlayerZX /img/forum/go_quote.gif To me... 192 and 320 version of the same song is very noticeable, but 320 to flac is.. well... I can hardly tell the difference.

By high bitrate, I meant 320kbps or the highest variable bitrate setting (basically 320kbps). I can also hear a difference between 192 and 320kbps.

 

[krmathis]

Enjoy you lossless audio files!

 

[Culverin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSlayerZX /img/forum/go_quote.gif To me... 192 and 320 version of the same song is very noticeable, but 320 to flac is.. well... I can hardly tell the difference.

that's my breaking point too.
from 192 to 320. the crappy encoding is really holding things back.
at 320 it is much better, and i notice that quality of the recordings themselves begin to show.

 

[Redo]

Good job!

I think if you convert some of your music to 192kbps using LAME 3.97, you may be surprised how near-identical it will sound. My guess is your old files had a very mediocre outdated mp3 encoder, or they were ripped funky.

 

[Mr00000]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif 192 what? How were the files encoded? And if you don't have the original CDs, where are the FLAC files coming from?

192kbps MP3 encoded through CDEX.

The FLAC files were ripped from some CDs I recently bought. I was saying I was sad I couldn't re-rip my entire library of MP3s from their original CDs because many of the discs were stolen long ago

 

[uraflit]

high quality rips for the win!

i doubt i can hear the difference between 192 and 320 tho, i hope i can't... =0

 

[SysteX]

Even though I can't tell the difference between high quality 320kbps mp3 rips and flac rips, there is something comforting knowing that I've retained all the digital information that I paid for when I bought the CD. There's nothing to say that I won't be able to tell a difference in the future--or, for that matter, I may need to change formats in the future, in which case a lossless rip is a good as the original in terms of quality degradation due to transcoding.

To each his (or her) own, I suppose.

 

[465]

What kind of music, are those, for you guys who can hear the differences?

I couldn't tell the differences listening to my Michael Jackson CD, and the mp3.

 

[slwiser]

This is something that I think I have noticed and I am saying it as often as possible now.

Always listen to the higher assumed level of quality for at least a week and two is better before going back to a lower assumed quality before comparing the level of difference that your ears can quantify.

Any initial listening differences with ears that have yet to be trained to distinguish a higher quality (if it is there) will not be revealing enough to provide a good comparison.

Small initial differences may result in significant differences once your ears have more training in what quality sound, sounds like.

If there are no differences or little when you go back and do the final comparison then I would agree that it was small otherwise it is not a very good comparison.

This is one reason why meet comparisons are so fickle and not very revealing. We just can't train our ears that quickly.