[weste47]

I just downloaded the new Flashbulb album, which Ben Jordan apparently put up for free download because iTunes is putting it on there without his permission. My question is there is a flac/looseless version offered and a lame3.92 v2.2 version which I downloaded. It ranges from the lowest at 160kbps vbr, up to over 250vbr. Most of them seem to be in the 200's but below that, are they still considered good quality because they are vbr? Do those songs just not need that high a bitrate or something?

 

[mcmurray]

The LAME v2 encodes are about as good as an MP3 you will find. I'm a strictly lossless person, but even I have trouble distinguising between v2 and full lossless sometimes. And with regards to the VBR question, the encoder will automatically determine the optimal compression ratio, so yes if the bitrate is lower, it is because the songs do not need a higher bitrate.

Someone could maybe explain in more detail, but unless you're a qualified mathematician, forget about understanding it

Digital signal processing theory is not for the faint of heart.

 

[weste47]

haha ok. I decided just to go with the flac version then convert it to wav, then put that into 256 aac vbr encoding like i do to most of the cd's I own just to be fully satisfied

.

 

[Robgo]

I was comparing 256kbs mp3s to some flacs I had today (I was trading with a person and forever reasons the flacs he sent me skipped. Thought it might have been a good time to compare if I could actually ABX the differences)

Anyways I could immediately tell the difference between the two. mp3s sound sterile flat and glassy, sort of brittle sounding without as much range or depth. Flac sounds perfect obviously. I really wish people would up their quality standards and go with lossless formats. They really don't take up that much space and space is so cheap anyways these days that it doesn't really matter much anymore. People go so far as to argue that lossless is useless. It really isn't... it beats mp3 and other formats in every way except for file size. People seem to want to amass huge collections of crappy quality mp3s rather than have fewer, albeit much higher quality lossless files. It really sucks.

Lesson learned. I won't share my flacs with anyone in the future. People can't even tag their mp3s properly over soulseek let alone make quality rips. I would rather just buy the cds and have them lossless these days.



I have the same album (album that is out of print, In Gowan Rings, Hazel Steps Through a Weathered Home) that I have in like 3 or 4 different formats and here is how I would rank their quality

192kbs CBR << 256kbs VBR <<< 256kbs CBR <<<<<<< flac

flac really is that much better. Even with my average/mid high end gear the difference is immediately noticeable to me with ABX testing through foobar. With 256kbs mp3s I notice the plucking of strings is less apparent, the depth and range of the music is much smaller, and it just sounds brittle, like I mentioned before. I bet I could tell an even greater difference if I weren't using this lm4562 opamp in my prelude at the moment (which sounds much worse than using the prelude without an opamp)

 

[Kikuji]

I'm really liking this Album. I really need to get other Flashbulbs Albums.

I prefer FLAC.

 

[mcmurray]

Quote:

Originally Posted by weste47 /img/forum/go_quote.gif haha ok. I decided just to go with the flac version then convert it to wav, then put that into 256 aac vbr encoding like i do to most of the cd's I own just to be fully satisfied .

If you downloaded the FLAC then I would advise you to keep it that way. In this day and age there is no reason to compress music - back in 1998 it had its merits but now it's not necessary what so ever.

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fetalgoat /img/forum/go_quote.gif I was comparing 256kbs mp3s to some flacs I had today (I was trading with a person and forever reasons the flacs he sent me skipped. Thought it might have been a good time to compare if I could actually ABX the differences) Anyways I could immediately tell the difference between the two.

Were the MP3s made from the FLAC files that you were comparing them to? What encoder did you use for the MP3s?

 

[trains are bad]

More importantly, was he double-blind testing them?

I can always tell mp3s apart from FLACs, because while comparing, Amarok tells me which one is playing...

I personally believe that anyone who claims they can ABX the latest lame from lossless is, intentionally or not, full of BS. There is no sound quality difference, people.

I personally use flac and vinyl for everything. There are plenty of reasons to use lossless compression, but sound quality isn't one of them.

 

[weste47]

I really don't have the need to keep the flac version mainly because 256 aac vbr is similar to 320kbps mp3 which is easily enough. I like being able to fit all of my music onto my ipod at one time as well. I hate being somewhere and not having a song or an artist that I or someone else wants to listen to.

Anyways Kirlian Selections by Flashbulb is an awesome album. I highly recommend it to anyone.

 

[Packgrog]

Keep FLACs on a network or USB drive and use a program like Foobar2000 or Amarok (for the linux folks) to transcode copies of the songs you want into the lossy compression of your choice for your portable needs. Works like a charm, and you only have to go through the arduous ripping process once. With a decent enough CPU, transcoding is pretty quick.

 

[weste47]

I ended up using xAct which seemed to work pretty well.

 

[Night Surfer]

Casual listening tests to validate transparency (or lack thereof) between formats and compression ratios are worse than useless.
Volume leveling is especially critical.
Never underestimate the placebo effect.
I stfg I will bitchslap the next moron who says "trust your ears".

 

[Robgo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by trains are bad /img/forum/go_quote.gif More importantly, was he double-blind testing them? I can always tell mp3s apart from FLACs, because while comparing, Amarok tells me which one is playing... I personally believe that anyone who claims they can ABX the latest lame from lossless is, intentionally or not, full of BS. There is no sound quality difference, people. I personally use flac and vinyl for everything. There are plenty of reasons to use lossless compression, but sound quality isn't one of them.

what?

What are the other reasons if it's not for sound quality? That doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[trains are bad]

Ripping CDs is laborious. If you intend to keep a digital music collection, lossless encoding is very advantageous because it allows you to later transcode your music to whatever format you might want. I'm glad I ripped my CDs to lossless back when I doing most of it 2002. If I had ripped them to the latest LAME back then, now the codec would be way out of date, and there would be no way I could take advantage of the newer, more efficient codecs available now. Or, thinking really long term, the codec I used might eventually become completely obsolete, then my digital music collection would become more and more obsolete, because there's no acceptable way to transcode lossy formats.

Since my collection is in lossless, I can later transcode to any other lossless codec, or using foobar or Amarok, I can transcode to whatever lossy format (generally Ogg) and whatever bitrate I happen to want. So it makes very good sense to use a lossless format, but I don't pretend it's because it sounds better.

I can't hear the difference beween pretty much any reasonable lossy compression (such as LAME standard). And I don't think anyone else can either. If they can, they could just increase the bitrate to extreme or whatever, then they can't. There is such a thing as a 'vanishingly small sound quality difference' and such a difference is easily achieveable with modern lossy compression. Double blind testing proves it out.

 

[Robgo]

I promise you that I can hear a difference between lame 256kbs mp3 and flac. I can't hear it between 320kbs and flac with the stuff that I have ABX'd but I could easily tell the difference doing the built in ABX test in foobar with 256kbs lame and flac.

I honestly think that anyone and everyone shouldn't try to detract the benefits of very high bit encoding or even lossless formats because they honestly do have benefits to lower bit rate mp3s. Everyone should try to make it a priority to try and make the standard much higher than it is now, which is 192kbs CBR mp3.