[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nealric /img/forum/go_quote.gif I disagree. I'm wiling to bet good money that next to nobody can differentiate 320k from FLAC in a blind test- no matter how fancy their rig.

How much are you willing to bet?

 

[TrumpOrMonkey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Necrolic /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'll bet you a ridiculous sum of money that you can't tell the difference between 320kbps and FLAC on any setup except electrostats, and even on the best of the best setups only during very complex passages. Yes, there is a difference, but if it costs me 3 times as much to buy CDs instead of 320kbps MP3 albums, I'd rather accept the VERY slight difference that I wouldn't notice unless I was analyzing the hell out of the music anyways.

There is also a lot more choice of music in 320kbps MP3's (Webstores etc) than there is FLAC, unless you take it from a CD or Vinyl.

 

[aimlink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif How much are you willing to bet?

I'd genuinely be willing to bet a lot. I've tried it with even very good recordings. It's not easy unblinded. I wouldn't wish to try since I know I'd fail the test. There's a lot of talk here.

 

[brendon]

I personally cant distinguish between a well recorded 245 VBR mp3 file and FLAC. However I still prefer FLAC since memory space is very cheap now and I don't have a huge collection of music. If I had a huge collection then I would rip those FLAC files to mp3 or wma.

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aimlink /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'd genuinely be willing to bet a lot. I've tried it with even very good recordings. It's not easy unblinded. I wouldn't wish to try since I know I'd fail the test. There's a lot of talk here.

Encoder (for 320kbps) and sound clip might have to be picked carefully.
Xing or Blade MP3 encoder and one of those problematic samples should nail it . . .

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nealric /img/forum/go_quote.gif I disagree. I'm wiling to bet good money that next to nobody can differentiate 320k from FLAC in a blind test- no matter how fancy their rig.

No assumption in your claim, huh? Don't assume that everyone else's ears are as bad as yours. McDonald's h+**\brlllgers are cheap and available everywhere. Problem is, they taste like wet sawdust. Which doesn't stop them from being the best selling h-m--brs on the planet. Oh! I'm sorry! Our burger compression algorithm assumes that people don't care about beef taste, so we don't include it! But our h---mb---gr--s are just as good as a fresh, actual HAMBURGER, right?....RIGHT?????

Quote:

Originally Posted by nealric /img/forum/go_quote.gif The reason Mp3s are nice is because just about every device will play them.

My turntable does not play MP3s. Does yours?

Quote:

Originally Posted by nealric /img/forum/go_quote.gif If my home rig is full of FLAC files, I have to deal with converting to Mp3 when I play it on my car stereo (takes mp3s), my phone (will play FLAC, but doesn't have enough space for a lot of it), or any other device. If I want to take a drive full of music to play elsewhere, I don't have to download a codec to play it.

If your car stereo doesn't play FLACs or WAVs, you don't need MP3s; you need a better car stereo.

If you are taking a drive full of music somewhere, and you have to settle for lossy compression...go somewhere else.

Do fries come with that MP3...?

 

[aimlink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif Encoder (for 320kbps) and sound clip might have to be picked carefully. Xing or Blade MP3 encoder and one of those problematic samples should nail it . . .

I'd be willing to do so with a number of encoders and problematic, as well as, non-problematic samples. If it's so easy to tell the difference, there shouldn't be any fuss.

 

[aimlink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrBenway /img/forum/go_quote.gif No assumption in your claim, huh? Don't assume that everyone else's ears are as bad as yours. McDonald's h+**\brlllgers are cheap and available everywhere. Problem is, they taste like wet sawdust. Which doesn't stop them from being the best selling h-m--brs on the planet. Oh! I'm sorry! Our burger compression algorithm assumes that people don't care about beef taste, so we don't include it! But our h---mb---gr--s are just as good as a fresh, actual HAMBURGER, right?....RIGHT?????

Bad ears eh? 320Kbps?

It's such a pity that we can't do this test properly have to settle for these comments without proof. So easy to make these claims on a discussion board.

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aimlink /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'd be willing to do so with a number of encoders and problematic, as well as, non-problematic samples. If it's so easy to tell the difference, there shouldn't be any fuss.

There is no debate about the fidelity of uncompressed music. There is no debate about the fact that the MP3 format was developed because storage was expensive and bandwidth was limited.

Well, welcome to the 21st century, Y'all!! Storage is no longer expensive. Bandwidth is no longer limited -- not in the way it was.

Given that, whey would you want to subject your music to a COMPLETELY superfluous process that cannot, cannot, CANNOT improve sound?

File compression was an expediency whose time has past. Sorry about your ears. But even if you think you can't tell the difference, why would you want to impose an additional layer of processing between you and the music, when AT BEST, all that additional layer can do is no harm?

 

[ca95f]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrBenway /img/forum/go_quote.gif File compression was an expediency whose time has past...

OMG!!! Do the guys at rarlabs know that ??? (j.k.)

It is true that MP3 has served as well. Very well indeed. Remember, the MP3 is supposed to be the portable format - and as portable it was supposed to replace the Compact Cassete and all the tape "walkmans" - and it did it very well. And it lasts longer than cassetes.
It was not meant to be a direct replacement for someones vinyl LP collection. The fact that people compare it with their record player gives kudos to the mp3 format. The platform's intergration has grown to be much wider than anyone has ever imagined. My TV plays MP3 and except from my power amps, all of my hi-fi components play MP3, my digital frame plays MP3, even my digital alarm clock accepts MP3 as wake up music tones.

FLAC or some other prettier lossless compression technology is of course prefferable, but for the moment it is not that standardised, and not much supported from hardware makers. As MP3 was 12 years ago.

Now, the good stuff. CD ripping is almost never a 100% accurate rip (even when using accurate rip). A CD clone is never a 100% perfect clone (in fact Philips mentions a pretty serious "generation degradation" of audio quality when copying original CDs). How can FLAC, or WAV be as good as a CD? It can't. It is just that the difference is practically inaudible. Which for me, is exactly the same case with a properly encoded 320Kbps MP3.

On the other hand, some people claim they can hear differences in sound when reversing their speaker cables (directionally) - which is not the case for me.

So, it is true that 320Kbps MP3 is almost as good as the real thing, but it is not the real thing itself. Some of us can hear it, most of us cannot - and a few of us that can't think than can.

 

[regal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ca95f /img/forum/go_quote.gif Now, the good stuff. CD ripping is almost never a 100% accurate rip (even when using accurate rip). A CD clone is never a 100% perfect clone (in fact Philips mentions a pretty serious "generation degradation" of audio quality when copying original CDs)..

EAC is much more accurate than any CDP, thats rediculous.

 

[aimlink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrBenway /img/forum/go_quote.gif There is no debate about the fidelity of uncompressed music. There is no debate about the fact that the MP3 format was developed because storage was expensive and bandwidth was limited. Well, welcome to the 21st century, Y'all!! Storage is no longer expensive. Bandwidth is no longer limited -- not in the way it was. Given that, whey would you want to subject your music to a COMPLETELY superfluous process that cannot, cannot, CANNOT improve sound? File compression was an expediency whose time has past. Sorry about your ears. But even if you think you can't tell the difference, why would you want to impose an additional layer of processing between you and the music, when AT BEST, all that additional layer can do is no harm?

Keep your eye on the ball. I use lossless files personally.

I'm betting that YOU or anyone else here will EASILY be able to distinguish between 320Kbps and lossless music using any cans and any gear with a range of music. We are not talking graphs and wave forms. We are referring to your ears and your ability to hear the difference.

I'm willing to make that bet. What does that have to do with subjecting my own ears to anything?? You seem to be one of the talkers here too.

 

[aimlink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ca95f /img/forum/go_quote.gif OMG!!! Do the guys at rarlabs know that ??? (j.k.) Now, the good stuff. CD ripping is almost never a 100% accurate rip (even when using accurate rip). A CD clone is never a 100% perfect clone (in fact Philips mentions a pretty serious "generation degradation" of audio quality when copying original CDs). How can FLAC, or WAV be as good as a CD? It can't. It is just that the difference is practically inaudible. Which for me, is exactly the same case with a properly encoded 320Kbps MP3. On the other hand, some people claim they can hear differences in sound when reversing their speaker cables (directionally) - which is not the case for me. So, it is true that 320Kbps MP3 is almost as good as the real thing, but it is not the real thing itself. Some of us can hear it, most of us cannot - and a few of us that can't think than can.

Some come on these boards and claim they can, knowing full well that they're doing so without having to prove this is the case. If this were so, we'd be in for some serious laughter when the bragging is laid to rest.

I personally rip to lossless. I originally did to 256kbps. However, I switched and started ripping as well as re-ripping previously ripped material because on more than a few occasions, I'd hear significant differences between the 256kbps rips and their lossless versions. For peace of mind, I went to lossless. However, I do have some 320Kbps ripped material and have yet been able to tell the difference with the lossless versions. I'd assume that this is why hdtracks.com would offer 320kbps mp3's as one of their provided formats for download.

My beef is with these comments thrown around about being able to easily tell the difference and even if a difference is heard, to appreciate the difference as a degradation in sound quality. This latter part is also important since while I've heard differences between 256kbps and lossless music, I've on many of those occasions heard the difference, but not really considered it as a degradation in sound quality but just a difference. What happens in that situation is that you know you're appreciating the difference but you're not sure which one is the lossless vs the 256kbps mp3. OTOH, on other occasions, it's quite clear which the lossless version is. It's a finicky and not easy business between those two formats. 320Kbps takes this to another level and I'd wager big that MOST who think they can easily tell the difference between 320Kbps and lossless files, simply can't.

 

[TheOtus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Necrolic /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, there is a difference, but if it costs me 3 times as much to buy CDs instead of 320kbps MP3 albums, I'd rather accept the VERY slight difference that I wouldn't notice unless I was analyzing the hell out of the music anyways.

Good luck with that... As far as I know, especially older CD´s cost more to download than buy the actual CD. Lets see, for example 14 songs, and the CD costs 8€. If I donwload them, they cost almost 14€. At least in finnish services and iTunes. And I get only a damn folder containing the files. There´s just that something about an actual CD. Heck, I love to buy even singles. Going OT...

 

[aimlink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheOtus /img/forum/go_quote.gif Good luck with that... As far as I know, especially older CD´s cost more to download than buy the actual CD. Lets see, for example 14 songs, and the CD costs 8€. If I donwload them, they cost almost 14€. At least in finnish services and iTunes. And I get only a damn folder containing the files. There´s just that something about an actual CD. Heck, I love to buy even singles. Going OT...

Indeed. For practicalities sake, Amazon is a good place to browse for bargains on good quality, used, CD's. I've purchased many of those and have ripped them to lossless, a much cheaper alternative to purchasing downloads online, without even considering formats.