[Sonic 748i]

Quote:

Meh, I think this thread is dead :/

I guess so, but, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I believe you.

 

[Pepsi]

Quote:

lol reminds me of that one thread when a new member posted saying pretty much the exact same thing, and that caused a few pages of "What are you smoking?" replies. Needless to say, the guy never replied to any of the questions or criticisms.

I was so close to reformatting my ipod. 

 
No, but seriously 320 and flac is the same to me, i just use lossless for the piece of mind that i might be missing out on microscopic amounts of quality.

 

[moriez]

As the OP thinks this thread is dead already allow me to go off-topic again.
 
Quote:

Sharing something on a discussion forum = opening a discussion.

Thats your opinion but its not that strict. Opening a thread leaves room for discussion. The OP wasnt even fishing for replies no matter the controversial topic

 

[Zurg]

I have no doubt the OP perceives a difference between the FLAC and 320kbs mp3.  The placebo effect is interesting precisely because it is quite real.  Do NOT rain on my parade, and please pass the sugar pills.
 
In the earlier days of MP3s, many of the observed flaws in sound quality were due to software coding errors in the encoder. It is not as much of a problem today, but always make sure you are using a good encoder.
 
P.S.  I am a bit surprised the moderating hand of god has not descended upon us all for speaking of that which must not be spoken, the source of ever-burning troll fire...  the dreaded DBT.  (gasp!)
 
P.P.S.  The original title of the post made me think that the OP made the FLAC from the mp3 until I read his actual post.  Hence the confusion of many in this thread.
 
P.P.P.S  (too many Ps?)  Nothing is forever, but the bits of your MP3s are just as safe as the bits of your FLACs on your hard drive. Hard drives do fail, however.  Failure to back up your stuff is a noob error.  You have been warned.  What you should really be worrying about is the bits on your burnt optical media.

 

[thornygravy]

I've done DBT with 320kbps and Flac files.. I couldn't tell the difference. I have pretty good ear, so it's hard for me to believe that people can tell the difference.

 

[Superfrag]

On most and recent recordings, they sound very similar TBH. On good classical recordings, and great recordings as well, there is perceivable difference. Obviously, YMMV.

 

[Hipstergarabe]

Doublepost, sorry

 

[Hipstergarabe]

Quote:

Hearing the difference now isn't the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is 'lossy'. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA - it's about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don't want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.

I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrange...well don't get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. FLAC rips from the same period still sound great, even if they weren't stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to FLAC, you may not be able to hear the difference now, but in a year or two, you'll be glad you did.

 

I have a PhD in Digital Music Conservation from the University of South Carolina. I have to stress that the phenomenon known as "digital dust" is the real problem regarding conservation of music, and any other type of digital file. Digital files are stored in digital filing cabinets called "directories" which are prone to "digital dust" - slight bit alterations that happen now or then. Now, admittedly, in its ideal, pristine condition, a piece of musical work encoded in FLAC format contains more information than the same piece encoded in MP3, however, as the FLAC file is bigger, it accumulates, in fact, MORE digital dust than the MP3 file. Now you might say that the density of dust is the same. That would be a naive view. Since MP3 files are smaller, they can be much more easily stacked together and held in "drawers" called archive files (Zip, Rar, Lha, etc.) ; in such a configuration, their surface-to-volume ratio is minimized. Thus, they accumulate LESS digital dust and thus decay at a much slower rate than FLACs. All this is well-known in academia, alas the ignorant hordes just think that because it's bigger, it must be better.

 

[Superfrag]

So.. by your explanation, which is the best practical way to listen to lossless? Use SSD's for storage?

 

[moriez]

This might help you Superfrag. If not, then have a laugh
 
http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/451369/why-flac-is-better

 

[plonter]

I also never did a AB comparison to see if i can hear the difference,but i still use lossless on my portable because i have all the space i need so why not..?
anyway,I think that the "difference" between lossless and high bitrate lossy (in case that one can detect them) lies in aspects like soundstage,space,overall deepness of the tones, overall refinement...things like that,and not straight farrward things like bass treble and midrange.  
if one looks straight at the tones (frequency response) he will probably not be able to tell the difference, you need to look beyond the tones and look at the whole picture...know what i mean?   i am not saying it is so,but this is what my logic tells me.
maybe when not trying to detect the difference so much it will be much more easier when just relaxing and enjoying the music.

 

[Young Spade]

Quote:

On most and recent recordings, they sound very similar TBH. On good classical recordings, and great recordings as well, there is perceivable difference. Obviously, YMMV.

I agree, and this is why I only rip FLAC versions of Acoustic and Classical music. Other "digital" music like rap, pop, hardcore/alternative etc. I use mp3 320 or don't worry about getting a FLAC version.
 
Oh and side note; I JUST started watching Mentalist. My physics teacher told me it was a good show and I know what your icon means now Only on the 2nd episode of the 1st season but I can tell it's going to be good. 

 

[BoogieWoogie]

Quote:

Don't need to. Music sounds a lot better. I know a lot of people state that I need to do a blind test or whatever to really see if I can tell the difference but IMO it's my ears and I obviously hear a difference in all areas. I don't need to do a blind test to tell me what I already know.
 
I'm not discrediting the whole blind testing thing and honestly I think it's a good thing but I feel that sometimes people here get a little too caught up in it and feel they need to tell everyone to ABX something to PROVE they're right or wrong. 
 
IMO it seriously comes down to how good your equipment is.If your equipment isn't revealing enough, you obviously won't hear the differences. 

 
After moving to FLAC I though mp3 sounded so crappy in compare even testing the same songs mp3 and flac over and over , let me correct this, I WAS SURE but I still kept the two versions of each album. Until this day that I by mistake  got this album playing and I was rocking on how good it sounded , surprise surprise it when I noticed it was an 320kbs Mp3 I couldn't believe it..And this were with decent speakers system so I would suggest the blind test, psychology does strange things.

 

[falis]

i dunno'.  To me the point of flac is having a good archive that you can then convert or not to suit your needs and preferences.  Maybe it sounds better to me, but as long as it's not a strain on the playback chain, I'll use it most of the time rather than down-converting.
 
- Ed

 

[sgrossklass]

Quote:

http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/451369/why-flac-is-better

Epic...