[warrior05]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrBenway /img/forum/go_quote.gif Even if you can't tell the difference, if you one day move up to higher resolution equipment, that difference may become apparant, perhaps painfully so.

Bingo! Give that Head-Fi'er a cigar! Seriously, all the above posts I think are reason enough and DrBenway's point is good pro-active thinking. Because with this hobby, you are always looking for more.

 

[keiron99]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrBenway /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you have the disk space, and if you have a player that will handle FLACS (and yes, they do exist), then their is, in my opinion, no reason to bother with lossy formats. They suck. All of them.

That's a bit strong! I use Apple lossless, only because I see no reason not to given the disc space I have, and I like the Itunes interface. But in my opinion, through my Perpetual Technologies DAC, Stax headphones or Dynaudio speakers, I cannot distinguish any difference bwteen a well encoded MP3 or AAC and the lossless file. You may well be able to, but they most certainly do not "suck"! File compression is a miracle of modern technology if you ask me.

 

[Sycraft]

The major reasons:

1) No concern about anything ever needing to be better. While it is highly unlikely that a technology will come out that makes 320k MP3 non-transparent, such a ting is possible. Maybe GKS introduces CyberEars(tm) that you can have implanted that increase your hearing or whatever. Either way, FLAC is a mathematically lossless scheme, so there's no better quality to be had out of a given source.

2) No concern about post processing. One problem MP3 does have is it is based on the human perception of sound. Fine, however the assumptions it makes aren't valid if post processing is done. That's why MP3 may sound fine for a final song, but is a bad idea for the samples used to make that song.

3) No extra loss going to other formats. Transcoding from one lossy format to another is a bad idea. At best, you get all the flaws of both. However sometimes it's even worse, since the processing of the transcode reveals flaws that weren't audible before. No problem with a lossless format, if you've reason to go lossy, it is as good as going from the original.

Are these major things? No not really but then given that harddrives are now under $150 for 500GB (I just picked up a bunch of Seagate perpendicular 500GB drives from Newegg for about $140 each for work) it's not really a big deal. Just FLAC and forget about it.

That's not to say you can't go using MP3s, nothing wrong with that, these are just the reasons why some people choose to use FLAC.

 

[ShadowVlican]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sycraft /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just FLAC and forget about it.

QFT.

 

[sonance]

Even if you believe that MP3 sounds fine, or if your portable only supports MP3 / AAC / WMA, there are still reasons to keep everything lossless - because it will survive a round trip.
I can burn a FLAC, RIP the CD to FLAC and I'd still have an identical file.

I'll often take the CD I'm listening to in my car, take it in to my office PC, rip and listen to it, and so on. When copying MP3s to my phone (only supports MP3 / WMA), I just right click on the FLAC files on my PC and use dbPowerAmp to convert / copy it to MP3 on the fly.

FLAC will never "go away" - its an open standard. Apple keeps updating their codecs, and I'm always afraid that I'd have some unsupported files in the future with their proprietary stuff. The only real alternative to FLAC is WAV - if you can follow a naming standard rigorously so that you don't lose your tags.

 

[Rempert]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrBenway /img/forum/go_quote.gif Whether or not the difference between a WAV and a 320k MP3 is audible to you, the simple fact is that even a "high bit rate" MP3 throws away most of the file. At 320k you are left with about one quarter of the original information in the file.

That is simply absurd. Have you ever heard 4 bit audio? It does not sound much like a 320 kbs mp3. 1/4 of original file size does not equal 1/4 of the original information, not by a long shot.

 

[Cousin Patty]

The Reason I use FLAC is simple:

1) Piece of mind knowing that I have exactly whats on the real CD
2) I have the space
3) Transcoding/archiving purposes
4) I've spent a lot of money on expensive equipment and headphones. Why the hell would I not want to feed them the best sound quality I can?
5) My DAP supports it.

If you dont have the space...thats a bummer. HD space is cheaper than ever now a-days. If you're only using a DAP to listen to music, then no, FLAC is not very practical. I only keep a selection of my favorite CD's on my DAP in FLAC. No biggie. But for at-home computer use, I dont see why you'd want anything else...

 

[Rempert]

With regard to portable players, having a flac archive on your computer gives you the ability to transcode very quickly. This could be a real savior if you need to change the format of your lossy music for whatever reason.

As for having a lossless archive for home listening, the question perhaps should not be "Why?" but rather "Why not?" Cost of hard drive space needed to store an album is only a few percent compared to actual album costs. Anyone who claims they cannot afford a hard drive to store their music in lossless is either wrong, or pirating a lot of music.

 

[Digitalbath3737]

Archiving is the only reason I use FLAC.

 

[Icarium]

Plus I mean there are audible differences. Sure you might need to find one of those pages with samples of various artifacts that can be generated by a compression algorithm then do side by side comparisons sevearl times before picking stuff out... but it is audible i.e. detectable by a human ear. With that being said... as you move towards better and better gear it will only stand out more and bother you more. This is also true for music that you plan on listening to over and over again for the rest of your life.

 

[dougwx12]

My reasons are similar to many others. In ten years, when mp9xxPHAT is all the rage instead of mp3, converting your mp3 collection will require digging out your CDs. Converting my lossless will not.

Simply put, it removes the "what devices support my format" question entirely.

 

[genax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilly /img/forum/go_quote.gif for purely PC based audio, with your own CD's, not talking about purchased music, what is "wrong" quality wise with using say WMA lossless (apart from the fact people dont like microsoft/ dont want to use WMP) or Apple Lossless (apart from above but replace for Apple/ itunes). I personally thing playing wise, why do i need extra codecs to play stuff? FLAC isnt a universal PC's stand (ie works out of the box with windows install), you either need Codecs, Foobar2000 or Winamp etc, its all just more stuff on your PC. That is unless your can say that one lossless format is better than another. And didnt someone proove with the graphs that 320k mp3 is 99% perfect copy up to circa 22Khz, missing off all the stuff we cant hear anyway? To sum up what I said, my lossless format of choice isnt FLAC, its WMA lossless because i need 1 program to rip, play and manage my library. Why do you need EAC to read it, some other program to convert it to FLAC then some other program for playing/ library when it will sound the same? I use another PC with itunes on, thats got all the stuff on Apple lossless.

so i am guessing wma or apllac lossless formats are equivalent to one another correct? please stop with the FLAC is the format of choice. i just need to know if they are identical

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by genax /img/forum/go_quote.gif so i am guessing wma or apllac lossless formats are equivalent to one another correct? please stop with the FLAC is the format of choice. i just need to know if they are identical

All lossless formats are identical quality wise. Hence the lossless name...
Their differences are:

1. Software support.
2. Hardware support.
3. Compression rate.
4. Encoding/decoding speed.
5. Features (tags, artwork, etc...)

 

[dougwx12]

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif All lossless formats are identical quality wise. Hence the lossless name... Their differences are: Software support. Hardware support. Compression rate. Encoding/decoding speed. Features (tags, artwork, etc...)

What he said. And furthermore, as long as you can convert between the one you pick and the others, the choice is meaningless. Pick whichever supports your favorite player.

 

[snowball_rx-7]

because i did ABX tests in foobar, I noticed a sound stage diffrence. The diffrence is very very slight but its enough for me to get the ABX tests right with songs i know. That is reason enough for me especially if i buy/build better gear.