[dougwx12]

Quote:

Originally Posted by unclejr /img/forum/go_quote.gif 1. Standards 2. Bandwidth

I found your arguments a little strange.

For #1, everything you said is true for any lossless format. Great argument for lossless for your digital masters, but nothing for FLAC specifically.

For #2, peer to peer networks and bandwidth concerns would argue for high bitrate lossy encoding, not lossless at all. If you scale things to everyone on the internet, I think the iTunes Music Store has proven that even really lossy but manageably small is much better for bandwidth, and satisfies most folks desire for quality.

I'm a big proponent of lossless in general (not FLAC specifically and not for portables) as my previous posts will attest, but I'm not quite sure what you were trying to say.

 

[unclejr]

Hey, sorry for not being more clear. The two points were meant to be complementary and not separate within the context of the discussion. So "bandwidth" does seem kind of silly unless, as stated before, you buy into the idea of not willing to compromise on quality (hence lossless codecs - one of which is FLAC).

I'd say the majority of the time I run into shorten and flac files. I guess for whatever reason I'm seeing more flacs than shortens recently, though I don't know why, and this is purely anecdotal evidence, at best.

But having two major lossless formats isn't bad, compared to all the different types of compressed audio formats around (and video formats are worse).

In regard to p2p networks, I mentioned bittorrent but I am talking legitimate, band supported, live music bootleg trading, which upholds quality first in the trading community (in theory, though unscrupulous exceptions exist).

So, if there is absolutely no compromise on quality (such as should be in the trading community), then arguing for compressed lossless audio is a great way of helping to ease bandwidth. So is bittorrent for distribution, by the way.

And I don't want to veer too far from the original question, but I find the current state of internet music distribution troubling because of exactly this issue of unbridled poor quality distribution of audio. Makes it very difficult to find well recorded, high fidelity stuff ....



Quote:

Originally Posted by dougwx12 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I found your arguments a little strange. For #1, everything you said is true for any lossless format. Great argument for lossless for your digital masters, but nothing for FLAC specifically. For #2, peer to peer networks and bandwidth concerns would argue for high bitrate lossy encoding, not lossless at all. If you scale things to everyone on the internet, I think the iTunes Music Store has proven that even really lossy but manageably small is much better for bandwidth, and satisfies most folks desire for quality. I'm a big proponent of lossless in general (not FLAC specifically and not for portables) as my previous posts will attest, but I'm not quite sure what you were trying to say.

 

[Redo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by error401 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just use V0 or V2 or whatever's transparent to you and be done with it. If that means FLAC then use FLAC, but for most people it doesn't. And if you own the music I don't see any reason not to use MP3. It will be a standard that works in portables, software etc. for a long time to come, and IMO anyway sounds good enough for anything but the most critical of listening. Then you don't have to reencode at all, just copy the files...anything under the ~192kbps of V2 sounds like garbage, even on a portable.

Anything under 192kbps doesn't sound like garbage to me, it sounds just fine. It is however easier to spot the differences when ABXing below 192kbps. At least with LAME or OGG, I'm not too familiar with the differences between other codecs.

I still don't have any reason to store my music as mp3. I have the disc space, and .flac is the best choice. Come time for portable use, or if I want to ABX the differences between formats, encoding to lossy formats is very simple with foobar.

 

[genax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Altoids /img/forum/go_quote.gif While I maintain that FLAC is near useless and an utter waste on portable players, I'd still recommend you archive all of your music in that or some other lossless format. You should listen to some of the advice above. Lossless compression is essential for an audiophile; if anything ever happens to your CDs, you'll want backups, when better lossy codecs arise, you'll want bit-identical copies of your music to re-encode. Don't use it on portables, you can't hear the difference. Use it if your computer is your source and you've got a high-definition setup, because you can hear a difference. Full-size speakers hate mp3s. Buy an external hard drive (or two) and archive your music. Trust me.

thanks guys i really enjoy this thread especially as a noobs. i plan on sending back the trekstor for the zune ($150 brand new for 30 gigs is pretty good). i plan on using just zune and and some ER4S, once i get them. i originally planned on sticking with the trekstor but so far i really like the zune. even though the trekstor sounds better default setting and lossless formats and e2c .
here's my dilemma. i mainly listen to light rock, pop, and live albums- christian music. i'm wondering if i use my dap for portable use as well as at church. for example i plug my dap into the huge equalizer thing (its a huge 4ft by 4ft board with 4hz, 10hz, etc) via earphone port. which format and bitrate should i use? should i use vbr? cbr? i noticed right away the lossless format is so much better then lossy formats at church. naked ear with e2c, i can tell a big difference. i've tested aac, mp3, and wma formats of different bitrates (very time consuming). lossless: wma and flac. i'm starting to take notice i don't like anything below 2xx kbps bitrate. i can't find that 'just right' sound without sacrificing so much hd space. please help me out. im tired of testing! to summarize:

format - lossy - vbr cbr, bitrate? wma or mp3? or stick to lossless?
where:

1. in my lancer via line out and
2. in my elantra and tape deck
3. at school via iem
4. at church via equalizer into 6 huge jbl speakers

music type: soft rock, rock, pop, live worship - christian mostly
headphones: e2c and er4s

sorry for going off topic and any help would be appreciated

 

[Altoids]

Quote:

Originally Posted by genax /img/forum/go_quote.gif i'm starting to take notice i don't like anything below 2xx kbps bitrate. i can't find that 'just right' sound without sacrificing so much hd space. please help me out. im tired of testing! to summarize:

That very long question did the favor of answering itself. Use FLAC when you can and high quality mp3s when you can't (Lame 3.98a11 V=0/320CBR).

 

[EnOYiN]

Use FLAC for archiving and do some ABX test about what you are going to use for your portable. Most likely LAME 3.98a11 is one of the best lossy codecs out there right now.

 

[Icarium]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JerryJ /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not to try and Hijack this thread, but if could ask? I'm trying to make heads or tails out of all this FLAC, Foobar, EAC etc. stuff. I agree I need to use some lossless format. I checked out MAX and it seems to make sense. But, what is Foobar? I guess what I need to know is just what steps are involved/necessary to get from a CD to where you can retrieve your music, either to an Ipod, speakers or headphones. If my question makes any sense?

For your needs if you want to go with optimum sound quality than to rip your music you'll want EAC (Exact Audio Copy) and that suggested Lame codec. After you get those loaded on your machine then ripping would become pretty self explanatory. You might want to do some more research as to what settings you want to go with... whether it be FLAC or something like Lame v0 VBR.

After that I (And many others) would suggest foobar2000 for playback on your machine whether it be through headphones or speakers. If you want to move music to your Ipod (And you haven't rockboxed it out which, well if I had an Ipod, I probably would do) and you want to use Itunes then I believe you can do something like run Itunes as a frontend backed by foobar which sounds bomb diggity.

Why foobar? It comes with like support for almost everything out of the box (So to speak) is very lightweight and anti bloated. Highly customizable. And tons of people here use it so you can always come here to get advice/tips/troubleshooting.

 

[JerryJ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Icarium /img/forum/go_quote.gif For your needs if you want to go with optimum sound quality than to rip your music you'll want EAC (Exact Audio Copy) and that suggested Lame codec. After you get those loaded on your machine then ripping would become pretty self explanatory. You might want to do some more research as to what settings you want to go with... whether it be FLAC or something like Lame v0 VBR. After that I (And many others) would suggest foobar2000 for playback on your machine whether it be through headphones or speakers. If you want to move music to your Ipod (And you haven't rockboxed it out which, well if I had an Ipod, I probably would do) and you want to use Itunes then I believe you can do something like run Itunes as a frontend backed by foobar which sounds bomb diggity. Why foobar? It comes with like support for almost everything out of the box (So to speak) is very lightweight and anti bloated. Highly customizable. And tons of people here use it so you can always come here to get advice/tips/troubleshooting.

I have an Ipod, but what is rockbox?

And thanks for the reply!

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JerryJ /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have an Ipod, but what is rockbox?

Google.com -> Rockbox

 

[Dragon Rider]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cid /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think you just lost most of the respect from head-fi members by posting that.

Differences of opinion should be accepted if truth is to be realized

 

[wshtb]

One reason against the use of WMA or Apple format is that you never knows when will they drop support for the current format, or what if MS decides to automatically/secretly add DRM to all YOUR WMA music found on your hard drive?

What if MS does some trick so that your next generation ipod won't play WMA? What if MS makes decoding WMA with third party software illegal, so you'll have to rip/buy your entire music collection again so you can use Ipod? Are you going to say "fine, I'll stick with microsoft."?

 

[DSlayerZX]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragon Rider /img/forum/go_quote.gif 1. It is not supported by any MP3 player that I know of. 2. Takes up too much hd space. 3. Most people can't tell the difference in SQ, but some think they can

are you sure?

from what I know, most of the Iaudio mp3 players support flac

yeah, I think the best thing of encoding in flac is that you don't need to worry that you are missing anything from the original SD. Plus, at the current price of around 3GB/$ why not?

 

[vcoheda]

Why FLAC:

1. lossless

2. half the size of WAV

3. Easy to convert to high quality MP3

 

[pftrvlr]

I have flac, ogg, ape in my computer - I will take whatever sounds better than MP3.

 

[UserNotFound]

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.

I don't know why anyone bothered to say anything after this. SR225's, and a very detailed custom tube amp, and you can hear the mp3 compression of the background hiss in quiet passages.