FLAC VS MP3

[Cerb]

Oh, just ruin all the fun, Jeff7!

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Ok, I shall summarize that which has been said and flamed:


FLAC is lossless. Re-encode it as much as you want, it'll still be the same as what comes off of the CD. It has a worse compression ratio than MP3 for that reason, and so it will take up more disk space than MP3.

Whether or not it'll sound different is subjective, much as monitor refresh rates. Some people don't mind 60Hz. I personally prefer 85Hz or higher; 60Hz gives me a headache quickly.

So, to the OP:
Re-encode one of your CDs to FLAC, and listen to it. If there's enough of a difference to you to justify the additional hard drive space usage, the time of re-encoding all your discs, and the knowledge that your CD collection is archivd losslessly, then do it. Otherwise, don't.


Concerning the butterfly effect of minor distortions, that's probably best left to a philosophy discussion. Yes your mind may well perceive it. But it just might not matter, and so you really won't remember or notice it. The brain uses very lossy processing and compression. Data gets thrown out all the time without your conscious approval or knowledge.

thx

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Originally posted by: Pariah

Originally posted by: ixelion
Basically is lossless that much better that compressed?

If you can't hear the difference, then, no, lossless isn't better at all. Don't pay attention to what anyone else says. Do your own test encodings. If you can't tell the difference, don't waste your time reencoding.

Any player supporting OGG can can play FLAC files too. When encoding, put the FLAC in an OGG wrapper. Presto!

Not true. Your ability to post disinformation appears to know no bounds here.

How would the OGG file not work on an OGG player?

It is you who have posted misinformation in several audio threads, as well as supporting the bad info of others.

 

[imported_toot]

I don't know if this is what hurtstotalktoyou was saying, but this is how I interpreted it anyway..

Even if in 1,000 listening tests, you can't distinguish any difference between a high quality mp3 and the original, there is a difference that's still affecting you.. or some people. Maybe the minute artifacts can affect your mood, or even give you a headache.

Or maybe it works the other way; the tiny artifacts can make you high

I would guess there haven't been any tests done on this..

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler

Originally posted by: Pariah

Originally posted by: ixelion
Basically is lossless that much better that compressed?

If you can't hear the difference, then, no, lossless isn't better at all. Don't pay attention to what anyone else says. Do your own test encodings. If you can't tell the difference, don't waste your time reencoding.

Any player supporting OGG can can play FLAC files too. When encoding, put the FLAC in an OGG wrapper. Presto!

Not true. Your ability to post disinformation appears to know no bounds here.

How would the OGG file not work on an OGG player?

You're not thinking clearly. It's, "how would the FLAC file play at all in the Ogg Vorbis player?
My I5 will do Ogg Vorbis...but not FLAC in an Ogg container. Software players will do it, generally, but pure software players are not all the players with Ogg file format support.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: toot
Or maybe it works the other way; the tiny artifacts can make you high

If that were the case, I'd forget about FLAC, and argue for 64k Xing MP3s! Munchies and distorted senses FTW!