flac or 320 kpbs mp3?

i keep flacs of music i love, mp3s of music i like.

if i get low on space from billions of flacs, i can convert it later to mp3, takes minutes.

  On 3/21/2010 at 3:21 AM, Adjective said:

i keep flacs of music i love, mp3s of music i like.

if i get low on space from billions of flacs, i can convert it later to mp3, takes minutes.

what program do you use to convert to mp3? i currently convert flac to aiff in Toast, then aiff to mp3 in itunes. probably not the best way to do it.

  On 3/21/2010 at 3:27 AM, Hanratty said:

  On 3/21/2010 at 3:21 AM, Adjective said:

i keep flacs of music i love, mp3s of music i like.

if i get low on space from billions of flacs, i can convert it later to mp3, takes minutes.

 

 

what program do you use to convert to mp3? i currently convert flac to aiff in Toast, then aiff to mp3 in itunes. probably not the best way to do it.

i used foobar in windows. you have to point it to the encoders, but only the first time.

after that it's just right-click->convert to whatever

not sure the simplest ways in other OS's though

lol - i use m4a cause I'm better than you.

I do WAV rips of the CDs I own that I particularly like. If I love something, I get it on CD then do a lossless rip (and for the art, yay art).

i usually go with mp5

I use eac and lame to convert to mp3.

no need for anything more than v2

I listened to 64kbs 32khz mono mp3s of an album whilst waiting for the cd to arrive. now thats hifi 2k10 4 real.

(is that correct usage of "whilst"?)

was it for alright! ?

  On 3/21/2010 at 4:13 AM, GORDO said:

no need for anything more than v2

you music hater!

i wonder what boxing day uses to listen to his FLACs? there's about a 90% chance that my listening hardware makes his look like he hates music. i've got pretty amazing setup (external DAC, tube amp, Senn HD-650) and i often can not tell the difference between flac and a 320kbps .ogg that i make for my portable player. when i can tell the difference, it's so small that I can't be sure it's not just my imagination.

nonetheless, i have 1TB of storage and it cost $100 so why the hell not use flac for at-home listening and archiving?

yeah unless you have sweet ass speakers/headphones you use regularly, than mp3 is fine.

also, there's a whole music forum on this message board...

VBR0 because i got a iphone ..

ive got a badass stereo i spent quite alot of money on, i cant tell the difference between 320 and flac.

ok so the consensus is you cant tell 320 from lossless but what about 256? 192?

at 256 i can, usually. the highs start to go sharp, tinny and digital sounding... at 192 things get seriously bad, enough that after i got my new headphones i avoid listening to anything in my collection that's less than 256.

I try to get the stuff I like in flac

I convert it to apple lossless in case I want to have it on my iphone

the rest that is not so important to me is mp3

  On 3/21/2010 at 3:55 PM, xxx said:

  On 3/21/2010 at 3:15 AM, plstik said:

flac, because I dont have to care about storage/space

 

Storage is like the Rubbermaid bins at your local--cheap and huge. Fuck, Wal-Mart sells 1TB's for $90 so get in it! But always backup because who knows what cheapo shit's going on (it's a Western Digital, works great over 4 months so far).

 

So, I strive for .wav anymore--fuck it. FLAC is definitely my all-around format of choice because you can turn it into anything-->it's like the stem or blast cell of the body. Since I have a first generation mp3 player from around '04 (iRiver red dildo looking thing that feels like it's 5 lbs.), it only holds 256 MB, which is laughable now. However, instead of degrading one shitty mp3 down further into unlistenability, if you knock a FLAC to a 96 kBps "shit file" for getting more out of your space, it does the trick. Besides, when I'm out and about with wind, headphone leakage, etc., what does it matter at that point?

i have a 1TB which i got for around $100, but i need another one to be a copy of the first one. Because if I lose 1TB of music/software/files I will go Amish. then it's about $200, plus i need new stereo/speakers/headphones. it gets pricy this music stuff.

  On 3/21/2010 at 3:55 PM, xxx said:

  On 3/21/2010 at 3:15 AM, plstik said:

flac, because I dont have to care about storage/space

 

Storage is like the Rubbermaid bins at your local--cheap and huge. Fuck, Wal-Mart sells 1TB's for $90 so get in it! But always backup because who knows what cheapo shit's going on (it's a Western Digital, works great over 4 months so far).

Thats the reason why I spent ~30€ more on a qualified server/surveillance HD... still I back up every month or so.

I find that, when it is my own music, 320 usually sounds significantly worse than wav. But maybe that's because I can't master properly.

Music with a lot of reverb also loses something noticeable. Especially classical music recorded in a cathedral or a similar space. There is a brightness to the reverb that gets lost in 320. But it is rather subtle and doesn't make that much of a different.

has anyone actually tested to see what the roof of their hearing is?

i drop out between 18 and 17khz.

i just checked :)

i can actually hear up to 20kHz, but i have to raise the volume above 16kHz quite a lot to hear anything. if i keep the volume constant (set so that 2kHz feels comfortable), then it's between 16kHz and 16.5kHz

but seriously, if i pump up the volume, i can hear just a bit below 20kHz!

oh, and that's RME Hammerfall 9632 playing a 32-bit 192kHz generated sine sweep, headphones are sennheiser hd280pro, so i guess it's quite accurate.

i just measured again, it's around 19300Hz.

I'm now listening to a delicious 24-bit 96kHz flac file (2919kbps, about twice that of a cd) vinyl rip of a Mathew Jonson record and comparing it with the 320 conversion. The high quality file is much more comfortable to listen to.

If you've got time and interest for it, here's an interesting video that highlights some audio quality issues in a entertaining and fathomable way.

1 word, ISO image