Quality vs format, lossless vs lossy

[djghostaxel]

Id take flac audience recording over soundboard mp3 anyday
I HATE MP3S:P
i dont have any mp3 files on my computer anywhere only flacs

[cØcØtimbØ]

Why not try mpc? I know you cannot play it everywhere but instead of mp3...

[therocker]

from a stereo audiophile review.
Basically, if you want true CD quality from the files on your iPod or music server, you must use WAV or AIF encoding or FLAC, ALC, or WMA Lossless. Both MP3 and AAC introduce fairly large changes in the measured spectra, even at the highest rate of 320kbps. There seems little point in spending large sums of money on superbly specified audio equipment if you are going to play sonically compromised, lossy-compressed music on it.
mp3 is crap quality.

[Tobysboots]

Originally Posted by therocker

from a stereo audiophile review.
Basically, if you want true CD quality from the files on your iPod or music server, you must use WAV or AIF encoding or FLAC, ALC, or WMA Lossless. Both MP3 and AAC introduce fairly large changes in the measured spectra, even at the highest rate of 320kbps. There seems little point in spending large sums of money on superbly specified audio equipment if you are going to play sonically compromised, lossy-compressed music on it.
mp3 is crap quality.

Well, yes and no. I think it's best to archive lossless IF you're actually playing from your computer as a server. But if you're really just downloading to a portable, MP3 can make sense. Even if your player can accommodate lossless, you can pack more stuff, and you can load the files more quickly if you're trying to get out the door. Lossless files often run 700-800kbps, so a 250ish MP3 is only 1/3 of that.

As for the "crap quality", well, that depends a LOT on the bitrate and also a LOT on your brain. To me, the sub-100k rates used in satellite radio, internet streams, and HD Radio sound full of obvious coding artifacts, like singers sounding like they are gargling and so on. The iTunes default of 128k AAC doesn't sound "awful" but really sounds lifeless. But up past 200k, my personal auditory system stops complaining and can ENJOY the music without noticing anything obviously amiss. If I do an A/B comparison, I can hear differences, but by itself the MP3 is quite listenable. (I run 224kbps VBR, usually out of XLD). Some people may be extra sensitive to coding artifacts, and thus may feel anything but lossless is unacceptable, but the % of folks who could really detect at the maximum 320k MP3 rate is tiny.

Let's not forget the source matters as well: really, is some audience hand-taping recorded from a primitive early Van Halen P.A. system really going to be "damaged" by coding down to 192k?

A different and very good reason for lossless is for distribution, especially of material which may be burned to CD/DVD or re-ripped for a portable.

[HighPingDrifter]

I try not to DL nothing less than MP3@320, or FLAC. This is not always possible, but I try. When I want to transfer something to my portable mp3 player, I first transcode it (using MediaCoder) to a v0 vbr, which I find (assuming you're starting with a good recording) gives me a good sound quality with a reasonable file size. (I should probably state that I use a good pair of ear plugs with the mp3 player)

And, FWIW, I agree with djmedi4, I think it should be mandatory to post the file type & bitrate, source (AUD, SBD, Pre-FM, etc), and general sound quality (VG+, etc) so we know ahead of time a recording is crap. I really hate when a poster says "great sound wuality!" and it's a mp3@128. WTF?? If you're nerve-dead and deaf to boot, then yeah, maybe it sounds good, but to the rest of us with some kind of hearing left, it sounds like s***.

Just my $.02.


.H*P*D.

"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -H.L. Mencken-

[Tobysboots]

Originally Posted by HighPingDrifter

...I agree with djmedi4, I think it should be mandatory to post the file type & bitrate, source (AUD, SBD, Pre-FM, etc), and general sound quality (VG+, etc) so we know ahead of time a recording is crap. I really hate when a poster says "great sound wuality!" and it's a mp3@128. WTF??

Oh, YEAH

In one particular instance, I did a lot of fooling around to get an Iron Maiden "Piece" (ha ha), only to find it is 128k and dull/unclear.

The performance is quite good, and Bruce says it is being recorded for broadcast, so the source would have been pre-FM or at least FM.
--> Curses on whoever squeezed the life out of it
...and the didn't tell us!

[Mlotek]

Originally Posted by HighPingDrifter

I try not to DL nothing less than MP3@320, or FLAC. This is not always possible, but I try. When I want to transfer something to my portable mp3 player, I first transcode it (using MediaCoder) to a v0 vbr, which I find (assuming you're starting with a good recording) gives me a good sound quality with a reasonable file size. (I should probably state that I use a good pair of ear plugs with the mp3 player)

And, FWIW, I agree with djmedi4, I think it should be mandatory to post the file type & bitrate, source (AUD, SBD, Pre-FM, etc), and general sound quality (VG+, etc) so we know ahead of time a recording is crap. I really hate when a poster says "great sound wuality!" and it's a mp3@128. WTF?? If you're nerve-dead and deaf to boot, then yeah, maybe it sounds good, but to the rest of us with some kind of hearing left, it sounds like s***.

Just my $.02.


.H*P*D.

Thanks for sharing that!
Recently on the site here, I was called an "anal retentive wanker" for wanting to know details of uploads



.

[HighPingDrifter]

Anal Retentive has nothing to do it it...I have a list of boots I am looking to upgrade from mp3@128. Irritates me to no end that someone did that. Seems like every time I DL a Black Crowes boot, someone has downsampled it to mp3@128/wma@128...great/awesome/stellar performances, relegated to dismal/crap/OMFG sound quality. Chafes my ass in a big, big way, for sure.

So, no, you are not alone in your views. Really, how hard is it to post that pertinent info...take someone an extra 30 seconds?? So do it already!

/Rant Mode OFF


.H*P*D.

[aerocool]

Funny thing is to rip of sound of a DVD(-Video) which has mostly lossy audio on it (AC3, DTS) and then encoding that to FLAC. This makes no sense at all.
Unless the audio codec on the DVD was LCPM - which is not bad.

[splhcb]

I'll take good old analog reel-to-reel as long as the tape hasn't started falling apart.

[nevermind]

i like both,if a show rocks your socks off go with flac,if it just has 1 or 2 great tunzs,go with mp3...enjoy life is too short!!.....just crank that mother up to 11....

I used to be a FLAC purist but realize that folks want their MP3's, so let them have them. I personally never share lossy anymore unless it is the ONLY way a show can be found, such as the new Bowie release "Toys"

anyway here I am so

[therocker]

lossy still sux

Originally Posted by therocker

lossy still sux

indubitably

[Tobysboots]

Originally Posted by ApeShit#69

I used to be a FLAC purist but realize that folks want their MP3's, so let them have them. I personally never share lossy anymore...

Well, again there are good practical reasons for MP3 sometimes. So what I really really appreciate is when someone posts BOTH.

But definitely (oops, I guess I'm guilty on some re-posts) the bitrate should be listed, so people can decide based on their hardware and hearing and priorities.