Quality vs format, lossless vs lossy

[Bartender]

I'm still fairly new here, but it's been fun watching so many people argue over lossy vs lossless formats. Some people need to get over their hard-ons for tech and realize that QUALITY should reign supreme. I'd easily take a soundboard mp3 (although anything under 128 does really begin to suffer) over ANY audience flac recording 10/10. No disrespect to the tapers at all. Thanks for all your work, they are great souvenirs, but don't forget boys and girls, that's all they are; souvenirs, memories, memorabilia. Collecting bootlegs is a hobby, one all of us enjoy or we wouldn't be here, but bottom line - for me at least - is give me a soundboard regardless of format (which at least does the band justice - can't say the same for the audience recordings which sound like they're taped at the concession booth). Let the quality of sound in the recording, not the file format reign. And for the love of God, get over yourselves and just enjoy the music without getting hostile and angry.

Long Live Rock!

Bartender,

Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Aug.11, 2009

[Chimera1970]

Personally--I prefer at least 320kbps...anything less sounds horrible when you play it over a nice set of speakers. I also prefer either soundboards or excellent audience recordings.

I love playing music loud, but only if it sounds good. There's nothing worse than a recording that sounds as though it was taped in a trash can...

The only reason I would prefer a FLAC file would be if I were archiving something onto CD or DVD. MP3 is lossy--FLAC isn't. FLAC files make for better sources--no doubt about it.

[rocdoc]

the way i've seen it explained, flac is superior, yes...but only if you're listening to the flac directly (is it winamp that can play them?) on a computer.

to go to a play-anywhere CD, you've got to do convert to wav files.

that's where it now makes no difference what sort of source you once had.

'archiving' in terms of keeping your downloaded rar files, sure, it's better that they're flac.

in the event stand-alone flac-players become common, you'll be able to listen to them that way.

otherwise (as i understand it and i could be wrong) you're tethered to your computer's playback to hear that flac quality.

one thing that bugs me, is when someone converts to flac a source recording that is going to sound dismal no matter what format it's in.

and then there's no estimate of grade of quality.
you figure the guy's not going to convert any outright sh*t to flac right?

you go through 8 or 9 rapidshare downloads over 2-3 days time, and what you get could just as well have been 128kbps...or wma, and sounded precisely the same and saved you 95% of the effort.

yeah, if it's a 1957 sinatra show or a 1966 dylan, well, yeah the limitations are obvious.

what is the point, if the sound quality of the source material just isn't there?

[magicflute]

Originally Posted by rocdoc

the way i've seen it explained, flac is superior, yes...but only if you're listening to the flac directly (is it winamp that can play them?) on a computer.

to go to a play-anywhere CD, you've got to do convert to wav files.

that's where it now makes no difference what sort of source you once had.

'archiving' in terms of keeping your downloaded rar files, sure, it's better that they're flac.

in the event stand-alone flac-players become common, you'll be able to listen to them that way.

otherwise (as i understand it and i could be wrong) you're tethered to your computer's playback to hear that flac quality.

one thing that bugs me, is when someone converts to flac a source recording that is going to sound dismal no matter what format it's in.

and then there's no estimate of grade of quality.
you figure the guy's not going to convert any outright sh*t to flac right?

you go through 8 or 9 rapidshare downloads over 2-3 days time, and what you get could just as well have been 128kbps...or wma, and sounded precisely the same and saved you 95% of the effort.

yeah, if it's a 1957 sinatra show or a 1966 dylan, well, yeah the limitations are obvious.

what is the point, if the sound quality of the source material just isn't there?

With all due respect, this is wrong.

Converting a flac file to a wav file gives you exactly what the original wav file sounded like. Converting an mp3 back to a wav file does not! It just sounds exactly like the mp3 (which, when played back on even an average hi-fi, sounds pretty bad, depending on the bit-rate and encoder used)

[drummerfish]

if i may add my 2 cents...

1st: i don't have a fancy computer,i-pod or other devices that i can tell the difference in a flac vs mp3.i don't play music on my computer and i don't store music on it.i do need to upgrade alot of stuff,but i only listen to stuff once its burned to cd.not everyone has all the fancy tech toys.

2nd: being a musician and one who has worked many shows and have done music trades with other techs and roadies(say early 90's to 2001, which was the only way for me to get actual good quality shows) my ear is tuned to music.so yeah,i'm alittle partial to a good sounding show regardless if its in flac or mp3.i really can't tell the difference between flac and mp3 (unless the bit rate is low)

i don't even bother with audience recordings unless its something you just never see.and even then they usually don't sound good...its gone.

my only issue is i hate taking the time to download something when someone says its a soundboard,or a " 9 out of 10 quality" show,when its really neither.or doen't post any info about the show or the recording.some cats don't really know what a actual "soundboard" show really sounds like.

for me,everytime i get something in flac,i'm missing a file or 2,or part of a track is missing.
its never a good clean-no problems download like you do in mp3 form.so i don't like flac, but that's just how flac is.the quality of the sound isn't going to make a difference if you can't even get a complete dl.

[HighPingDrifter]

I really don't mind mp3, though I really don't want anything under 192k if I can help it, 320 is better. FLAC's are nice, assuming that the sound quality of the master itself is a 9/10 or 10/10. You can FLAC a crappy recording and it still sounds like crap. Lord knows that I've DL'ed enough crap-sounding FLAC's over the years..."but it's FLAC!" Yeah, get a life already.

Just for argument's sake, I've got a couple of mp3@128's that sound so damned good I wish I could find a 192/224/256/320 of it...for sure, the Master must've been a 10/10.

All things being equal, I can't really tell the difference between an mp3@320 and a FLAC from the same Master recording. If you can, God bless ya. Can I tell the difference between a mp3@128 and a 320?? Damned right I can, even with my damaged hearing (permanent ringing). 192 vs 320??? Not so much.

FWIW, my mp3 player (a Samsung) plays MP3, WMA , FLAC & OGG, so conversion isn't necessary for me.

Just my $.02, route all flames to /dev/null, pls, ktnxbye...


.High*Ping*Drifter.

"When in doubt, I whip it out!"

[ribonucleic]

I'll be the first to admit that I couldn't have heard a difference between FLAC and 320 even with my pre-Hüsker Dü ears. But I feel the difference in my soul.

Obviously, bit rate is less important than tape quality - which is itself less important than performance. But if something is worth sharing, it's worth sharing in FLAC.

[univoxxer]

myself, i dont really care how any of it comes down. eventually all i'll listen to is the mp3 anyways, as thats what i need/use at work, in the kitchen, in the pool out back, on the bus/train, in the car, pretty much everywhere.

and even while while my porta-players will accomodate WAVs, quite frankly the environments just dont justify it --- i'm not going to be in a proper listening position in an otherwise silent environment using even mediocre gear, i'm gonna be cooking dinner for the kids, or setting up a ballroom full of A/V with 12 other guys yappin away ajnd roadcases banging around, or riding on a loud train (with studio-style headphones, but still), etc. a decently encoded MP3 (read: preferably LAME w/a high VBR, at least) is just fine for all of those apps, for me.

and my rack of MFSL & Mastersound discs, and Ebbetts/etc collections, for as good as they sound, will continue to go unlistened to, because in my life, a cd is about as convenient as vinyl.





thinking back on it, 25yrs ago, i was pretty much the same way, in that despite buying vinyl for a nicer home system, almost all i'd listen to was the cassette version i'd dubbed down (and 2 albums+ to a 90min tape). LPs were nice when lounging in the living room in the right setting, but those times were infrequent at best. walkman about town was far more regular.







its curious how MP3 is noted as lossy, as though it continues to degrade like tape would, with repeated listenings. fact is, an MP3 is lossed, a single time during its encoding, and then thats it. and if it aint lossed much, than in many apps, for most listeners, its more than fine.

not all MP3 are created equal, and to lump all into one single basket is disingenious at best.

[rocdoc]

appreciating an A minus to A grade audience tape (take the low end down to a B even) does require finding some new ears for yourself.

of course it helps tons if the sound-guy at the console that night even knew how to do a decent f*cking mix.

80% of the time the vocal's going to be hollow/echo-y sounding no matter what (in my experience), so it's a given that that's going to suffer, but as long as the rest of the musical variables are in a better-than-decent range, i LOVE a good AUD tape.

if jimi hendrix's, ian anderson's or richard thompson's vocals aren't studio quality with perfect presence, whotf cares IF everything else is there with at least good separation?

mono is pretty much a deal-breaker for me.

and IMO the best part of a good AUD tape is (with your 'new ears') feeling the dimensions of the room, of the performance space...my first time really appreciating that was with the 'prince albert in a can' 4-disc royal albert hall show(s?) of the jimi hendrix experience from what, 1968??!

look, i ain't NEVER going to see something at the RAH, needless to say not jimi f*cking hendrix, but THAT recording made me feel it as though i was THERE.

the 'R2' version of floyd's animals at oakland.

there's a great AUD recording of a recent (2009) clapton show at saitama stadium, that is ridiculously clear...and credit has to be given to the sound-mixing being great, but the taper's notes place him in a balcony of a friggin' stadium somewhere near tokyo...and it's 'like you're there behind him' (to steal someone's excellent tag i've seen here)...

i guess in most cases for me, it does come down to the guy at the mixing console doing a good enough job for a band i like...who makes it worth me listening to random applause, random screaming (WHOOOOO!), drink orders and glasses clinking, where instead of bugging the shit outta me, it becomes the experience.

[sfsd]

As someone who owns a portable player which plays both FLAC and MP3 ... I can tell you that the 2 source AUD mix of the Zeppelin reunion in FLAC sounds BETTER than a lot of the soundboards do in FLAC or MP3. Not to mention how good some of the Millard recordings capture the sound compared to, say, some of the weaker sounding Europe 73 soundboards.

What it comes down to is what the taper desires. THAT should be respected, because they are the ones putting their asses on the line to make these recordings. So don't bitch about what they want - say thanks and enjoy.

Also, I have listened to Zep albums in all three formats - MP3, WAV and FLAC - and FLAC easily captures the depth of the recording better than the others, followed by WAV. MP3s, especially at lower kbps, are just a crush of sound.

[HighPingDrifter]

In regards to what RocDoc was saying about AUD recordings...I must confess a gross snobbery against AUD recordings, always thinking they were inferior to a decent SBD recording...a friend of mine (a sound engineer by trade) recommended a couple of out-f***ing-standing AUD recordings that completely changed my mind, among them a 2006 Black Crowes recording here in Chicago @ Northerly Island, and an incredible AUD of the North Mississippi Allstars somewhere in Maryland in May of 2008...y'know, I've heard some pretty crappy SBD tapes, and then there's these incredible AUD recordings...totally made me change my whole way of thinking...a good recording is a good recording, regardless. A lot of it had to do with the Sound Engineer, and of course the taper themselves having decent seats and a good rig.

Start with a good master, the possibilities are endless. Start with a crap master...well, as they say down here on the South Side, "You can't polish a turd."

Needless to say, I am looking to check out some AUD's of Zepp, Floyd and the Allman Brothers, among others. I would welcome recommendations. Peace, ya'll!

.H*P*D.

[univoxxer]

just to make it clear folks, cuz some of you dont get it, a FLAC is not some special format, its a squished down version of a WAV, but squished in a way that no audio data is lost at all. its a WAV file in a shipping container (smaller size = easier file trade).



of course what this means is that some of the claims of those above are completely and utterly nonsensical.







just sayin.

[rocdoc]

now THIS ^ is the kind of information i was hoping this thread would bring to light...someone who knows wtf they're talking about explaining out the layers and sublayers of how these formats fit together.

i totally admit there's no doubt someone like aikowolf knows this stuff better than i do, and i am saying so whilke i post.
i am not trying to misinform....i WANT to be set straight on these things bottom line.

thank you univoxxer!

so flac is equivalent to wav and they are BOTH at the top of the heap.

would EAC also be equivalent to flac and wav?
cda?

and where do wma files fit into this 'quality' picture?

i've gotten several things in wma, and some sure seem to be amazing-sounding especially when i know the rar or zip packages i dl'ed were pretty effing small compared to some huge-ass multiple-part flac'ed show.

thanks for the information.

and wait, i've also seen flac's bitrate listed at what 410-420 kbps...IS that comparable in direct proportion to a lame vbr mp3 @ 320 => like 33% better sound with flac?

thanks again.

[soulsurvivor5555]

I developed a rule....FLAC or SHN for everything except if you really want the recording and its only available in MP3 well then you take the mp3 and then begins the extensive search for the FLAC version.

CHARLIE

[univoxxer]

Originally Posted by rocdoc

now THIS ^ is the kind of information i was hoping this thread would bring to light...someone who knows wtf they're talking about explaining out the layers and sublayers of how these formats fit together.

i totally admit there's no doubt someone like aikowolf knows this stuff better than i do, and i am saying so while i post.
i am not trying to misinform....i WANT to be set straight on these things bottom line.

thank you univoxxer!



my pleasure, i think theres a fair bit of mis-info floating about in here, and i'd like to help straighten things out where i can

so flac is equivalent to wav and they are BOTH at the top of the heap.


for all intents and purposes, yes -- a FLAC is just a shipping container for a WAV, the FLAC contains the exact same audio as the WAV, just in squished form.


as far as top of the heap goes, theres higher/better ways of audio transfer, but AFAIK, theres no way to burn these to audio cd, only dvd.

would EAC also be equivalent to flac and wav?

unless theres something i've missed, EAC (Exact Audio Copy) is just a software for audio copy/transfer/etc. its capable of all sorts of stuff to show fidelity/exactness compared to original, so in some ways, a copy made with EAC is better in that one can punch out a lil pedigree for one's disc. however, if one is copying disc to WAV, i dont think that EAC offers any specific benefit, as a WAV created by Nero -- in theory -- should be the same thing punched out by EAC.


and where do wma files fit into this 'quality' picture?

i've gotten several things in wma, and some sure seem to be amazing-sounding especially when i know the rar or zip packages i dl'ed were pretty effing small compared to some huge-ass multiple-part flac'ed show.


i've only d'loaded a few WMA things, so i've not ever had the reason/motivation to chase down details --- sorry.



and wait, i've also seen flac's bitrate listed at what 410-420 kbps...IS that comparable in direct proportion to a lame vbr mp3 @ 320 => like 33% better sound with flac?

i know it doesnt work quite like that, but i'll pass this one on to a1ko in hopes that he can explain whats going on there.