mp3/lossless question for audiophiles...

[AAR.oner]

i wouldn't think him being on another comp would have any effect [even if on same network]...the issues arise when yer comp's processing resources are being strained by multiple progs running

[paddington]

Originally Posted by dealtadawn

I was just explaining to my husband yesterday why I need him to not be playing World of Warcraft when I'm converting or burning shows to disc. Is my assumption that it would add cracks etc even if he's on a different computer but we are on the same network correct?

no. It's actually probably better, because then he won't be bothering you while your burn your discs

[dealtadawn]

Originally Posted by jameskg

no. It's actually probably better, because then he won't be bothering you while your burn your discs

lol, actually he'd probably be standing behind me if he's not on his own computer. i just wondered if it would bog down the network resources if there is such a thing. anyway, since i have 744mg of data it is a mute point until i figure out how to get that on a 700mg disc...

but ty for the info.

[Forgot]

heh came back two years later and i'm surprised to have my old post stickied, and a few mbs on my uploads... btw, i'm still not convinced of the virtue of lossless, other than the fact that it's valuable to traders... and hence i should have as much lossless as possible if i want to trade...

[Five]

yeah if you never trade lossless is not important beyond personal listening preference, its a free country

[pjposterguy]

Originally Posted by Forgot

Can anyone actually HEAR any quality difference between a shn original file and high bitrate mp3 convert?

i don't mean "loss of data within human hearing range"... i know data are lost... what i'm asking is whether the lost IN QUALITY is perceivable....

i just converted a bunch of shn files to mp3, and on my 5 bucks speaker, i can just barely hear enough difference to know that they're not the same, but that's only if i put the speaker right on my ear and play it with very low volume...

if i have to say,short of living in a sound proof chamber, the humming from an average computer probably spoils the sound more than than the conversion from shn to mp3... either that or i happen to be deaf in those frequencies lost during the conversion.

YES you/I can the highest mp3 can only get fairly close to a AIFF/FLAC... (don't get me started on .wav) generally it's a loss of the "weight" in the low end, and nerfing the highs, not to mention loss of imaging/soundstaging (ie spatial placement of instruments, and the "air" inbetween.... now if only the world would STOP using PCM encoding... DSD ftw

[trustthex]

Originally Posted by pjposterguy

YES you/I can the highest mp3 can only get fairly close to a AIFF/FLAC... (don't get me started on .wav) generally it's a loss of the "weight" in the low end, and nerfing the highs, not to mention loss of imaging/soundstaging (ie spatial placement of instruments, and the "air" inbetween.... now if only the world would STOP using PCM encoding... DSD ftw

DSD is dead. Even Sony is beginning the funeral process. Sorry.

[slewofboots]

Originally Posted by Shawn=)

I listen on decent phones, and absolutely the difference between mp3 and lossless is clear.

I do have a lot of music I've converted over to mp3 either at 256k or 320k, and the higher sample rates are certainly listenable, and much more portable. My essential music is all archived on CD/CD-R, etc..

Shawn

I would argue that for a lot of music genres FLAC (lvl 8) is not much less portable than high-bitrate encoded MP3. In other words filesize is close to 320kbps mp3.
I assume there exist portables capable of FLAC playback?

If so, and with decent headphones, this is certainly the way to be (more) portable and lossless!

[slewofboots]

Originally Posted by slewofboots

I would argue that for a lot of music genres FLAC (lvl 8) is not much less portable than high-bitrate encoded MP3. In other words filesize is close to 320kbps mp3.
I assume there exist portables capable of FLAC playback?

If so, and with decent headphones, this is certainly the way to be (more) portable and lossless!

I tested this and the starting .wav file (a live recording of Robben Ford, fully lossless) was 38MB.

File sizes for resultant FLAC was 14MB, and 8MB for the 320kbps MP3.

[gideon77]

I think this is an interesting discussion. It is reassuring that this site is so strict about mp3s so you know where the file came from. On the other hand, I have always recorded shows with my satellite receiver and those broadcasts are in mp2 or aac. I had no other option to record the shows myself from all over the world. I liked the sound from 192, 256 or 320 kbps better than fm and always tried to record my shows via satellite to the extent possible. Fm-recordings I received were also sometimes in mono or with lots of hiss. If I can choose between a show from 1980 recorded with a cassette recorder or a rebroadcast via satellite, I resolutely choose the last option. Sometimes I see "soundboard" on a show and after downloading it I am hugely disappointed by the poor sound quality. It is lossless, but that is all. Are we calling these people audiophiles? With video, we apparently don't mind this. I regularly see video recordings on this site with dvb as the description and then it says 256 kbps as audio. Are we all going to get our old
recorder again to watch our videos? I don't think so. As someone said here, sometimes it's too much about numbers.
No worries, I will respect the rules and only upload my own audience recordings on this site. I actually only record audience recordings as a souvenir and hardly ever listen back to them. And I will never compress a wav or flac file to mp3, let's be clear about that.