mp3/lossless question for audiophiles... - Page 8

AAR.oner · #**106** August 8, 2009, 10:55 AM

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

jameskg · #**107** August 8, 2009, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dealtadawn

Quote:

Originally Posted by Five

about every month there's a thread about mp3 saying "I can't hear the diff!!", well most average ppl can't and that's why this is a rare site.

there's another issue with encoding where if any small change needs to be made to the mp3 audio including simply retracking it you have to double-compress it, then it gets burned to a disc and extracted while playing cpu-intense video games adding some crackes, then re-encoded to mp3 by another guy (triple-compressed) and so on and so on.

go find some of the other threads with "mp3" in the title and you'll see endless discussions on this, or just repeat to yourself "no mp3 at ttd" and you'll sleep better at night.

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 · #**108** August 8, 2009, 12:19 PM

Quote:

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 · #**109** August 17, 2009, 07:58 PM

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 · #**110** August 20, 2009, 07:16 AM

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

pjposterguy · #**111** August 30, 2009, 04:48 AM

Quote:

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 · #**112** September 2, 2009, 01:30 AM

Quote:

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 · #**113** May 19, 2010, 01:45 PM

Quote:

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 · #**114** May 19, 2010, 02:13 PM

Quote:

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.

Similar Threads
Thread	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Lossy or lossless question.....wav > .flac sample included - starman714	Lossy or Lossless?	22	January 3, 2006 02:31 PM
A question about speed correction of lossless files - starman714	Technobabble	21	February 18, 2005 04:59 PM