__THISRES__100357.jpg "Trick or Treat by °chanelqueen17 1 month 1 week ago")
Ponders how peeps use PS for vectoring, painful so far 
...no baycun?... FLAC vs mp3 (at 320Kbps)
Quite the... er... polypost you have there.
MP3 is better because a lot of gadgets supports this format. Add that to the excellent sound quality and small file size, what else do you need?
I think, people are just forcing themselves to hear these tiny bits of music (or better yet static) to say that FLAC is better and to at least make themselves feel good about wasting large disk storage by saying the sound quality is better. In truth, they just can't accept that the quality of FLAC and MP3 is just the same because they're n00bs like that and want something "new".
The only edge that FLAC has is its name. Of course, people will be enticed by the "Lossless" word. Who wouldn't? But in terms of the so-called "quality" and the unreasonable file size for those static sounds other people love so much,
.flac = .phail
I think, people are just forcing themselves to hear these tiny bits of music (or better yet static) to say that FLAC is better and to at least make themselves feel good about wasting large disk storage by saying the sound quality is better. In truth, they just can't accept that the quality of FLAC and MP3 is just the same because they're n00bs like that and want something "new".
The only edge that FLAC has is its name. Of course, people will be enticed by the "Lossless" word. Who wouldn't? But in terms of the so-called "quality" and the unreasonable file size for those static sounds other people love so much,
.flac = .phail
I would like mp3 more... even the hd are cheap now but still 30m for 6 min song its too much >< like me had over 4k of songs... that would kill my hd badly...4000x30=120000MB, that would take out one of my hds >< 1200GB er...too far
1 year 2 months ago
My reasons on why flac is better are:
- It's lossless (hence can be stored as an unmodified form of the original music, which is nice)
- Ripped mp3's may sound different to the original music, and differ between ripping settings/programs.
- Space doesn't really matter if you care about quality. Moreover, it's compressed well.
However, with so many things to do and so little time, I wouldn't really care whether I am using mp3 or flac. If I had time to spend on archiving music then I definitely would choose flac over mp3.
- It's lossless (hence can be stored as an unmodified form of the original music, which is nice)
- Ripped mp3's may sound different to the original music, and differ between ripping settings/programs.
- Space doesn't really matter if you care about quality. Moreover, it's compressed well.
However, with so many things to do and so little time, I wouldn't really care whether I am using mp3 or flac. If I had time to spend on archiving music then I definitely would choose flac over mp3.
To bring out the best quality of sound you must have good stuff also.
If you're not so serious that you have to hear every tiny bits of every instruments so mp3 would be enough and also save you a lot of disk space.
For some kind of music like Classical or Opera I keep it as FLAC. But anime songs, and all the rest I keep it as MP3.
If you're not so serious that you have to hear every tiny bits of every instruments so mp3 would be enough and also save you a lot of disk space.
For some kind of music like Classical or Opera I keep it as FLAC. But anime songs, and all the rest I keep it as MP3.
Savvycat
My reasons on why flac is better are:
- It's lossless (hence can be stored as an unmodified form of the original music, which is nice)
- Ripped mp3's may sound different to the original music, and differ between ripping settings/programs.
- Space doesn't really matter if you care about quality. Moreover, it's compressed well.
However, with so many things to do and so little time, I wouldn't really care whether I am using mp3 or flac. If I had time to spend on archiving music then I definitely would choose flac over mp3.
Can somebody at least give solid proof that FLAC is better? You see, saying "this sound wasn't here before" is SO easy. Is there a side-by-side comparison between FLAC and MP3 (with the "sound wave graph"), which can prove the better "quality" once and for all?
kathyCan somebody at least give solid proof that FLAC is better? You see, saying "this sound wasn't here before" is SO easy. Is there a side-by-side comparison between FLAC and MP3 (with the "sound wave graph"), which can prove the better "quality" once and for all?
All the prove you should need is your ears. If you can't tell the difference then go ahead and stick with MP3, I think this pretty much says it all:
BeaverzFor some kind of music like Classical or Opera I keep it as FLAC. But anime songs, and all the rest I keep it as MP3.
If you want to hear 1-2 or even 3 guitars, 1 bass, drums and vocals you're not going to need much quality. Now if you want to listen to a full orchestra with more than 50 instruments all interacting with each other, or even just one single instrument playing, but where the detail of what's being played is extremely important and must be accurate, you should try to get as much quality as possible.
@iroveashe:
Uhm... NO. Ears is just too... "subjective". Facts like graphs would settle everything OBJECTIVELY. Plus, I really want to know the "quality" they're talking about with FLAC anyway.
Uhm... NO. Ears is just too... "subjective". Facts like graphs would settle everything OBJECTIVELY. Plus, I really want to know the "quality" they're talking about with FLAC anyway.
Your ears might be too subjective, I can hear the difference perfectly fine. If you can't hear the difference why would you want a graphic? It won't change your view on the matter. I have to admit I don't have the proper equipment to enjoy the sounds in my computer as much as I'd like to, but with my not-great-but-not-so-bad-either headphones, 2 things happen when I turn the volume to the max: with MP3's either it's not loud enough for my taste or if it is, it sounds all dirty and messy; in the case of FLAC's that rarely happens (except some files where I'm able to turn the volume really loud and my headphones can't handle it). The disadvantage of FLAC is obviously the size of the files and not the quality. If you still want some graphics this is the best I could find with a quick Google search =P
In a perfect world, MP3s should and would sound as good as FLAC files. However, since everyone uses different programs and encoders, many of which are just downright poor in quality, it's hard to attain that SQ consistency found with FLAC files. I'd much rather download the FLAC files, then convert it MP3 myself using my preferred LAME codec.
But I do prefer FLAC when listening to music on my computer, since with a high-resolution headphone amp and headphones, the flaws of poor-encoded MP3s really become apparent, and unless you have FLAC equivalents, you'll never know how the music was supposed to sound.
But I do prefer FLAC when listening to music on my computer, since with a high-resolution headphone amp and headphones, the flaws of poor-encoded MP3s really become apparent, and unless you have FLAC equivalents, you'll never know how the music was supposed to sound.
(The quote button is messing up with me. xD)
@iroveashe:
You can't say your ears aren't subjective either, everybody's hearing is subjective, as people may just be forcing themselves to hear stuff they want to hear or to not hear what they're supposed to. How'd you come to the conclusion I won't change my mind? Did I tell you that? Why would I want graphs? Because visuals have higher chances of reliability if you know what I mean. I love MP3, yes, but why would I waste my time looking for facts about the "quality" of FLAC if I'm not interested in the least? Be careful with that.
Anywho, the link you gave seems to have good graphs, if only the images would load properly.
@iroveashe:
You can't say your ears aren't subjective either, everybody's hearing is subjective, as people may just be forcing themselves to hear stuff they want to hear or to not hear what they're supposed to. How'd you come to the conclusion I won't change my mind? Did I tell you that? Why would I want graphs? Because visuals have higher chances of reliability if you know what I mean. I love MP3, yes, but why would I waste my time looking for facts about the "quality" of FLAC if I'm not interested in the least? Be careful with that.
Anywho, the link you gave seems to have good graphs, if only the images would load properly.
I never stated my hearing isn't subjective, I said it wasn't too subjective. And there are people who have absolute ear, meaning that they can identify a note instantly when hearing, and recognize intervals between 2 or more notes too. I don't have such skills but I happen to be a musician. Well, it shouldn't change your mind, since music (and this whole MP3 vs. FLAC debate) is purely based on sound. If you can't hear the difference some graphics won't make your (or anyone else who can't, not particularly you) ears better, therefore, it shouldn't matter. Again, the subject is not if FLAC has greater quality, it's if it's actually worth it given the space it takes, and the fact that not all people can hear it and you can't take its full advantages without proper equipment.
MP3 is popular due to it's unique format properties: Still plays after any kind of corruption (an idea shared with MPEG movies), this is crucial for floppies and unreliable p2p programs. Most other formats of songs would be either unplayable or have the whole after the corruption point distorted. Secondly it is easily decoded on any CPU architecture, allowing the player manufacturers to use low-power ARM processors. The format is designed for sequential reading which helps performance on flash memories.
The lossy part of the compression actually really discards the least needed parts. Other formats produce more noticeable difference with the same bitrate. Even Microsoft lies with its WMA which is advertedly twice as good as MP3. Lies! WMA discards all above 12 kHz, which is a very audible difference. MP3 discards only all above 17 kHz and yet it's configurable to be even higher.
The most important aspect of the lossy file format is that it's a FINAL format. You may not reopen it and save and expect the quality to be kept. Same as with a JPEG file - it's only good as the final result of your work.
The lossy part of the compression actually really discards the least needed parts. Other formats produce more noticeable difference with the same bitrate. Even Microsoft lies with its WMA which is advertedly twice as good as MP3. Lies! WMA discards all above 12 kHz, which is a very audible difference. MP3 discards only all above 17 kHz and yet it's configurable to be even higher.
The most important aspect of the lossy file format is that it's a FINAL format. You may not reopen it and save and expect the quality to be kept. Same as with a JPEG file - it's only good as the final result of your work.
1 year 1 month ago
FLAC it is not recognized as a good format for music with better sound quality??, personally I like both..in my subwoffer 5.1 ^^ totalmente satisfecha
and if you have a decent sound card because it better
(perdon mi mal ingles) esque soy perucha como la papa|
1 year 1 month ago
Generally, I go for OGG vorbis, at the highest bitrate. I like OGG because it is open source, but it has slightly smaller files than mp3 as well, so I can fit higher bitrates (a 192kbps OGG for a 3 minute file is about 200kb less than 192kbps mp3) that being said, OGG is far less supported by devices, but you can have either more music, higher bitrate music, or a smaller player. It depends on your priorities. If I were a recording artist, or I had the headphones that let me tell the difference, I would for for the FLAC though. Just my $ 0.02