__THISRES__100357.jpg "Trick or Treat by ~chanelqueen17 3 weeks 5 days ago")
FLAC vs mp3 (at 320Kbps)
I don't think most people have a hard drive built for a CD collection of FLAC, and I'm not that elitist or nuts to sit and nitpick at the differences between the two. As long as the music was recorded with quality in mind (none of that deafening volume bs they're doing now with a lot of recent CDs) 320kbps mp3 files are perfectly fine. They take up less space, their tags are easier to edit, and they're more user friendly.
I do however take issue with poor mp3 rips of less than 192kbps...it sounds like you're listening to it through a tin can. It makes no sense to listen to music when the quality of the rip is poor, because you just can't enjoy it at all.
I do however take issue with poor mp3 rips of less than 192kbps...it sounds like you're listening to it through a tin can. It makes no sense to listen to music when the quality of the rip is poor, because you just can't enjoy it at all.
10 months 9 hours ago
Flac is good for high quality reproduction, but mp3 would be better for portable players.
Dude?
You still own an iPod?
That is like... so yesteryear.
C'mon, jump on the Samsung and Creative bandwagon
at least you can format them to play other stuff.
You still own an iPod?
That is like... so yesteryear.
C'mon, jump on the Samsung and Creative bandwagon
at least you can format them to play other stuff.
Please visit my blog, go for the bashing, stay for the jokes.
Click this signature!
9 months 3 weeks ago
MP3 became popular due to the size of the files, when connection speeds were slower (56k modem) it was a lot easier to download a smaller file, also portable music players did not have so much memory. These are a couple of reasons for the popularity of MP3's over the larger loss-less formats.
9 months 3 weeks ago
I like mp3 more than flac, because the different of mp3 and flac are very small, I don't mind.
9 months 3 weeks ago
Unless you have high end speakers/sound card or any kind of audio equipment flac is not necessary most people cant tell the difference once the bitrate of mp3's goes above 256 and most people here little or no difference between flac and 320 mp3's. Coupled with a low end or mediocre sound system its somewhat of a waste of space to use flac, of course there are some who swear by it and i guess thats them because im good on anything above 256 mp3's
9 months 2 weeks ago
To me, there is definitely a discernible difference between a mp3 and a flac file. For those using ipod + itunes, an option to consider is transcoding your flac files into ALAC (Apple Lossless Audio Codec) for the itunes. I've found the quality is just as good as the original flac files.
9 months 2 weeks ago
I think FLAC is better than MP3 !!
9 months 10 hours ago
I don't have any expensive pieces of sound equipment but I can't tell the difference. Lossy formats at 320 are sufficient for everyday use for me. Though I would say that lossless is good for archival/backup purposes. It's always possible that better codecs might come in the future. If they do you can then re-encode into those formats. No regrets.
MP3 is still a relatively old standard. There just doesn't seem to be much advancement in audio codecs. The newer shinier codecs (AAC and WMA) are not significantly better than MP3. Especially at higher encode rates. It's more likely that increased data storage capacities in devices will enable mainstream usage of lossless formats rather than the mainstream users migrating to more advanced audio formats.
MP3 is still a relatively old standard. There just doesn't seem to be much advancement in audio codecs. The newer shinier codecs (AAC and WMA) are not significantly better than MP3. Especially at higher encode rates. It's more likely that increased data storage capacities in devices will enable mainstream usage of lossless formats rather than the mainstream users migrating to more advanced audio formats.
The only time I think that FLAC is needed is in music production, but even then it is kinda not worth it when you can just use WAVE.
8 months 2 weeks ago
It depends.if your harddisk is limited, just use mp3 with 192 kbps.
but if you're audiophile, and have huge harddisk usage, amazing speaker and sound card, use flac.it will blow your ear away
but if you're audiophile, and have huge harddisk usage, amazing speaker and sound card, use flac.it will blow your ear away
8 months 2 days ago
I have a decent speaker setup (Audioengine 2 speakers and M-Audio 2496 soundcard) and there is nothing wrong with my ears, but i still cant tell any BIG differences between mp3 and flac. Should i hear any differences?
7 months 3 weeks ago
I think FLAC would benefit the most if you have a dedicated DAC, amp, and high-grade headphones.
I am trying to sell my computer sound card right now and go on an external DAC/AMP and headphone, to see how it is.
For portable use 320kbps MP3 is more than sufficient... and with the music we listen to, I think it is unnecessary :D - I think FLAC is beneficial for classical where you have subtleties which need to be heard.
I am trying to sell my computer sound card right now and go on an external DAC/AMP and headphone, to see how it is.
For portable use 320kbps MP3 is more than sufficient... and with the music we listen to, I think it is unnecessary :D - I think FLAC is beneficial for classical where you have subtleties which need to be heard.
7 months 3 weeks ago
But a cd is the best..it can make the song lossless...
i think ..if the singer is good i would buy the CD
a good music...factor is too much...have your ears,mp3,speaker or headphone...
finally...listen your like
i think ..if the singer is good i would buy the CD
a good music...factor is too much...have your ears,mp3,speaker or headphone...
finally...listen your like
I'm not bothered by either FLAC or MP3 files. but at least i know for sure i hear good quality with FLAC-files. but that doesn't mean i prefer them over MP3
so, i'll be in the middle of this. i think they're both alright
so, i'll be in the middle of this. i think they're both alright