Current Events > Aren't cds more "clear" than an mp3 can ever be?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I read this before that even a great quality mp3 file is still slightly less in audio quality than a song on cd. Though the difference is very small
---

yes because mp3 is a lossy encoding, even at the highest bitrate. check out FLAC for a lossless compression.
---

Digital Media > Physical Media

FLAC is the key.
---

there are CDs that use mp3

but yes, mp3 files are compressed, which means it takes up much less space at the expense of the overall sound quality
---

Yes. There are different kinds of mp3 qualities depending on the bitrate

Giant_Aspirin posted...

yes because mp3 is a lossy encoding, even at the highest bitrate. check out FLAC for a lossless compression.

i don't think flac is an option on windows media player for ripping cds
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

yes because mp3 is a lossy encoding, even at the highest bitrate. check out FLAC for a lossless compression.

http://theghostinthemp3.com/
neat stuff.

You lose a lot going to MP3, but unless you have a discerning ear or an expensive set of headphones it likely isn't going to matter much. The benefit of MP3s is that the file size is extremely reasonable so you can load up your phone or whatever with a shit ton of music and not have to worry about it.

FLAC and other lossless formats will end up being several times larger in file size, but a must for any audiophile.
---

Ultima Dragon posted...

FLAC and other lossless formats will end up being several times larger in file size, but a must for any audiophile.

The general rule on filesizes is that FLAC cuts about 50%, while MP3 cuts about 90%.

you can't rip flac on wmp
---

There seems to be a lot of misconceptions in the music community regarding the differences between 320kbps mp3 and FLAC format. It is true that 320kbps is technically as good as FLAC, but there are other reasons to get music in a lossless format.

Hearing the difference now isnt the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is lossy. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA its about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You dont want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.

I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrangewell dont get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. FLAC rips from the same period still sound great, even if they werent stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to FLAC, you may not be able to hear the difference now, but in a year or two, youll be glad you did.
---

CDs can be used with window media player 12 and can run TruBass or a added WOW enhancements, probably for smaller speakers.
---

Rotational Velocidensity
---

Butterfiles posted...

What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA

o...kay.

Yeah, you usually convert to mp3s to drastically reduce file size.
---

Two_Dee posted...

Rotational Velocidensity

Lmao.
---

A cd is just a medium for storage of digital files. You can put mp3s on a cd, or any other file format.
---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossy_compression
---

Butterfiles posted...

There seems to be a lot of misconceptions in the music community regarding the differences between 320kbps mp3 and FLAC format. It is true that 320kbps is technically as good as FLAC, but there are other reasons to get music in a lossless format.

Hearing the difference now isnt the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is lossy. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA its about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You dont want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.

I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrangewell dont get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. FLAC rips from the same period still sound great, even if they werent stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to FLAC, you may not be able to hear the difference now, but in a year or two, youll be glad you did.

This is a copy-pasta, for those who don't know.
---

FLAC should really be treated as archival, for when/if some better lossy format emerges in the future.

At the very least it's a hedge against the CDs themselves decaying. For a medium that was supposed to last a thousand years, they sure seem to be pretty damn prone to getting pinholes and scratches.

The info I've gathered from spending a lot of time trying to improve my digital music collection is:

FLAC will result in no loss of audio quality, but it's inconveniently big. For the sake of completeness, it makes it a better archival format.
MP3's can sound as good, you just have to go for a high bitrate - it isn't simply a case of the conversion from digital to MP3 resulting in an automatic reduction in quality. 320kbps CBR or VBR v0 are the ones to go for, as they both achieve a bitrate high enough that most people claiming they can hear a clear difference between that and FLAC are full of shit.

Pogo_Marimo posted...

This is a copy-pasta, for those who don't know.

I was gonna say something about it being pasta but I wanted to see how people react to it also. >->
---

While 320kbps CBR or VBR v0 are good, it is still a lossy compression so you can never restore the original data to 100%.
---

Butterfiles posted...

There seems to be a lot of misconceptions in the music community regarding the differences between 320kbps mp3 and FLAC format. It is true that 320kbps is technically as good as FLAC, but there are other reasons to get music in a lossless format.

Hearing the difference now isnt the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is lossy. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA its about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You dont want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.

I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrangewell dont get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. FLAC rips from the same period still sound great, even if they werent stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to FLAC, you may not be able to hear the difference now, but in a year or two, youll be glad you did.

thanks fam
---

My rule is to have my absolute favourite albums in FLAC and everything else in either Opus, 320kbps CBR or V0. Sometimes I have to make due with 256 AAC though >_>

If I ever buy a couple of new external drives then I'll store everything in FLAC there.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

I'm impressed to see so many knowledgeable people on CE regarding digital music quality.

I'm totally ignorant to it, but definitely learned a few things from you guys.

You guys are wicked smaht.

No, you're wicked smaht
---