tominator89 0 Report post Posted August 17, 2006 I've joined a few online concert trading communities and FLAC seems to be the desired format. It's strictly enforced at these places. After some comparison I really can't notice any difference in quality; especially on soundboard recordings. I asked a few people about this and they insist their is a loss of quality during the ripping process and thats why LOSSLESS is the preferred method. Still, I don't notice a difference. Additionally, FLAC files are much larger in size. Anyway, I'm wondering can anyone else notice a difference in quality? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrRant 0 Report post Posted August 17, 2006 You won't notice till you get to higher volume levels. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Golgo 13 0 Report post Posted August 17, 2006 I noticed a difference between FLAC and 320 even on standard desktop speakers, but it wasn't a massive leap. It's pretty impractical if you don't have the ears, the equipment or the space. Essentially if you're not an audiophile who insists on archiving stuff at an optimal lossless setting, I say don't bother. It's been said that most people can't even differentiate above 192 or so anyway. In any case, VBR is usually good enough for me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Masked Man of Mystery 0 Report post Posted August 17, 2006 Agreed, VBR mp3s are the best way as far as I'm concerned, it's what I used when I download Phil Lesh shows Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
C Dubya 04 0 Report post Posted August 17, 2006 Agreed, VBR mp3s are the best way as far as I'm concerned, it's what I used when I download Phil Lesh shows That's the format I use for most shows on archive, but if it's something that I really care about I will use FLAC as it is a bit crisper sounding. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
