tominator89 Posted August 17, 2006 Report 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?
MrRant Posted August 17, 2006 Report Posted August 17, 2006 You won't notice till you get to higher volume levels.
Golgo 13 Posted August 17, 2006 Report 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.
Masked Man of Mystery Posted August 17, 2006 Report 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
C Dubya 04 Posted August 17, 2006 Report 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.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now