Back to Forum
Oldest First
Newest First
Flac has now officially ruined me on anything that isn't lossless. My speakers are all pissed too because i'm probably about to blow them all out. Also, i can't get anything productive done because all i want to do is download music and listen to it.
Score: 4
I really have to listen to a mp3 recording side by side to a flac recording for comparison sake.
Score: 0
Score: 0
@awhill34 said: I really have to listen to a mp3 recording side by side to a flac recording for comparison sake.Make sure that while you're listening you don't which is which, otherwise you won't know whether they actually sound different or if it's your expectation of the FLAC sounding better that makes them seem to sound different.
Score: 2
Where does one score a flac, dumb question but are they better than soundboards? I feel like I should know a little aethibt about them but haven't had time
:prepares to be ripped on:
:prepares to be ripped on:
Score: 0
@dave25 said: Where does one score a flac, dumb question but are they better than soundboards? I feel like I should know a little aethibt about them but haven't had timeFLAC is a type of music file just like MP3. FLAC Is basically the pinacle of what music can sound like with no audio degradation. But all that audio goodness takes data to produce and thus FLAC files are really big. since they're huge we created MP3s which still sound similiar but have far less data than the original flac because its compressed and thus is easier to put on your iPod. However, when you compress audio files, there is a loss on basically the tops and bottoms of the soundwave so for some audiophiles, FLAC is the only way to go but most commoners can't hear the difference. FLAC stands for "Free Lossless Audio Codec" the free part comes from it being open source, codec has to do with the audio files container (not really important)
:prepares to be ripped on:
Soundboard is an audiorecording coming directly from the board the sound guy is using to mix the band with. An AUD (audience recording) is simply a taper who puts his mic in the air and records that way. They often remaster their recordings and make them sound awesome.
Using the previous terminology we just learned, Tapers usually always release what they have in FLAC and don't want people to convert it to MP3 because they lose audio quality.
....if you use apple, they're too cool to use FLAC and use something called ALAC. Its basically the same thing. We call these types of audio formats "LOSSLESS" because there is no data loss in the product. MP3s are called "LOSSY" because their is degradation in the sound through compression to make the file smaller.
Hope that helps!
and P.S. a 24-BIT FLAC Live Phish soundboard through a good sound system is pretty spectacular
Score: 7
If you want to hear someone who doesn't like MP3's - listen to Neil Young's "Drifting Back" from his new album Psychedelic Pill - its literally 28 minutes of Neil Young hating on MP3s exaggerating a little but the song is awesome. Neil Young was actually in talks with Steve Jobs about developing a new audio format right before Jobs died. I believe Neil Young is still very much creating this new format still too.
Score: 2
Thank you
Score: 0
What's better: MP3 SBDs or FLAC AUDs?
Score: 0
Just to add a minor note to @harroldHOOD's post, FLAC can be SBD or AUD.BT.etree.org has nearly any AUD you could ever want. Whatever isn't there can be had at archive.org
You will also notice lifephish has FLAC options available.
Score: 0
@Superballin said: What's better: MP3 SBDs or FLAC AUDs?Not even going to touch that one.
@harroldHOOD pretty much nailed it. The only thing I'd clarify is that FLAC files are compressed. They're just compressed in a way that they can be decompressed and all the original data is restored. That's what happens when you press "play" on your computer or iPod or whatever. When an mp3 is decompressed you don't get all the original data back.
The "original" uncompressed audio files are WAVs. That's (basically) what you find on CDs. They take up even more space than FLACs or ALACs.
Score: 0
The other day I got vinyl rips of Dark Side and The Wall in flac. They sound pretty amazing.
Score: 0
@chris200w said: @Superballin said:Interesting I never know the difference between WAV and FLAC. thanks!What's better: MP3 SBDs or FLAC AUDs?Not even going to touch that one.
@harroldHOOD pretty much nailed it. The only thing I'd clarify is that FLAC files are compressed. They're just compressed in a way that they can be decompressed and all the original data is restored. That's what happens when you press "play" on your computer or iPod or whatever.
The "original" uncompressed audio files are WAVs. That's (basically) what you find on CDs. They take up even more space than FLACs or ALACs.
Score: 0
@Superballin said: What's better: MP3 SBDs or FLAC AUDs?Nah, that isn't a fair comparison. That's like comparing an Organic Orange to a Conventionally grown Grapefruit. SBD's and AUD's are completely different sources, you will hear a big difference between the two. Making an AUD lossess isn't going to make it sound incredibly better, at least when you are comparing it to a SBD.
AUD's and SBDS come down to preference and sources available. Everything is available on FLAC or MP3, so really it comes down to, how much hard drive space do you have and do your EARS and/or sound system pick up the differences. For me, although I have a ton of Lossless on my computer, MP3 is fine most of the time, because I put it on my iPod which sits in my car, or I listen on my computer which just has 2.1 sound. I can't notice a difference, or BARELY can with the mediums I use to play my music, so it really comes down to how quick do I want it and if I want to listen in the car, I'm just going to convert it to MP3 anyway so why bother.
For awhile I was getting everything in FLAC and then converting what I wanted (while still saving the original FLAC files) to listen to on the MP3 player. This took up to much space on my computer though.
The 10+ shows I had LivePhish DL codes for this year I got all in MP3 because hey I don't feel like paying $5+ for each show on FLAC. But if I am downloading a free AUD, might as well get the FLAC, it's free and since it's an AUD, I wanna get every possible grain of sound I can out of it, because hey, AUDs aren't always pretty and can sometimes use all the help they need.
Score: 1
@harroldHOOD Yea, a .wav file is just uncompressed AUDIO, so if you rip a CD and don't convert it as it's ripping, you will be left with a .wav file. I don't know enough about audio compression to tell you what the physical difference between a .WAV file and a .FLAC, at least in terms of structure.
Score: 1
So ALAC is FLAC for itunes users? So I can fit 7 songs on my 8gb ipod?I would like to start a lossless library on my Pc though. Gotta do something to fill these 2 TB's.
Score: 0
@ledzepmaster said: So ALAC is FLAC for itunes users?Essentially, yes.
So I can fit 7 songs on my 8gb ipod?Unless they're really long you'll be able to fit more than seven songs on 8gb.
Score: 0
@ledzepmaster said: So ALAC is FLAC for itunes users? So I can fit 7 songs on my 8gb ipod?
I would like to start a lossless library on my Pc though. Gotta do something to fill these 2 TB's.
Should be about 7 shows worth, maybe more. A flac show is about 800MB to 1GB. Some of the shows in the mid 90's were less than 2.5 hours of music, so those are only about 800MB
Score: 1
@ledzepmaster said: So ALAC is FLAC for itunes users? So I can fit 7 songs on my 8gb ipod?Yes..ALAC is Apples version of FLAC....you should get more then 7 songs on an 8 gig ipod in ALAC...Most Phish shows recorded in 16 Bit FLAC hover around 1GB
I would like to start a lossless library on my Pc though. Gotta do something to fill these 2 TB's.
If you want to reap the benefits of FLAC you must have High End Headphones or Speakers that have the full range of reproducing sounds from 20 hz to 20k hz and a decent audio converter from digital to analog sound. All PC's have this built into the sound card, but some are of lower quality....you can look at the spec's of your sound card and if it capable of playing 24 bit audio @ 192khz then that should be able to deliver a quality reproduction. They also make external DAC units and they will reduce any (unwanted ) noise picked up during the conversion caused by the electronic components of the PC.
Score: 0
here is a good link if your interested in understanding digital audio Press to learn more about audio
Score: 0
Thanks for the replies everyone.
Score: 0
Chicago '94 blew my mind this week
Score: 0
Hey @ledzepmaster get xld to convert flac to alac. Just go to the preferences and tell it to convert to apple lossless. It will also go ahead and open it in your iTunes library.
Score: 0
Well, I am going to start with re-extracting all my CDs into ALAC (854 kbps) on itunes now. So far so good, Hershey Park '95 sounds damn good.So yea... HD-FLAC SBD's must be the best thing on earth, huh?
Score: 0
@ledzepmaster said: So yea... HD-FLAC SBD's must be the best thing on earth, huh?Theoretically, yeah. But most people would be very hard-pressed to hear the difference between HD-FLAC and FLAC. IMO, it's not worth the extra money at all. Just go with the regular FLAC.
Score: 1
Makes sense, probably wouldn't be worth it unless I paid for $900 Mastering headphones and used a tube pre-amp or some other high-dollar setup.
Score: 1
@Chilly said: @harroldHOOD Yea, a .wav file is just uncompressed AUDIO, so if you rip a CD and don't convert it as it's ripping, you will be left with a .wav file. I don't know enough about audio compression to tell you what the physical difference between a .WAV file and a .FLAC, at least in terms of structure.yeah i knew that much I just didn't put together that a FLAC file is actually compressed in a sense. I wish I would have gone to school for sound engineering
Score: 0
@Jimmymac03 said:
FLAC "options" available on LivePhish??? For those of us with decent ears, it really isn't a matter of choice.
Just to add a minor note to @harroldHOOD's post, FLAC can be SBD or AUD.Phish recordings are not permitted on archive.org, and on torrent sites like bt.etree.org a show's availability depends on whether anyone is still actively seeding it.
BT.etree.org has nearly any AUD you could ever want. Whatever isn't there can be had at archive.org
You will also notice lifephish has FLAC options available.
FLAC "options" available on LivePhish??? For those of us with decent ears, it really isn't a matter of choice.
Score: 1
@chris200w said: @ledzepmaster said:To be honest, most people can't tell the difference between a 320kbps or V0 MP3 with a FLAC either. Tons of people claim to be able to, but in test and after test from every major audiophile site, the difference is not noticeable.So yea... HD-FLAC SBD's must be the best thing on earth, huh?Theoretically, yeah. But most people would be very hard-pressed to hear the difference between HD-FLAC and FLAC. IMO, it's not worth the extra money at all. Just go with the regular FLAC.
FLACs are fantastic to keep a bit perfect copy for the future but there's really zero reason to collect them strictly for listening.
Of course there's tons of people who will scream "I can tell the difference on MY system!" but again, in blind test after blind test, most are proven wrong.
Best way to compare two is to do some ABX testing on your own. Use Foobar or a variety of other programs, and see for yourself.
Score: 3
@ledzepmaster said: Makes sense, probably wouldn't be worth it unless I paid for $900 Mastering headphones and used a tube pre-amp or some other high-dollar setup.Exactly.
Score: 0
I know its not but why isn't Phish's music on archive.org? The dead is on there, basically all major jam bands are on there. If they are just using AUD recordings that abide by all the rules why do we need to resort to fan's hosting this material? I'd assume archive.org would love phish shows it makes me think there is a licensing reason phish can't or won't do it. They allow their shows on bt.etree.org and while I love the site, torrents are not as reliable for archival purposes as an actual server. anyone who could shed light on that would be doing me a solid.
Score: 0
@harroldHOOD said: I know its not but why isn't Phish's music on archive.org? The dead is on there, basically all major jam bands are on there. If they are just using AUD recordings that abide by all the rules why do we need to resort to fan's hosting this material? I'd assume archive.org would love phish shows it makes me think there is a licensing reason phish can't or won't do it. They allow their shows on bt.etree.org and while I love the site, torrents are not as reliable for archival purposes as an actual server. anyone who could shed light on that would be doing me a solid.You can usually get someone to reseed a dead torrent on etree. Just send an email to whoever posted the original torrent or ask in the forum.
I too wish Phish was on archive. Not sure why they don't allow it. Weird.
Score: 0
@dscott said: Phish recordings are not permitted on archive.org, and on torrent sites like bt.etree.org a show's availability depends on whether anyone is still actively seeding it.
Getting a reseed usually isn't too hard, you just need to be patient. Usually emailing the person who originally seeded the torrent works, or try Jason Sobel or a message on the forums there. Regarding archive, it is certainly a bummer that Phish isn't on there but HOT DAMN a lot of other amazing bands are.
FLAC "options" available on LivePhish??? For those of us with decent ears, it really isn't a matter of choice.Signed.
Score: 1
Found this on archive.org's FAQ:"Why is there no Phish? What about Widespread Panic?
Phish has decided not to participate in the Archive at this point in time
Similarly, Widespread Panic has opted out of the project for the time being. They were last contacted on 11/9/2004."
Archive.org FAQ Source
EDIT: Apparently DMB is the same way. Kinda lame these artists don't want to participate IMO. I get that they need to make money and want people to buy the shows but they're already freely available in other areas, this would just be adding to an already epic database. It doesn't seem to make sense.
Score: 1
@tmwsiy said: @chris200w said:I agree 100%. That's why I always suggest that people do mp3 vs. lossless tests blind. Many, many people who claim to hear big differences between high bitrate mp3s and lossless formats are hearing differences because they expect to hear differences, not because there actually are any.@ledzepmaster said:To be honest, most people can't tell the difference between a 320kbps or V0 MP3 with a FLAC either. Tons of people claim to be able to, but in test and after test from every major audiophile site, the difference is not noticeable.So yea... HD-FLAC SBD's must be the best thing on earth, huh?Theoretically, yeah. But most people would be very hard-pressed to hear the difference between HD-FLAC and FLAC. IMO, it's not worth the extra money at all. Just go with the regular FLAC.
FLACs are fantastic to keep a bit perfect copy for the future but there's really zero reason to collect them strictly for listening.
Of course there's tons of people who will scream "I can tell the difference on MY system!" but again, in blind test after blind test, most are proven wrong.
Best way to compare two is to do some ABX testing on your own. Use Foobar or a variety of other programs, and see for yourself.
I try to find lossless files when I can for the reason you stated above, to have a bit perfect copy archived. And I play lossless files at home because I have plenty of hard drive space on my computer. But my iPod is filled with high bitrate mp3s to have lots of variety with the limited space available, and that doesn't bother the audiophile in me one bit.
Score: 0
More information on Neil Young's 'Pono' audiophile system: HERE
Score: 0
@chris200w said:
Of course, these also didn't exist back when most of us with strong opinions formed them - i.e. when shn had yet to be supplanted by FLAC as the lossless compression of choice. Back then, mp3s were quite lossy!
High bitrate mp3s are much closer in fidelity to lossless formats (e.g. shn, FLAC, and ALAC), and most listeners won't hear any difference on most systems - unless they really, really pay attention.
I agree 100%. That's why I always suggest that people do mp3 vs. lossless tests blind. Many, many people who claim to hear big differences between high bitrate mp3s and lossless formats are hearing differences because they expect to hear differences, not because there actually are any.
Of course, these also didn't exist back when most of us with strong opinions formed them - i.e. when shn had yet to be supplanted by FLAC as the lossless compression of choice. Back then, mp3s were quite lossy!
Score: 1
Not sure what quality the LivePhish mp3s are- if they are 320s or less- but their sound is noticeably thinner and weaker than FLAC-derived files, even on my iPod earbuds; I always have to turn up the volume to compensate. It doesn't take a good sound system nor a trained ear to hear the difference. It's totally worth the $5 to upgrade to FLAC.
In case this is an issue for anyone else - iTunes will not play FLAC files (not sure about ALAC) and it's a PITA to unpack them, but if you just want to play off of your PC, VLC music player can play compressed FLAC files without unpacking: http://www.videolan.org/vlc/index.html
In case this is an issue for anyone else - iTunes will not play FLAC files (not sure about ALAC) and it's a PITA to unpack them, but if you just want to play off of your PC, VLC music player can play compressed FLAC files without unpacking: http://www.videolan.org/vlc/index.html
Score: 0
Songbird is a great media-player for Macs that will play FLAC files. It has an itunes-esque layout too so there isn't any real learning curve.also @joyjoy - livephish MP3s that come with your ticket are 256kbps
Score: 0
Score: 0
@lbag420 said: 
I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm old school. It was so rad when my speedy new 5600 kbps dial-up modem allowed me to send my tape list to someone in less than an hour, and it only had to be split into 4 emails! Used to know the exact postage rates for any # of cassettes up to 8, with vs. without the plastic cases. Had a deck with pitch control, & all that tricked-out shizz.
In those days I used to fantasize about how cool it would be if music could be obtained over the internet. Those first few download sites were like someone had invented the horseless carriage!!!
Mmmm... shn'sThey ain't dead yet!
You have dated yourself @dscott
I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm old school. It was so rad when my speedy new 5600 kbps dial-up modem allowed me to send my tape list to someone in less than an hour, and it only had to be split into 4 emails! Used to know the exact postage rates for any # of cassettes up to 8, with vs. without the plastic cases. Had a deck with pitch control, & all that tricked-out shizz.
In those days I used to fantasize about how cool it would be if music could be obtained over the internet. Those first few download sites were like someone had invented the horseless carriage!!!
Score: 0
would somebody please tell me what pair of headphones that costs less than $200 is of good enough quality that I will actually hear this world of difference between an ALAC and a 320k mp3 when I listen to them on my iPod nano? I know I can't be this deaf, but using my PC's sound card and speaker system, I can't hear any difference at all. Even when I plug in headphones I can't hear a difference, but they are pretty cheap phones, Sennheisers that I got for $35 at guitar center many years back. If its just my ears aren't sensitive enough, then damn, but I want to hear this earth-shattering difference everyone keeps talking about.
Score: 0
The author has chosen to remove all text from this comment.
Score: 0
@benevolution said: would somebody please tell me what pair of headphones that costs less than $200 is of good enough quality that I will actually hear this world of difference between an ALAC and a 320k mp3 when I listen to them on my iPod nano? I know I can't be this deaf, but using my PC's sound card and speaker system, I can't hear any difference at all. Even when I plug in headphones I can't hear a difference, but they are pretty cheap phones, Sennheisers that I got for $35 at guitar center many years back. If its just my ears aren't sensitive enough, then damn, but I want to hear this earth-shattering difference everyone keeps talking about.I'm pretty sure iPod's aren't really capable of outputting at such a high bit-rate so you probably would not notice the difference out of an iPod, regardless of the headphones. Better headphones sound different, but I think you would need a different MP3 player or other listening device like a computer.
I could be wrong, I will check my facts in a few.
EDIT: I can't find anything to really support my claim so I may just be talking out of my ass, but I remember reading that somewhere for sure.
Score: 0
@benevolution said: would somebody please tell me what pair of headphones that costs less than $200 is of good enough quality that I will actually hear this world of difference between an ALAC and a 320k mp3 when I listen to them on my iPod nano? I know I can't be this deaf, but using my PC's sound card and speaker system, I can't hear any difference at all. Even when I plug in headphones I can't hear a difference, but they are pretty cheap phones, Sennheisers that I got for $35 at guitar center many years back. If its just my ears aren't sensitive enough, then damn, but I want to hear this earth-shattering difference everyone keeps talking about.The Grado SR-60i cans are superb by all accounts (I'm hopefully getting some for Christmas this year), and they're under $100. But yeah, it's unlikely that you'll hear a world of difference between 320kbps mp3 and lossless. If you can distinguish them at all, your ears are a lot more sensitive than most people, so don't feel like you're some kind of tone-deaf philistine if you can't hear a difference. Good equipment never hurt anyone though.
Score: 0
Lossless vs lossy arguments aside, the other big reason why we had groups like PCP (People for Clearer Phish) who kinda stood for high quality lossless recordings was that with mp3's you couldn't listen to songs that segued (->) without hearing that dreaded split second gap, which as a listening experience, sucked the bag.And to clarify. FLAC is compressed. It's just not lossy. It's lossless compression, hence the acronym Free Lossless Audio Compression. It basically sounds the exact same as a cd, which is a wav file. But wav files are bigger files because they are not compressed. Make sense?
If you wanted to take your .flac file and umcompress it to a .wav file, you could burn it to a cd-r. For shows that I listen to alot, I still do this from time to time. I can tell a difference when I listen to mp3s/m4as/aacs (ie. lossy files) on my car deck -vs- when I convert a flac to wav and burn it to a cd-r. I just a have factory speakers in my '01 Jetta, but with the Clarion deck I have, the difference is noticable, especially when played LOUD! Alternatively, if you wanna make something sound better you could also just twist something up
Score: 0
While I have never blind tested myself I think that I can hear the difference to a degree if I have headphones on but it was something I certainly developed from recording my own music and mixing that. Listening and re-listening over and over again you get an ear for certain things. I can definitely tell by listening to a track if its a transcode (not ripped from the original source). Not 100% of the time but many times I have checked spectrals based on listen alone. I know its a different type of sound but just to reply to @Benevolution - I don't think people without a lot of experience listening to high-definition audio can tell the difference. Personally, I would rather have a ton of 320s on my iPhone so I can have more music than to keep lossless audio on my phone taking up space.
I guess the TL DR of this is: people can sometimes tell the difference between FLAC and 320 Mp3s, but its only through headphones and usually its very minor. Just my 2 cents
Score: 0
@benevolution said:
Ipod 160 GB
Sennhieser 598 HD Headphones
FiiO L9 L-Shaped Line Out Dock
FiiO E11 Headphone Amplifier
http://www.amazon.com/Sennheiser-HD-598-Headphones-Accents/dp/B0042A8CW2
http://www.amazon.com/FiiO-E11-Portable-Headphone-Amplifier/dp/B0053KWDES/ref=pd_sim_e_5/191-0911018-2198150
http://www.amazon.com/FiiO-L9-L-Shaped-Cable-iPhone/dp/B004QVNNI0/ref=pd_sim_e_1/191-0911018-2198150
Can I tell the difference with my upgraded setup? Not really, some MP3's I can't, but some I definitely can. You can hear popping and clicking sounds with MP3's lower than 320. Depending on the bit rate. If I listen to MP3's you won't catch me dead with anything lower than 320. Since I have a 160 GB I still listen to everything lossless.
The higher quality equipment you use the more MP3's will standout sluggish. The setup I have now is good, but I'm no professional audiophile, there is still a lot more room for upgrade....buying even better headphones, getting a better amp...etc. I will say, once you cross over into the hifi zone I promise you'll never go back to your previous marginal listening experience.
Upgrading my headphones and buying a nice amp has been one of the best decisions I've ever made. The amp really drives the headphones and squeezes out all those little intricacies you never knew were there. It truly enriches your listening experience and makes it really enjoyable to listen to your music...especially when your in the heat of battle of 04/07/72 The Other One.
would somebody please tell me what pair of headphones that costs less than $200 is of good enough quality that I will actually hear this world of difference between an ALAC and a 320k mp3 when I listen to them on my iPod nano? I know I can't be this deaf, but using my PC's sound card and speaker system, I can't hear any difference at all. Even when I plug in headphones I can't hear a difference, but they are pretty cheap phones, Sennheisers that I got for $35 at guitar center many years back. If its just my ears aren't sensitive enough, then damn, but I want to hear this earth-shattering difference everyone keeps talking about.My setup:
Ipod 160 GB
Sennhieser 598 HD Headphones
FiiO L9 L-Shaped Line Out Dock
FiiO E11 Headphone Amplifier
http://www.amazon.com/Sennheiser-HD-598-Headphones-Accents/dp/B0042A8CW2
http://www.amazon.com/FiiO-E11-Portable-Headphone-Amplifier/dp/B0053KWDES/ref=pd_sim_e_5/191-0911018-2198150
http://www.amazon.com/FiiO-L9-L-Shaped-Cable-iPhone/dp/B004QVNNI0/ref=pd_sim_e_1/191-0911018-2198150
Can I tell the difference with my upgraded setup? Not really, some MP3's I can't, but some I definitely can. You can hear popping and clicking sounds with MP3's lower than 320. Depending on the bit rate. If I listen to MP3's you won't catch me dead with anything lower than 320. Since I have a 160 GB I still listen to everything lossless.
The higher quality equipment you use the more MP3's will standout sluggish. The setup I have now is good, but I'm no professional audiophile, there is still a lot more room for upgrade....buying even better headphones, getting a better amp...etc. I will say, once you cross over into the hifi zone I promise you'll never go back to your previous marginal listening experience.
Upgrading my headphones and buying a nice amp has been one of the best decisions I've ever made. The amp really drives the headphones and squeezes out all those little intricacies you never knew were there. It truly enriches your listening experience and makes it really enjoyable to listen to your music...especially when your in the heat of battle of 04/07/72 The Other One.
Score: 0
Good stuff peeps. For my part, I was talking about LivePhish mp3 vs. FLAC-derived files on my iPod earbuds. @harroldHOOD said these are 256 kbps, not 320. So the jury may be out on 320, but with 256 the difference in sound quality is painfully obvious, through earphones, dock, or speakers. So do yourselves a favor and pay for the $5 upgrades to FLAC!
Score: 0
Professor, what's another word for pirate treasure?
Score: 0
You must be logged in to leave a comment!