DIG
Active topics
  1. It doesn't depend on the rip. It depends on the individual! Will you please stop treating your word as gosple. Interference.com is thee U2 fan forum so is that to say it is full of experts? No. It's full of fans sharing their opinions.

    If there are no differences between lossless and lossy then why the hell aren't CD's ripped with MP3's? I have a CD which is 400MB with all tracks. I rip it to (high quality) mp3 and that decreases to 100mb. What was the missing 300MB made up of?
  2. Originally posted by germcevoy:It doesn't depend on the rip. It depends on the individual! Will you please stop treating your word as gosple. Interference.com is thee U2 fan forum so is that to say it is full of experts? No. It's full of fans sharing their opinions.

    If there are no differences between lossless and lossy then why the hell aren't CD's ripped with MP3's? I have a CD which is 400MB with all tracks. I rip it to (high quality) mp3 and that decreases to 100mb. What was the missing 300MB made up of?


    But see, It's not my word as gospel! It's not my subjective opinion but rather objective fact backed up by thousands of listening tests. There is very little difference
    It's objective though, it's like saying

    As for your question, MP3 works by excluding frequencies outside the threshold of normal human hearing (ie. above 20khz) that are present on the CD. Then it also utilises a psychoacoustic concept called auditory masking where higher frequency tones are unable to be heard when other tones of lower frequency are played.

    Lastly the MP3 is also compressed (like FLACs and other lossless codecs are) which reduces the file size further.

    But enough talk, listen to these lossless vs lossy samples of Promenade I just made:
    http://rapidshare.com/files/422084456/Promenade.zip

    They're both made from the same WAV file I securely ripped from the UF remaster. One is FLAC and the other is high quality variable bitrate MP3 encoded using LAME.

    I chose Promenade because it's relatively short (making it easier to compare) and has a lot of atmospheric and ambient noises (which are harder to compress).

    Please listen to both files and tell me if you can hear any difference. And if you can hear differences, please tell me at what time you hear them.

  3. I don't need to prove my hearing ability to you because you simply don't believe that I can hear a difference. The fact is that some people can hear the difference. I don't care about your science or what somebody said on a forum. A true audiophile wouldn't be listening to mp3s.

    Promenade is a poor choice btw. No drums in it which is where I normally hear the difference in quality. There's very little in that song actually. All those remasters suffer from clipping anyway so not much use is comparing the samples.
  4. bla bla bla.


    To each their own.


  5. Originally posted by germcevoy:I don't need to prove my hearing ability to you because you simply don't believe that I can hear a difference. The fact is that some people can hear the difference. I don't care about your science or what somebody said on a forum. A true audiophile wouldn't be listening to mp3s.

    Promenade is a poor choice btw. No drums in it which is where I normally hear the difference in quality. There's very little in that song actually. All those remasters suffer from clipping anyway so not much use is comparing the samples.


    Well, then I'll do another track with drums this time - TUF? SBS? GOYB?

    And the point is comparing lossy vs lossless, if the remasters suffer from clipping it won't affect the outcome as both samples come from the same source.

    The UF remaster is good, atu2 had a professional musician do an in depth comparison of the three versions of the album and it was definitely better than the original and nudged out the MSFL version as well.
    http://www.atu2.com/news/the-three-sunrises-a-listeners-guide-to-the-unforgettable-fire-remaster.html

    And true audiophiles do listen to MP3s on their ipods.

    And did you say that my objective science is worse than your subjective opinion?
    I'm sorry but if you're going to argue with me, either posit your reasons, rebutt mine or give me some evidence that you can hear the difference. I've twice asked you for what frequency you can hear up to and the fact that you don't want to respond is telling.

    Now if you want to waste space on your iPhone by using FLAC that's fine by me but please don't argue with me simply for the sake of it unless you can prove your point of view.
  6. When will you stop? Listened to the sample. Mp3 was way better. . . . . I have now converted all my FLAC to mp3. Women are throwing themselves at me. I wish i'd did this sooner. Thank yoir forum friends for their insight.
  7. I don't own an iPhone and even if I did I wouldn't test frequencies using it's duff speaker.

    My point of view cannot be proved. I prefer FLAC and I have the space to store it. In your point of view this simply doesn't make sense. You are the argument.
  8. Agreed. Lots of people at hydrogen audio wasting time at this argument. Doesnt care if someone hears a diference or not.

    If you want to hear it at the best quality available listen to FLAC, if you want to hear it at 90-99.999999% of the quality MP3s will do. How important that 0.1% is to someone else is not up to you.
  9. Originally posted by germcevoy:When will you stop? Listened to the sample. Mp3 was way better. . . . . I have now converted all my FLAC to mp3. Women are throwing themselves at me. I wish i'd did this sooner. Thank yoir forum friends for their insight.

    This and BelgianBono's "1%" are the comments of the week.
  10. Originally posted by Risto:Agreed. Lots of people at hydrogen audio wasting time at this argument. Doesnt care if someone hears a diference or not.

    If you want to hear it at the best quality available listen to FLAC, if you want to hear it at 90-99.999999% of the quality MP3s will do. How important that 0.1% is to someone else is not up to you.


    Oh I agree that FLAC is better than MP3, just not significantly so as you yourself say 0.1%, the question is whether Gerard thinks so. If he does then I agree with him and there's no argument, I only took issue by the fact his orignal posts made out like

    I fail to see how if a listener is not able to hear the difference between the two is not important?
    Don't people care that they're wasting space that could be used for far more songs. This is very much like the audio equivalent of $100 HDMI cables
  11. Space isn't an issue? Mp3 is all that the majority will identify with and so that is the standard. Flac is a persons choice.
  12. How about discussing the definition of "significantly " now?
U2start is run by fans for fans. Help us reduce personal costs. Consider to make a donation to support us.
U2start is run by fans for fans. Help us reduce personal costs. Consider to make a donation to support us.
U2start is run by fans for fans. Help us reduce personal costs. Consider to make a donation to support us.
U2start is run by fans for fans. Help us reduce personal costs. Consider to make a donation to support us.