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.