U2start.com | Technology Topic

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

germcevoy

14 years

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.

yeah

14 years

How about discussing the definition of "significantly " now?

vanquish

14 years

Originally posted by germcevoy: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.

Space isn't an issue for you? Or for people in general?

If you have enough space to have all your songs in FLAC and are able to add more in the near future without having to delete others, then it makes sense to have your music in FLAC.
But for people who aren't carting around an iPod classic or have a small music collection that's going to be hard to do with most MP3 player capacities these days.

Risto

14 years

He is speaking for himself, not for any others. Anyway with a very common 32GB memory capacity you can have around 40 full u2 shows on it.

And you can always change the contents next time it needs charging.

germcevoy

14 years

Originally posted by vanquish:[..]

Space isn't an issue for you? Or for people in general?

If you have enough space to have all your songs in FLAC and are able to add more in the near future without having to delete others, then it makes sense to have your music in FLAC.
But for people who aren't carting around an iPod classic or have a small music collection that's going to be hard to do with most MP3 player capacities these days.

Space isn't an issue for the majority as most of them haven't even heard of FLAC. 95% of music listeners today deal only with mp3 and these take up very little disk space.

How we have stretched this onto another page is beyond me. I prefer flac and i'm done with the conversation.

vanquish

14 years

Originally posted by Risto:He is speaking for himself, not for any others. Anyway with a very common 32GB memory capacity you can have around 40 full u2 shows on it.

And you can always change the contents next time it needs charging.

I have a 32 GB iphone and won't have enough space for just studio recordings (never mind bootlegs) if I use FLAC. And I only have a 16 GB music collection (excluding bootlegs).

Originally posted by germcevoy:[..]

Space isn't an issue for the majority as most of them haven't even heard of FLAC. 95% of music listeners today deal only with mp3 and these take up very little disk space.

How we have stretched this onto another page is beyond me. I prefer flac and i'm done with the conversation.

That's true - ok fine with me.

djrlewis

14 years

Originally posted by vanquish:[..]
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

Lol, did you actually say that?!

Originally posted by germcevoy:
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.

We've said this many times

Originally posted by vanquish:[..]

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 ..........

What??!!?? Don't leave us hanging like that, what were you going to say???.....

Originally posted by germcevoy:[..]

Space isn't an issue for the majority as most of them haven't even heard of FLAC. 95% of music listeners today deal only with mp3 and these take up very little disk space.

How we have stretched this onto another page is beyond me. I prefer flac and i'm done with the conversation.

Originally posted by vanquish:[..]

That's true - ok fine with me.

Thank fuck for that

Originally posted by yeah:How about discussing the definition of "significantly " now?

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant

Risto

14 years

Originally posted by vanquish:[..]

I have a 32 GB iphone and won't have enough space for just studio recordings (never mind bootlegs) if I use FLAC. And I only have a 16 GB music collection (excluding bootlegs).

[..]

That's true - ok fine with me.

Think you missed the last sentence of my post you quoted. Anyway this aint going anywhere, people use what they want. End of story

vanquish

14 years

I was going to say (but got distracted and forgot to complete that sentence) was that Gerard said he could hear the difference and suggested I had bad audio equpment.

All I wanted to do was to explain that lossless does not sound better than hq MP3 enough to justify the vast increase in file sizes. I felt that other posts on the topic I've seen on here, people think it's a night and day difference between MP3, which it's not. I don't mind if people argue with the point as long as they can post reasons or evidence (which wasn't done)

That's was basically all, but yes I'll admit I do tend to get carried away easily.

And Risto, yes you can replace the contents of your MP3 player but I've yet to meet someone who actually bothers to do it. It certainly isn't a simple a solution as just encoding in lossy and having 4 times more space to play with.

drewhiggins

14 years

Originally posted by vanquish:I was going to say (but got distracted and forgot to complete that sentence) was that Gerard said he could hear the difference and suggested I had bad audio equpment.

All I wanted to do was to explain that lossless does not sound better than hq MP3 enough to justify the vast increase in file sizes. I felt that other posts on the topic I've seen on here, people think it's a night and day difference between MP3, which it's not. I don't mind if people argue with the point as long as they can post reasons or evidence (which wasn't done)

That's was basically all, but yes I'll admit I do tend to get carried away easily.

And Risto, yes you can replace the contents of your MP3 player but I've yet to meet someone who actually bothers to do it. It certainly isn't a simple a solution as just encoding in lossy and having 4 times more space to play with.

All depends on your MP3 encoder too. If you're using LAME (CBR or VBR, doesn't matter) then you're gonna get the best MP3 sound you can technically achieve as opposed to that of iTunes or WMA's ones - which just shouldn't be used for even casual listening.

I have a 32 GB iphone and won't have enough space for just studio recordings (never mind bootlegs) if I use FLAC. And I only have a 16 GB music collection (excluding bootlegs).

I'd personally encode it all in lossless. I have a 16GB collection too but remember it depends on how long some of your songs are making a full album. For example my shortest song is 38 seconds and the longest I think is 59 minutes. So having longer and shorter albums also counts towards that.

And some of the more ambient and orchestra songs would sound great lossless too.

germcevoy

14 years

I run all my flac albums and shows through an 8gb player. Very easy to manage when dragging and dropping in windows. Takes seconds with a fast PC. I'm upgrading to a 20gb player again using drag and drop. No such simplicity on an iphone.

Technology Topic

what they said

did you know

you

forums

U2start