Forums > Sharing The Music - Announce > Why flac and not mp3? Listen to this!

forum rss feed
Author

willem-jan 8923 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 818 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Oct 05, 01:36 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

As an example why people prefer FLAC over MP3

http://beigerecords.com/cory/Things_I_Made_in_2004/iron_maiden_2004.html

jcrawford79 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 762 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Oct 05, 02:17 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Don't get me wrong...I'm certainly not an expert on digital forms of music, but does the quality of that track not have something to do with the fact that its been compressed 666 times? I would think that a more informative example would be a file that's been compressed only once or twice.

willem-jan 8923 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 818 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Oct 05, 03:03 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

The point is that you lose information as soon as you compress. Of course, this example is exaggerated, but it makes things clearer. If you download a compressed file, you just don't know what has happened to the file. Sure, it isn't compressed for 666 times, but it may have severe losses.
Don't get me wrong, I still like mp3's as well, but this example does show why some people prever FLAC over mp3. Because, even after 1 compression, this kind of hiss may show up.

Fenderek user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 4924 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Oct 05, 06:36 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

jcrawford79 wrote:

I would think that a more informative example would be a file that's been compressed only once or twice.

But when you get gigs of internet- how do you know how many times the boody thing was compressed???? And tahn those "gigs" you get through a trade and wander- what the heck is that?!

Nummer2 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 863 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Oct 05, 06:43 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

You never know if a FLAC file isn't just another MP3 file, saved to an audio disc (AIFF format) and then ripped to FLAC. But if you definitely know – then FLAC of course is perfect.

And then there still is the possibility to compress to MP3 with a higher bitrate (192 bps and up). I doubt anyone can hear a difference to FLAC on a standard home HiFi.


... I'll be back again before it's time for sunny-down ...
Wilki Amieva user not visiting Queenzone.com
We must all HEAR to believe
Wilki Amieva
Royalty: 1422 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Oct 05, 07:42 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

It is an easy task to know if a FLAC file you downloadead has been previously compressed in a lossy format - You just have to analyse its frequency spectrum.

In contrast, you cannot find out how many times a mp3 has been compressed in lossy formats.

Serry... user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 8271 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Oct 05, 10:03 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

If you ain't a collector of live shows, if your computer is smaller than Moon and can't has terabytes of FLAC inside - then you really don't care how many times mp3 has been compressed!

Why don't we upload pictures here in BMP instead of JPEG?! Same story...

tilomagnet user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 290 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Oct 05, 10:20 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Wilki wrote:

It is an easy task to know if a FLAC file you downloadead has been previously compressed in a lossy format - You just have to analyse its frequency spectrum.

In contrast, you cannot find out how many times a mp3 has been compressed in lossy formats.

Exactly. When doing a frequency analysis of a file you can see if it went through mp3(or any other lossy formats) or not. However in case it's been mp3 sourced nobody can tell how many times the file has exactly been converted and through what formats or bitrates it has gone. All you can do is guess depending on how bad the frequency analysis looks.


Nummer2 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 863 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Oct 05, 11:26 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Freak analysis? I think most people have better things to do. For the random collector it may be okay but the average fan wouldn't care as much. Especially when it comes to a 1973 live show, recorded from among the audience on a Philips cassette tape recorder hidden inside the bootlegger's jacket.


... I'll be back again before it's time for sunny-down ...
soberano user not visiting Queenzone.com

Champion: 91 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Oct 05, 18:24 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Quote:

Why don't we upload pictures here in BMP instead of JPEG?! Same story...


Oh my God ,the de same story? Definitively NO!!!
The Mp3 have gaps in live concert.

kudilja user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 412 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Oct 05, 18:27 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

flac is much bigger, and to download flac with only 3 kb/s....I don`t know

willem-jan 8923 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 818 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 14 Oct 05, 01:57 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

BMP is also compressed :P

Put TIFF images up instead!!!

For me the main concern about the mp3 thing is that the hissing is bloody annoying. In the file on that site you can clearly hear it. Some loss in quality on a 1973 recording is no problem on itself for me, as long as you don't get the stupid hiss. That destroys the complete show to me. Not the fact that you filter away some "high tones from a guitar".

Bobek user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 205 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 14 Oct 05, 06:34 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Soberano: if you mp3s put gaps in concerts, just join them together (there are tools joining mp3 WITHOUT recompression), or just use eg winamp with some crossfading output filtr, that enables preloading next mp3 and causes "no gap efect"


Bob

*****



GOD SAVE THE QUEEN
Serry... user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 8271 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 14 Oct 05, 08:24 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

soberano wrote:

Quote:

Why don't we upload pictures here in BMP instead of JPEG?! Same story...


Oh my God ,the de same story? Definitively NO!!!
The Mp3 have gaps in live concert.


Oh my God, did you read what I wrote or you like to misquote people? We don't post BMP here because it's too large! Same story about why some guys don't like FLAC. Get it?

soberano user not visiting Queenzone.com

Champion: 91 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 14 Oct 05, 19:39 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Ok, Flac and BMP is too large compared, but the quality loss is not the same in both cases.
Mp3 files loses more than the jpg comparatively. You understand?

inu-liger user not visiting Queenzone.com
inu-liger
Deity: 13057 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 14 Oct 05, 19:41 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

No, I think that MP3 and JPG's, depending on compression, lose just as much information almost equally (in theory) when they are compressed from an uncompressed source

soberano user not visiting Queenzone.com

Champion: 91 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 14 Oct 05, 19:50 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

The EAC spectral analysis shows always a quality loss in them mp3 compared with the Flac.
But the fundamental loss they are the gaps between the tracks songs in the live concerts. Somebody want this?
I certainly not because I prefer a concert in such brute who was.

inu-liger user not visiting Queenzone.com
inu-liger
Deity: 13057 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 14 Oct 05, 19:53 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

That wasn't a very grammatically correct post there.

And as for gaps, they are only very minor in MP3's, and can be easily edited out using a program like GoldWave, if you wanted to burn them to CD gap-free.

They are only 0.024 second long on average, usually at the beginning of the file.

So gaps are not an issue, in my opinion.

Serry... user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 8271 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 15 Oct 05, 00:51 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

soberano wrote:

Ok, Flac and BMP is too large compared, but the quality loss is not the same in both cases.
Mp3 files loses more than the jpg comparatively. You understand?


Yes I do, but where did I say something about quality?! Have I started to talk about quality?! I was talking about size!

bigV user not visiting Queenzone.com
bigV
Royalty: 1646 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 15 Oct 05, 04:31 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Nummer2 wrote:

And then there still is the possibility to compress to MP3 with a higher bitrate (192 bps and up). I doubt anyone can hear a difference to FLAC on a standard home HiFi.


Try MP3 with a variable bitrate (VBR). When you're encoding you can choose the minimum and the maximum bitrate so when you're playing it you can actually see Winamp jumping up and down from 160 kbps to 320 kbps (for example). I swear, I can't tell the difference between this and audio CD's.

V.



I'm as mad as HELL, and I'm not going to take this anymore!