Too much FLAC FLACK - MP3 for Quality

[JackA]

No, FLAC Does NOT Sound Better...
http://warmleftovers.com/2012/08/05/no-flac-does-not-sound-better-and-you-are-not-an-audiophile-because-you-use-it-heres-what-it-actually-is-and-why-its-important/


Why MP3s Suck and How To Hear It...
http://productionadvice.co.uk/why-mp3-sounds-bad/


Others wrote: "To put it simply - mp3s are the equivalent to jpgs".

Alin Max replied:
"Yes. And just like JPEGs, the quality depends on the source material, the encoder' settings and the encoder itself. With the proper encoder (LAME) and proper settings you can get great quality from MP3".

Good job, Alin!!

Jack

[JackA]

On Thursday, May 7, 2015 at 5:41:08 PM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
> No, FLAC Does NOT Sound Better...
> http://warmleftovers.com/2012/08/05/no-flac-does-not-sound-better-and-you-are-not-an-audiophile-because-you-use-it-heres-what-it-actually-is-and-why-its-important/
>
>
> Why MP3s Suck and How To Hear It...
> http://productionadvice.co.uk/why-mp3-sounds-bad/
>
>
> Others wrote: "To put it simply - mp3s are the equivalent to jpgs".
>
> Alin Max replied:
> "Yes. And just like JPEGs, the quality depends on the source material, the encoder' settings and the encoder itself. With the proper encoder (LAME) and proper settings you can get great quality from MP3".
>
> Good job, Alin!!
>
> Jack

What was this song, recorded 51 years ago!!?? Sounds pretty darn good!! From a portion of the session (might hear slight mixing occurring) tape. I wanted to capture a high-hat intro, so I had to edit it, but include a count-off. But, really, this was recorded in the days of vacuum tubes. Has sound quality REALLY improved, or has the quality of people involved in recording degraded? I believe the latter. Why I have little faith in the survival of the USA.

The Dixie Cups - Chapel Of Love
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/chapeloflove-21.mp3

Jack

[[email protected]]

JackA: I don't think the continuing downward spiral of
recorded sound quality will bring down the USA - racist
justice policy will take care of that.

[JackA]

On Thursday, May 7, 2015 at 11:14:17 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> JackA: I don't think the continuing downward spiral of
> recorded sound quality will bring down the USA - racist
> justice policy will take care of that.

I'm talking the quality of the people.

Anyway, something interesting coming up, hope you'll hang around.

Jack

[JackA]

On Thursday, May 7, 2015 at 5:41:08 PM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
> No, FLAC Does NOT Sound Better...
> http://warmleftovers.com/2012/08/05/no-flac-does-not-sound-better-and-you-are-not-an-audiophile-because-you-use-it-heres-what-it-actually-is-and-why-its-important/
>
>
> Why MP3s Suck and How To Hear It...
> http://productionadvice.co.uk/why-mp3-sounds-bad/
>
>
> Others wrote: "To put it simply - mp3s are the equivalent to jpgs".
>
> Alin Max replied:
> "Yes. And just like JPEGs, the quality depends on the source material, the encoder' settings and the encoder itself. With the proper encoder (LAME) and proper settings you can get great quality from MP3".
>
> Good job, Alin!!
>
> Jack

This one hits the REAL truth...

Uses for FLAC:

"Making idiots feel special on the internet when they brag about how they can hear tiny differences between FLAC and high quality mp3s, despite the fact that auditory experts can't even do this".

https://encyclopediadramatica.se/FLAC

Jack

[UnsteadyKen[_5_]]

In article: >

JackA says...

> "Making idiots feel special on the internet when they brag about how
> they can hear tiny differences between FLAC and high quality mp3s,
> despite the fact that auditory experts can't even do this".

I'm no "auditory expert", but on my system and using specific tracks
I'm sure I could tell WAV/FLAC from MP3 with near 100% accuracy, and I
think most people familiar with the recording could also do so.

The specific tracks are on Amused To Death by Roger Waters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amused_to_Death

This album was made using the Q Sound process.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QSound

What you will hear when playing the original CD or a FLAC rip is pretty
well described here:
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue18/waters.htm

What I hear when playing high quality MP3 files or a MiniDisc recording
using the early 292 kbps implementations of Sony's ATRAC is that the
over the shoulder, way off to left/right above and forward of the
speaker effects collapse back in towards the speakers, reduce the bit
rate further and they become less and less audible and by 128kbps they
have vanished.

All that this little anecdote demonstrates is that; as others here have
stated, the audibility of compression artefacts depends on the original
material, but in some cases they are readily apparent.

I think I feel "special". Hmmm.

--
Ken O'Meara

List of UK hi-fi & audio dealers:
http://unsteadyken.esy.es/

[JackA]

On Friday, May 8, 2015 at 12:20:09 PM UTC-4, UnsteadyKen wrote:
> In article: >
>
> JackA says...
>
> > "Making idiots feel special on the internet when they brag about how
> > they can hear tiny differences between FLAC and high quality mp3s,
> > despite the fact that auditory experts can't even do this".
>
> I'm no "auditory expert", but on my system and using specific tracks
> I'm sure I could tell WAV/FLAC from MP3 with near 100% accuracy, and I
> think most people familiar with the recording could also do so.
>
> The specific tracks are on Amused To Death by Roger Waters.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amused_to_Death
>
> This album was made using the Q Sound process.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QSound
>
> What you will hear when playing the original CD or a FLAC rip is pretty
> well described here:
> http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue18/waters.htm
>
> What I hear when playing high quality MP3 files or a MiniDisc recording
> using the early 292 kbps implementations of Sony's ATRAC is that the
> over the shoulder, way off to left/right above and forward of the
> speaker effects collapse back in towards the speakers, reduce the bit
> rate further and they become less and less audible and by 128kbps they
> have vanished.
>
> All that this little anecdote demonstrates is that; as others here have
> stated, the audibility of compression artefacts depends on the original
> material, but in some cases they are readily apparent.
>
> I think I feel "special". Hmmm.

You must be a surviving extraterrestrial!

Yeah, MP3 gained a bad reputation because no other format can compact to its size.
But, yes, to gain great sound at low to very low bit rate, the source must be distortion free, way below what man's hearing can detect.

Jack


>
> --
> Ken O'Meara
>
> List of UK hi-fi & audio dealers:
> http://unsteadyken.esy.es/

[jeffG]

On Friday, May 8, 2015 at 5:17:14 PM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
> On Friday, May 8, 2015 at 12:20:09 PM UTC-4, UnsteadyKen wrote:
> > In article: >
> >
> > JackA says...
> >
> > > "Making idiots feel special on the internet when they brag about how
> > > they can hear tiny differences between FLAC and high quality mp3s,
> > > despite the fact that auditory experts can't even do this".
> >
> > I'm no "auditory expert", but on my system and using specific tracks
> > I'm sure I could tell WAV/FLAC from MP3 with near 100% accuracy, and I
> > think most people familiar with the recording could also do so.
> >
> > The specific tracks are on Amused To Death by Roger Waters.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amused_to_Death
> >
> > This album was made using the Q Sound process.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QSound
> >
> > What you will hear when playing the original CD or a FLAC rip is pretty
> > well described here:
> > http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue18/waters.htm
> >
> > What I hear when playing high quality MP3 files or a MiniDisc recording
> > using the early 292 kbps implementations of Sony's ATRAC is that the
> > over the shoulder, way off to left/right above and forward of the
> > speaker effects collapse back in towards the speakers, reduce the bit
> > rate further and they become less and less audible and by 128kbps they
> > have vanished.
> >
> > All that this little anecdote demonstrates is that; as others here have
> > stated, the audibility of compression artefacts depends on the original
> > material, but in some cases they are readily apparent.
> >
> > I think I feel "special". Hmmm.
>
> You must be a surviving extraterrestrial!
>
> Yeah, MP3 gained a bad reputation because no other format can compact to its size.
> But, yes, to gain great sound at low to very low bit rate, the source must be distortion free, way below what man's hearing can detect.
>
> Jack
>
>
> >
> > --
> > Ken O'Meara
> >
> > List of UK hi-fi & audio dealers:
> > http://unsteadyken.esy.es/

Even if a high quality mp3 did sound as good as flac it wouldn't matter to those who listen to "live" music or albums in which the tracks run into the next one (such as most any Pink Floyd album for example as well as classical music, etc.). I rip my CDs to flac & convert them to ogg if I want to save space on an mp3 player since that is the only lossy format without gaps between tracks.

[JackA]

On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 10:07:03 PM UTC-4, jeffG wrote:
> On Friday, May 8, 2015 at 5:17:14 PM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
> > On Friday, May 8, 2015 at 12:20:09 PM UTC-4, UnsteadyKen wrote:
> > > In article: >
> > >
> > > JackA says...
> > >
> > > > "Making idiots feel special on the internet when they brag about how
> > > > they can hear tiny differences between FLAC and high quality mp3s,
> > > > despite the fact that auditory experts can't even do this".
> > >
> > > I'm no "auditory expert", but on my system and using specific tracks
> > > I'm sure I could tell WAV/FLAC from MP3 with near 100% accuracy, and I
> > > think most people familiar with the recording could also do so.
> > >
> > > The specific tracks are on Amused To Death by Roger Waters.
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amused_to_Death
> > >
> > > This album was made using the Q Sound process.
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QSound
> > >
> > > What you will hear when playing the original CD or a FLAC rip is pretty
> > > well described here:
> > > http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue18/waters.htm
> > >
> > > What I hear when playing high quality MP3 files or a MiniDisc recording
> > > using the early 292 kbps implementations of Sony's ATRAC is that the
> > > over the shoulder, way off to left/right above and forward of the
> > > speaker effects collapse back in towards the speakers, reduce the bit
> > > rate further and they become less and less audible and by 128kbps they
> > > have vanished.
> > >
> > > All that this little anecdote demonstrates is that; as others here have
> > > stated, the audibility of compression artefacts depends on the original
> > > material, but in some cases they are readily apparent.
> > >
> > > I think I feel "special". Hmmm.
> >
> > You must be a surviving extraterrestrial!
> >
> > Yeah, MP3 gained a bad reputation because no other format can compact to its size.
> > But, yes, to gain great sound at low to very low bit rate, the source must be distortion free, way below what man's hearing can detect.
> >
> > Jack
> >
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ken O'Meara
> > >
> > > List of UK hi-fi & audio dealers:
> > > http://unsteadyken.esy.es/
>
> Even if a high quality mp3 did sound as good as flac it wouldn't matter to those who listen to "live" music or albums in which the tracks run into the next one (such as most any Pink Floyd album for example as well as classical music, etc.). I rip my CDs to flac & convert them to ogg if I want to save space on an mp3 player since that is the only lossy format without gaps between tracks.

Here's my theory. As soon as people hear "lossy", they immediately fear. They don't know what they fear, but fear itself.

Thanks for your input, Jeff.

Jack