Uncompressed Music

[EmoRarity]

oh shit oh goddmamn. And a full time one, at that.

He must make the money at the Applebees 

[kuhchuk]

Alright, so here's my two cents.  320 cbr or MP3 V0 is virtually indistinguishable from flac (in blind A/B/X testing, I can reliably tell the difference between even V2 and flac).  Doesn't matter what you're using to listen to it, as far as I know, no one will be able to differentiate between flac and a HIGH QUALITY MP3.  10 or 15 years ago, this was not the case, but MP3 encoding has come a long way from there.  LAME is pretty damn great.  It WILL take out more than just "noise" from the original recording, and this can easily be tested via audio differencing.  However, in blind A/B/X testing, you cannot reliably tell the difference between which one is which.

 

In theory, .flac is still definitely the better choice, because you do not lose anything that was present in the original recording.  In practice, you still can't tell the difference.

 

However, a lossless format such as .flac, .wav, .ape, etc., DOES have it's benefits.  If you're planning on mixing audio in any form (ie. sampling, video rendering, etc.) you wanna go lossless.  This is because of the inherrent generation loss that you get with lossy encoding.  Don't re-encode a lossy file.  Don't do it.

 

Overall, most people simply DO NOT NEED a lossless format.  However, if you've got the spare hard drive space and don't mind waiting longer for it to download and possibly paying a higher price for it, go hog wild.  With that said, the only major advantage that MP3 has over a lossless format is that it saves space.  That makes it perfect for playing music on portable devices or simply taking advantage of smaller hard drives.

 

If you have any questions about my claims, wish to know my methodology in testing all of this, or think I'm just plain wrong, please feel free to ask me about anything or tell me where I'm wrong.  However, if you're want to tell me I'm wrong, be prepared to back it up with evidence, not just anecdotes.

 

EDIT:  I forgot to mention that another disadvantage of the MP3 format is that in tracks that are supposed to seemlessly flow into each other, the encoding process adds a brief silent "pause" between the tracks.  This issue is not present in .flac or .wav

[creatip123]

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to make claims that line up with how audio processing and amplification even function in the real world. If the source material is clipped, it wll be clipped at all wattages of amplification. Amplification will not suddenly clip a low-quality file, it will make the clipping that was always there more apparent.

 

Also, louder does not mean better ability to assess quality. Nothing about driving 1000W speakers 1 meter from me will make them more discerning of the frequencies present in source audio than the IEMs literally centimeters from my ear drums. If I can't hear the difference with as close to perfect acoustics as possible, I'm not going to suddenly hear them from feet away in whatever acoustically abysmal environment you built in your car just because it's louder.

 

I've been thinking there's something wrong with that claim (the 2000W guy), but can't really put my finger on. Thanks to your post I finally figured it out on how to word it. 

 

Losless to lossy encoding is about losing information (sounds), not about clipping. Perhaps a high pitched 'ching ching' sound gone or something. Decapitate a voltage value, it will clip. Decapitate a frequency, it won't clip, just some sounds lost. Just like having a sub-mid range-tweeter system, and you smash the tweeter. It won't clip because of that, just losing the high frequency sounds.

 

*it's not directed to you, I'm sure you already know this. I just quoted because you put the wordings to my brain

 

What he's talking about was probably artifact sounds as the result of encoding to lossy mp3, but as the guy above mentioned, LAME is already quite good as to not by-producing audible annoying artifacts. 

[SSL]

I've been thinking there's something wrong with that claim (the 2000W guy), but can't really put my finger on. Thanks to your post I finally figured it out on how to word it. 

 

Losless to lossy encoding is about losing information (sounds), not about clipping. Perhaps a high pitched 'ching ching' sound gone or something. Decapitate a voltage value, it will clip. Decapitate a frequency, it won't clip, just some sounds lost. Just like having a sub-mid range-tweeter system, and you smash the tweeter. It won't clip because of that, just losing the high frequency sounds.

 

*it's not directed to you, I'm sure you already know this. I just quoted because you put the wordings to my brain

 

What he's talking about was probably artifact sounds as the result of encoding to lossy mp3, but as the guy above mentioned, LAME is already quite good as to not by-producing audible annoying artifacts. 

 

The logic fail is that you can "push" lossless higher in volume before clipping. mp3 could introduce clipping at lower quality settings due to quantization noise of a 0dbfs signal.

[creatip123]

The logic fail is that you can "push" lossless higher in volume before clipping. mp3 could introduce clipping at lower quality settings due to quantization noise of a 0dbfs signal.

 

Hmmm yeah, now that I read about it again, you're right. His issue was with clippings of a lossy (or no clippings on losless). Quite epic....

[David1521]

Spotify premium is your best bet for 320kbps, I was surprised too but when you look it up, the vast majority of their songs are at 320kbps when played at their "extreme" quality. It cost 5$ a month if you have a .edu email (aka a student or teacher at a university/college) and 10$ a month for non-students.

So that's probably the cheapest option.