For people talking about audio quality: Loudness war
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
FLAC 1.4 Released With AArch64 Optimizations, Faster x86_64 FMA
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by cl333rA little rant - imho 90-99% of users of flac (or other such formats) don't really need it, I used to keep .flac files around but lately I transcode any flac to opus (256 KiB) and it takes 3-4 times less space without any noticeable loss in quality.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by rickst29 View PostI agree with your first paragraph, and note that the first step in maintaining 'exciting' acoustic sound quality beings at the microphones. But I disagree with your characterization of MP3 as an adequate format for finicky end users; even in old age, my own ears (worn out with lots of pro music-making) can tell the difference between MP3 and versus Opus 'lossy' conversion at their highest bit rates. For my own use (even in the car, where my audio files must be subjected to a TON of compression) MP3 @ 320 kb sounds lifeless, compared to FLAC. My auto head unit doesn't understand OPUS
Btw, what's your opinion about DSD and Hi Rez Audio in general? Cause that's what I really can't distinguish from standard CD quality. Some however claim they can hear a difference between DSD and high resolution PCM. They claim that DSD sounds more "analog", (probably because it stores the digital data differently). But I think if someone claims to hear a difference between DSD and high resolution PCM, it's simply a result of a different master.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by user1 View Post
I don't know much about Opus since I never used it, but there were like 2 cases when I couldn't distinguish a 320kbps MP3 from lossless format, so that's probably why I got this impression. But yeah, MP3's usually sound lifeless.
Btw, what's your opinion about DSD and Hi Rez Audio in general? Cause that's what I really can't distinguish from standard CD quality. Some however claim they can hear a difference between DSD and high resolution PCM. They claim that DSD sounds more "analog", (probably because it stores the digital data differently). But I think if someone claims to hear a difference between DSD and high resolution PCM, it's simply a result of a different master.
Here's an often shared video which for me was quite enlightening at the time.
Original Video: http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtmlWhy you don't need 24 Bit 192 kHz listening formats - https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.htmlM...
With that said, I also dabble in music production, although not professionally. There is a place for hi-resolution in production, but in distribution to end-user it makes no sense.
- Likes 5
Comment
-
Originally posted by user1 View Post
I don't know much about Opus since I never used it, but there were like 2 cases when I couldn't distinguish a 320kbps MP3 from lossless format, so that's probably why I got this impression. But yeah, MP3's usually sound lifeless.
Btw, what's your opinion about DSD and Hi Rez Audio in general? Cause that's what I really can't distinguish from standard CD quality. Some however claim they can hear a difference between DSD and high resolution PCM. They claim that DSD sounds more "analog", (probably because it stores the digital data differently). But I think if someone claims to hear a difference between DSD and high resolution PCM, it's simply a result of a different master.
Some Classical Music sounds really great in SACD 24/96 FLAC, although the skill in mixing the result accounts for a lot of the difference. A few specific musical instruments, such as cymbals, seem to have a lot "air" and "spacial context" if recorded properly and mixed to that end format.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by cl333rA little rant - imho 90-99% of users of flac (or other such formats) don't really need it, I used to keep .flac files around but lately I transcode any flac to opus (256 KiB) and it takes 3-4 times less space without any noticeable loss in quality.
It used to be MP3, then OGG, now Opus... in 5 years there might be something better. Or maybe a new kind of device or way to listen to music (lossy streaming to your toaster). The thing is, keeping your files in FLAC lets you create any of these other formats as needed.
Compare to keeping the original RAW image from a digital camera even if a JPEG could be enough for viewing it on a computer. The original RAW allows you to remaster the image for various uses, e.g. large prints, other color formats, etc.
- Likes 10
Comment
-
Originally posted by emblemparade View Post
It's not about audio quality when listening to FLAC (most people won't even notice a difference between FLAC and low-bitrate MP3), it's about having a lossless "master" from which you can then create any lossy format you want.
It used to be MP3, then OGG, now Opus... in 5 years there might be something better. Or maybe a new kind of device or way to listen to music (lossy streaming to your toaster). The thing is, keeping your files in FLAC lets you create any of these other formats as needed.
Compare to keeping the original RAW image from a digital camera even if a JPEG could be enough for viewing it on a computer. The original RAW allows you to remaster the image for various uses, e.g. large prints, other color formats, etc.
I'm deleting the original comment because I get too many misunderstood replies.
Comment
Comment