Oz ,'Beneath You'
Got a question about technology? Ask it here. Discussion of hardware, software, TiVos, multi-region DVDs, Windows, Macs, LINUX, hand-helds, iPods, anything tech related. Better than any helpdesk!
How much better is the sound using FLAC as opposed to, say, ~200 kbps VBR MP3 encoding (which is what most of my music is)?
My ears are pretty sensitive to minor differences in music, so I'm wondering if I should use FLAC compression for some albums.
How much better is the sound using FLAC as opposed to, say, ~200 kbps VBR MP3 encoding (which is what most of my music is)?
The answer is "depends" - basically, 192 kbps VBR can be very different depending on the encoder. There are lots of settings.
Back when I knew more about this, using the LAME encoder with the "--alt-preset-standard" command line switch was considered the best VBR option, resulted in about 192 kbps VBR, and had some pretty serious double-blind test to show that it was virtually indistinguishable from CDs, even with the highest quality audiophile equipment. On any level of consumer equipment, the'd be the same.
The 192 VBR used by iTunes at the time was far inferior. I could tell the difference sometimes when using my friend's really really good headphones on certain polyphonic tracks. On a double-blind we conducted, I was able to finger the VBR files about 60% of the time (better than random, but not much better). My friend did a little better (70%-ish).
So...it depends. FLAC will guarantee no difference, and if you've got the space it's great to use. But 320 kbps CBR MP3 will also pretty much guarantee you won't hear a difference, as would lame --alt-preset-standard.
Interesting.
At least most people don't call 128 kbps (no VBR) mp3's "CD quality" anymore.
I also just checked and found that eMusic files are generally 240 kbps VBR mp3's these days. (I get most of my music now from eMusic and the iTunes store.)
The thing about FLAC (or ALAC if you're in the Apple camp) isn't that it sounds better but that it maintains exactly the same bits as came off the CD. That way you can re-compress it using MP3 or AAC or super-whizzy holographic future format to put on your devices.
My sister is looking to record clinical interviews. They will all be indoor, and she won't be adding her own lighting. She doesn't have a tripod, but considers that she might need one.
Is this the right direction: [link] ?
She'd be storing not more than an hour's worth of video before transferring it to a computer.
super-whizzy holographic future format to put on your devices.
Well, this assumes that super-whizzy holographic future formats won't expect a better-than-CD-input (like SACD, for example). But, yes. It's an awesome archival format.
So, I have a technology question.
A bunch of friends from all over the world is looking for an online space where we can 1. chat, 2. listen to music together, and 3. do it for free. Places such as Spotify and Turntable are closed for non-U.S. folks.
Any ideas, or suggestions?
google hangout?
Well, this assumes that super-whizzy holographic future formats won't expect a better-than-CD-input (like SACD, for example)
If they do I guess it won't matter what format you stored your ripped CDs in.
Any ideas, or suggestions?
Here's a bunch of turntable.fm clones. No idea if any work internationally or how good they are: [link]