Who's better, Kanye West or Radiohead?

mott you don't know what you are talking about. Take a FLAC file and put it through high quality audio equipment and it'll be better than vinyal every single time.

What you are describing in part is that in the 90s-mid 0's everything was recorded with a higher range so everything got muddied together, but that has nothing to do with medium
 
Royal Highness said:
mott you don't know what you are talking about. Take a FLAC file and put it through high quality audio equipment and it'll be better than vinyal every single time.

What you are describing in part is that in the 90s-mid 0's everything was recorded with a higher range so everything got muddied together, but that has nothing to do with medium
Click to expand...
Yes FLAC is a great improvement over the lossy 16 bit/44k CD format. The move to 24 bit and 192k sampling is a great step forward.

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Technology hasn't even come up with a recording media that's more accurate than vinyl LP. LP's biggest disadvantage is it's size and durability yet this old analog technology still provides far better sound quality than an MP3 can. You don't have to worry about an MP3 degrading over time and having to replace it but no MP3 produces the sound quality of a clean Vinyl LP. That's due to the nature of MP3's that do not capture all the sound waves and algorhithms. They only capture the peak ones. So if an MP3 was a true sound recording it would carry far more data than is practical for electronic media. So since an MP3 is not true or complete recording of a song/music, and vinyl LP is, a vinyl LP produces a higher sound quality than an MP3 player can....until the vinyl LP wears out.
Click to expand...

MP3's and other lossy formats use an auditory model to discard parts of the signal that the human ear isn't likely to be able to pick up. They do this with varying degrees of success, and of course the artifacts become more noticeable the lower the bitrate is.

FLAC's are losslessly compressed (meaning none of the signal is lost). CD's are uncompressed. However, I guarantee you if you sit down and do blind A/B testing you probably wouldn't be able to pick out a high quality MP3 (like something encoded using the LAME encoder with VBR set to V2 or V0 quality) from a FLAC of the same song with any degree of consistency. I doubt you could pick out a record from a high quality MP3, FLAC, or CD either, although it would be annoying to make such a setup.

Of course you can easily do blind A/B testing of FLAC vs a high quality MP3 with a program on your computer. Just download a FLAC, and then use LAME to encode it to a V0 MP3, then compare the two using a blind A/B testing program.
 
Also while the sizes of FLAC's or uncompressed files were impractically large for a 90's or 00's computer, it's hardly impractical in this day and age. We are talking about 100-200 MB for a FLAC album.
 
Last edited:
That said about high quality lossy mp3's, when you download from a music service you don't have any control over how they encode it. Only way to guarantee high quality is lossless.
 
Royal Highness said:
mott you don't know what you are talking about. Take a FLAC file and put it through high quality audio equipment and it'll be better than vinyal every single time.

What you are describing in part is that in the 90s-mid 0's everything was recorded with a higher range so everything got muddied together, but that has nothing to do with medium
Click to expand...
I think you missed my point. Millennials have far superior technology available for listening to music but how many have high quality audio equipment? It used to be a higher percentage of the population had high quality audio equipment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top