| brENsKi 05.05.2005 03:00 |
I'm getting a little tired of the disparaging comments aimed at mp3 tracks okay so they may have an inferior bitrate - but let's face facts 1. Mp3 tracks are convenient, and easy to move around from one place to another 2. Portable music players are called MP3 players - i've yet to hear of a flac player 3. there's actually very little wrong with the quality on a good stereo and the absolute clincher as to why Mp3s win the battle? 4. you could NEVER create a portable player for FLAC files - you'd need a portable player the size of Fridge to carry your music collection around!!!! - unless of course YOU ONLY ever want to listen to ONE TRACK - then a FLAC player would be ideal so the moral of the story - don't dis mp3s - they have a practical use in music - and much more practical - if less desirable - than FLAC. |
| The King Of Rhye 05.05.2005 05:14 |
just to add my 2 cents worth.......Flac isnt much of an option for me, as it's not really practical for me to use torrent on this computer......so any concerts available in any other way, I jump at.... |
| The Fairy King 05.05.2005 06:11 |
It's always been mp3 for me! |
| Serry... 05.05.2005 07:19 |
There's such topic in Sharing Music forum 'MP3'. I vote for mp3 also! |
| Sonia Doris 05.05.2005 07:21 |
mp3 rulz! |
| brENsKi 05.05.2005 08:07 |
<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: MP3 sucks. It's only good if your ears are roughly the quality of a 97 year-old's who died six months ago.post congratulations!!! you win the "first one to miss the point" prize it's not about "what we all prefer i an ideal world" - the theme of my post was aboutplanetll practicalities - but nice try anyhow ...and by the way - most of us don't have hard drives the size of a small planet |
| Serry... 05.05.2005 08:26 |
<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: MP3 sucks. It's only good if your ears are roughly the quality of a 97 year-old's who died six months ago.Seems like FLAC fans have special ears, they hear stuff that no-one else can hear... Maybe if we'd convert March Of The Black Queen BBC version into FLAC we'll find differences to album's version that Greg Brooks wrote about... |
| FriedChicken 05.05.2005 08:58 |
You really can't hear difference between MP3 at 320 and Flac. If those Flac fans are all so picky they should all stick to plain ol' Wave format |
| wstüssyb 05.05.2005 09:07 |
I prefer MP3 for personal use and for music on the computer I prefer wav format for trading, the gap in live shows is the killer. |
| brENsKi 05.05.2005 12:35 |
this thread was about practicality (not audio preference) shame some can't read - and Caspar - the vast majority of affordable mp3 players out there (ie under £100) are <1gb storage. that's about 25-30 flac tracks - hardly worth the effort - the same storage equates to 400+ mp3s so it's easy to see why there are no portable flac players - why don't the flac lobby crew invent a flac player? - sorry - stupid question - there's no market for one is there? btw -must buy myself a set of those "special ears" - i have a queen bootleg cd from BEFORE the invention of mp3 i have flac'd and mp3'd a couple of tracks, and then reburned them to cd on my sony stereo - there is no difference at all between mp3@320 bitrate and flac |
| wstüssyb 05.05.2005 15:18 |
<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote:Yes, some of that demand is to d/l and turn around and sell it, I even had 2 emails from people asking if I wanted to buy things they d/l here.Alex Solan wrote: I did the same that Martin but with a Pionner Profesional Hi-Fi Stereo - and Gold CD - and professional headphones and still no difference! You talkin' about numbers but about practical examples. I hardly think that the human ear could define between 320 kbps and 465 kbps. The differences - and the lose of quality on a MP3 - are only visible with an audio editor or a bitrate calculator (to define if a WAV/FLAC file was done from a MP3 file). Face it Caspar, we all are right, except you! :PWell, Alex, I'm still not the only one who hears a difference. And as you may have noticed, there is quite a demand for FLACs. That has a reason. |
| brENsKi 05.05.2005 17:35 |
Caspar, approx 50% of the available bootlegs are in shitty quality. there is an old maxim "shit in - shit out" and NO amount of flac-ing will flacking-well improve that, and there's little point in wasting disk space on them also as i said at the begining, this is about practicalities, and if you have a 14-terrabyte hard-disk drive to store all your Queen boots in flac - then good luck to you a recording of a live gig - that wasn't originally professionally recorded, no matter how good it "sounds" will not be improved any by FLAC, an mp3@320 is easily high-enough. i am honestly starting to believe that MUCH of "propoganda" surrounding the impurity of the "bootleg bloodline" and the "corruption, pollution and dilution" of quality is down to nothing more than "elitism for the sake of it" - there are always some who feel a need to prove their superiority - and FLACS help to belie this myth. These people HAVE to have the newest graphics cards for their gameplaying, the newest processor to speed up their wordprocessing (LOL), and lastly, - their hearing is obviously much better than everyone else's because THEY can easily tell the f***ing difference. (that word was FLAC-ING) by the way. Well, I am very happy for them. btw- i drive a Daewoo - even if i could afford a 180mph TVR what good would it do me? - there are no roads where i can legally drive that fast! |
| Serry... 06.05.2005 07:11 |
<B><font color=#ff7f00>Brenski</B> wrote: Caspar, approx 50% of the available bootlegs are in shitty quality. there is an old maxim "shit in - shit out" and NO amount of flac-ing will flacking-well improve that, and there's little point in wasting disk space on them also as i said at the begining, this is about practicalities, and if you have a 14-terrabyte hard-disk drive to store all your Queen boots in flac - then good luck to you a recording of a live gig - that wasn't originally professionally recorded, no matter how good it "sounds" will not be improved any by FLAC, an mp3@320 is easily high-enough. i am honestly starting to believe that MUCH of "propoganda" surrounding the impurity of the "bootleg bloodline" and the "corruption, pollution and dilution" of quality is down to nothing more than "elitism for the sake of it" - there are always some who feel a need to prove their superiority - and FLACS help to belie this myth. These people HAVE to have the newest graphics cards for their gameplaying, the newest processor to speed up their wordprocessing (LOL), and lastly, - their hearing is obviously much better than everyone else's because THEY can easily tell the f***ing difference. (that word was FLAC-ING) by the way. Well, I am very happy for them. btw- i drive a Daewoo - even if i could afford a 180mph TVR what good would it do me? - there are no roads where i can legally drive that fast!Brilliant! |
| brENsKi 06.05.2005 07:23 |
Serry Funster wrote: QUOTE] Brilliant!cheers |
| brENsKi 06.05.2005 07:56 |
Caspar said: If you could choose between driving a 2nd hand Vauxhall which pollutes the hell out of the environment, or you could have an environmentally friendly (hydrogen-cell) Jaguar, which you would have to take for a routine check-up once a month, and both would cost you the same, which one would you choose? I reply: what the f*** was wrong with my analogy? mine was a refence to capacity and power - why try and use FLACS if you don't have the capacity to use them? ie NO F**KING disk space +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Caspar said: As I SAID, it will not IMPROVE, but MP3 WILL DETERIORATE it, which FLAC PREVENTS I reply: remember "shit in, shit out" - i hardly think a FLAC will make a gnat's bollock of difference to some of those dodgy concerts that sound like they were recorded in a biscuit tin while up a cat's arse! ++++++++++++++++++++++++ Caspar Wailed: I'm not after any kind of superiority, I'm not here creating topics boasting my ability to distinguish MP3 from FLAC, I'm just saying that I PERSONALLY want FLAC, and I will not accept MP3-propaganda to deny me that possibility. I reply: that's a hat-trick fella! well done! you missed the point THREE TIMES - read my original post - it's NOT about what's preferable - it's about practicalities - so take your 400gigaterrazillabyte diskdrive and shove it where the FLACING sun don't shine! read the original thread again...I have already said FLACS are f***ing better, i've already said that in an ideal world we'd have them, but i commented about which suits the needs better... Honestly caspar! for someone of a higher intelligence than most of us, you make a damned fine effort at appearing incapable of grasping a point... I hope you enjoy your portable FLAC player - hope you have a fucking fork-lift-truck to wheel it around on....and enjoy the Jaguar at 70mph...shame about the other 130mph and two gears hardly ever used LOL |
| brENsKi 06.05.2005 12:05 |
<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: There's no need to get upset, now is there? I just don't agree about practicallity. Did the thought cross your mind that we might just define practicallity different because we think (and work) differently? You see, as I burn to cd, the size is not a problem. If I were to keep the stuff on my PC, it would, and I wouldn't have much of a benefit of FLAC's edge over MP3 either. But as I like to burn to cd's, FLACS are more practical to me, as they help me achieve my goal of good quality bootlegs on cd, where MP3 doesn't do so. Do you see what I'm getting at?don't patronize me! show me where i got upset - you are the one with the intellignece around here - or maybe not, if you look at how intelligently you 1. follow a discussion (no portable music players anywhere play flacs) and thank flacing hell for that - they'd need to be as big as a fridge - if you want to carry 40/50 cds around with you all the time that's up to you - but portable music is supposed to be portable by nature - hence mp3, wma, ogg etc - and 2. choose your heroes...let's face it you idolize a murdering thug (Che) and always tend to deny the facts (a CIA plot?) what? yet again you fail to grasp the PRACTICALITIES of the discussion....ipod with 100 queen live concerts on it or discman with 200cds - i know which i'd rather cart around on holiday... i haven't got upset and i haven't fallen out with you - disagreeing with you does not mean either of the above - it just means I THINK YOU ARE WRONG. |