On Becoming a digital audio snob

[chirp]

Back when Napster was the uber, be all end all of p2p, I was stoked when I could get an entire album at an mp3 bitrate of 192 or 256. Now I wont even stand for mp3 files, lossy rubbish mp3 is!!!

These days its .FLAC, .APE or .OGG. Anyone else fine they have become a digi snob?

[marylou]

No, but I bought a new vehicle this week and the first thing I did was take it over to Magnolia to get an ipod wire installed.

 

I own the music I have, so stealing stuff and getting a lower bitrate does not apply.

[EWolfe]

Back when Napster was the uber, be all end all of p2p, I was stoked when I could get an entire album at an mp3 bitrate of 192 or 256. Now I wont even stand for mp3 files, lossy rubbish mp3 is!!!

These days its .FLAC, .APE or .OGG. Anyone else fine they have become a digi snob?

 

DAS da way to do it!

[chirp]

Not about "stealing", but rather the aquisition and sampling of new varieties and how to do it using the most optimal digital audio quality options available.

Sampling, sampling, sampling, sister thats where its at

 

I am just amazed tho at the amount of folks who rip elegant tracks at 128 and think that is sufficient!?!

FLAC at the lowest compression may be a bit big but the lossless format will ensure amazing reproduction.

EAC is also a superb way to go versus the standard flac frontend.

 

You may "own" your music but what about buying a copy of "Mahler - Symphonies 3,6,10 - Charles Adler (1950's Mono) (Very Rare)", it's doubtful you could for a decent price. But you could "aquire" it as a FLAC for free.

[olyclimber]

you're lucky if you hearing is still good enough to hear the difference and you've got good enough equipment to tell the difference. I rip my CDs to iTunes at 192 for mp3s, and that works for my purposes...I did use EAC before I started using iTunes.

[fenderfour]

So you are telling me that you need a higher bitrate to hear the nuances in the 1950's era recording equipment? You mean hiss? Distortion? In mono even. You may want to look around for the dolby surround 7.0 versions of them.

[chirp]

So you are telling me that you need a higher bitrate to hear the nuances in the 1950's era recording equipment? You mean hiss? Distortion? In mono even. You may want to look around for the dolby surround 7.0 versions of them.

More like I value getting the complete package when it comes to recordings such as that. I am kind of a "complete package" nut and even tho I cant get the original disc, I am stoked to have a near exact dupe. Granted I realize Mp3 192 and above is pretty good, I just sleep better at night with flac

[nonanon]

I still like having a hard copy. I'll rip CDs w/ EAC at 320 mbps and stash the mp3s on a remote drive just so tunes are easy to find. Still, if I really want to listen closely (which is actually not very often) I'll break down and dig out the CD or LP. Somewhere over 256 mbps I can't tell the difference between rips, but A/B switching between CDs and rips it's pretty easy to hear how much better CDA is. Most of my listening is either at work, in the car or on the iPod where having "real" quality rips seems less important. At least to me.

 

So compared to CDA, do FLAC and OGG files pass the A/B test? Is there NO difference? And what's the size hit?

[archenemy]

I enjoy the hard copy as long as I get the full package.

[cj001f]

I enjoy the hard copy as long as I get the full package.

paging Mr. Porfiro Rubirosa to archenemy's lair. Mr. Rubirosa to archenemy's lair.