Guest Calx Sherbet Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 i still don't get how different lossless types can have different bit rates. one MUST be worse than the other. this is still kinda cool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babar Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 I hope people will start using it massively as soon as possible. nah, we'll all stick to flac and wav and not hop on some bandwagon for unknown reasons othre than file extension familiarity cognitive dissonance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaosmachine Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 yo i dont think is possible to make a real "mp3" lossless. this sounds like what its just take a regular mp3 add lossless crap ontop of the fiel. so you really got 2 files in 1. the old mp3 which what makes it be backwards compatible (and its not lossless), then the lossless file. so unlees u got a special plugin to play this special mp3s it sounds like a regular mp3. exactly. it's a useless format. unless your player supports their special "hd" lossless format, all you're going to hear is the regular lossy mp3 they stick at the front of the file. and as a special bonus, your music take up 10x more space. yay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Calx Sherbet Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 i've seen flac files with bit rates in the 4000's. what on earth is that all about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chassis Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 i've seen flac files with bit rates in the 4000's. what on earth is that all about Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit loads of frequencies. Or just some being a moron using a massive bit rate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaosmachine Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 Why different bit rates for different genres? And out of the 3 music genres bitrates, why make classical the lowest, classical music has the most dynamic range out of the types of music selected for their test set. Bizarre. they didn't pick the bitrates, it's just a fact that different genres tend to compress differently. for example, classical music is very easy to compress, because most instruments just output very predictable sine waves. you don't need a lot of bits to encode those. compare that with something like track 2 from windowlicker, where there's entire images encoded into the track... it's not going to compress as well. there's more data, and it's less predictable. basically, the number of bits required to perfectly represent a sound depends on how often the wave forms repeat, and how predictable they are. complex, highly variable sounds require more bits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sup Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 exactly i seen some of ryoji ikeda tracks (the matrix ones) compress to very smalls sizes just cuz there such simple sounds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted September 20, 2010 Share Posted September 20, 2010 sorry sorry, was getting bit depth confused with bitrate...derr... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hanratty Posted September 20, 2010 Share Posted September 20, 2010 every time i download a flac i convert it to 320k mp3. i feel like 320 is the best way to go. file size is small (relative to flac/wav), and sound is good. I do not expect to ever have a world class system that will make me sad that my 320 mp3s sound bad. is there any flaws to this logic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest nene multiple assgasms Posted September 20, 2010 Share Posted September 20, 2010 Why different bit rates for different genres? And out of the 3 music genres bitrates, why make classical the lowest, classical music has the most dynamic range out of the types of music selected for their test set. Bizarre. they didn't pick the bitrates, it's just a fact that different genres tend to compress differently. for example, classical music is very easy to compress, because most instruments just output very predictable sine waves. you don't need a lot of bits to encode those. compare that with something like track 2 from windowlicker, where there's entire images encoded into the track... it's not going to compress as well. there's more data, and it's less predictable. basically, the number of bits required to perfectly represent a sound depends on how often the wave forms repeat, and how predictable they are. complex, highly variable sounds require more bits. I've noticed that anything mastered from 78s tends to have low file sizes in flac. noise like merzbow can be like 98 or 99% the size of the wavs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wahrk Posted September 20, 2010 Share Posted September 20, 2010 That's stupid. Why on Earth would retain the mp3 extension for something that is not an mp3? Yes, it contains one, but it is not one. You don't call a margarita tequila. Unnecessary garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscillik Posted September 20, 2010 Share Posted September 20, 2010 this thread, and people inside it (including me) are a bunch of fail. go talk about something you all actually know about...like Gaysex Twix bars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted September 20, 2010 Share Posted September 20, 2010 this thread, and people inside it (including me) are a bunch of fail. go talk about something you all actually know about...like Gaysex Twix bars well enlighten everyone, instead of being a moanee fag, isn't that what the nets all about ?? .. i'm sure that you've used the cliche at some point about the net broadening perspectives, well now is your time to shine buddy, go for it. Lest i go over there and tackle your flabby one sample pack arse. ;-] :: [-; Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscillik Posted September 20, 2010 Share Posted September 20, 2010 LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted September 20, 2010 Share Posted September 20, 2010 LOL haha, shine on brother. for taking this shit well. it's a rare treat. *oK(;-] :: E|-;)`Broe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Braintree Posted September 20, 2010 Share Posted September 20, 2010 Does it support 5.1 yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tessier Ashpool Posted September 20, 2010 Share Posted September 20, 2010 every time i download a flac i convert it to 320k mp3. i feel like 320 is the best way to go. file size is small (relative to flac/wav), and sound is good. I do not expect to ever have a world class system that will make me sad that my 320 mp3s sound bad. is there any flaws to this logic? Only possible flaw is that it's not necessary to have a "world class" system to detect the difference. But, if YOU can't tell the difference, then that's all that matters. Keep rolling w/320's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hanratty Posted September 20, 2010 Share Posted September 20, 2010 every time i download a flac i convert it to 320k mp3. i feel like 320 is the best way to go. file size is small (relative to flac/wav), and sound is good. I do not expect to ever have a world class system that will make me sad that my 320 mp3s sound bad. is there any flaws to this logic? Only possible flaw is that it's not necessary to have a "world class" system to detect the difference. But, if YOU can't tell the difference, then that's all that matters. Keep rolling w/320's. by "world class" I mean, $1000 or more. right now i just plug my Sennheiser 555s to my ipod or laptop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Dylan Posted September 20, 2010 Share Posted September 20, 2010 That's stupid. Why on Earth would retain the mp3 extension for something that is not an mp3? Yes, it contains one, but it is not one. You don't call a margarita tequila. Unnecessary garbage. Uh... so it can play on the thousand of players that only supports mp3 files? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcbpete Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 That's stupid. Why on Earth would retain the mp3 extension for something that is not an mp3? Yes, it contains one, but it is not one. You don't call a margarita tequila. Unnecessary garbage. Uh... so it can play on the thousand of players that only supports mp3 files? ....if they have the mp3hd codec installed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.