Is it even worth buying mp3s?

[nobody]

Or should I start getting WAV/AIFF whatever, I don't see why some shops charge more for the higher bit rate, will 320 be obsolete soon? I can't tell the difference, and with the way things are going, USBs are going to be able to hold bare terabytes so the size of WAVs isn't really en excuse to not buy them.

320s sound find when played out IMO, agree?

Reckon there will be a higher bit rate format out ever? Is there any point?

[dickman69]

The size in relation to cpu space & download speed keeps me getting mp3s but w unlimited space i would prob get wavs

[syrup]

FLACs are a good compromise, as they are smaller than WAVS but lossless and tagged.
Not all sites sell em though.

edit: i reckon 320's sound alright on a system, but i bet someone will argue with that

[nowaysj]

FLACs are a good compromise, as they are smaller than WAVS but lossless and tagged.

What's the deal with Flac, seems like a no brainer. Smaller than waves, but lossless... But I've got some block with Flac, like some creeping suspicion that there is something wrong, some catch.

Fucking Flacs, can't trust 'em, I say.

[Phigure]

you can transcode wav > flac > wav and then use a checksum to compare the two wavs, they'll be 100% identical.

[sixs]

Wav is uncompressed lossless, flac is compressed lossless essentially

[nowaysj]

you can transcode wav > flac > wav and then use a checksum to compare the two wavs, they'll be 100% identical.

That is what you'd say if you were trying to FUCK someone.

Where is the catch?

[ezza]

you really cant tell the difference imo. and all of my lecturers say the same

im sure wolf can hear the difference tho

[wolf89]

The volume level used in the design of the codec as a basis for mp3's supposed lack of perceivable loss is pretty quiet though I read. Could possibly explain why people say they sound worse played out on a system. I dunno. Will have to find what I read again.

Also FLAC is lossless the same way you can put shit in and out a zip folder basically.

[nowaysj]

Maybe it is the sound of the word. Flac doesn't really have positive connotations in our shared language.

[mks]

You fucking nerds, 230 kbps is the best.

[mason666]

420 kbps blasé it ******

[garethom]

When did kbps go over 96?!

[Samuel_L_Damnson]

420 kbps > flac cos its got a number

[nobody]

Pioneer CDJs don't read FLACs IIRC

[nowaysj]

See that. Stabbed in the back by a Flac. (Read in biggie voice)

[AxeD]

MP3 does the job most of the time. Even though it compresses at about 1:11
and ditches quite a lot of audio data, it masks it pretty well too.

[wolf89]

mp3 is redundant really. Why bother in this day and age. I avoid it at all costs outside of putting music on my phone

[nobody]

I think you're right, AIFFS/FLACs from now on for me

[hubb]

The volume level used in the design of the codec as a basis for mp3's supposed lack of perceivable loss is pretty quiet though I read. Could possibly explain why people say they sound worse played out on a system. I dunno. Will have to find what I read again.

Also FLAC is lossless the same way you can put shit in and out a zip folder basically.

Ever tried hooking an ipod up to a big rig?

It will sound as if there's a bad amp or less amplification and some point in the signal chain will have to use more gain than it's meant to. Might not sound bad tho.

I played a warm up gig to support limewax this way lol and when he came on... it sounded slightly .....much much huger