quote:

Originally posted by Flec it does not work this way for mp3s bro, if you take an mp3 that was encoded at 128kbps and then transcode it to anything higher nothing will be improved

He was referring to FLAC, not mp3. In which case, the analogy is plausible.

Unless you are playing at large arenas or festivals, I wouldn't worry

___________________
My Soundcloud

quote:

Originally posted by vinnie97 Have you ever had the contents of a zip file not decompress to their original size (if they didn't, you'd have corrupted files!)? Case closed.

lol If you really listen to FLAC with some nice phones and listen to WAV or vinyl especially, you'll notice highs are dynamic and lows have warmth.Besides this dumb, if anyone thinks mp3's sound is better is lying or hasn't experienced better.And don't make this into a FLAC thread all I'm saying is there still a good chunk missing from the master

I've sat and compared the same song in wav and in aac before over and over segment by segment and it was difficult to tell the difference. Now aac obviously encodes A LOT better than the same bit rate in mp3, so this is understandable, because I've listened to an aac file vs a 320 mp3 and they sounded identical.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Flec it does not work this way for mp3s bro, if you take an mp3 that was encoded at 128kbps and then transcode it to anything higher nothing will be improved

Who's talking about LOSSY mp3s, "bro?" I was referencing FLAC, which is lossless compression and not too dissimilar mathematically from zip compression. I'm sorry if I wasn't specific enough.

quote:

Originally posted by Syntonic lol If you really listen to FLAC with some nice phones and listen to WAV or vinyl especially, you'll notice highs are dynamic and lows have warmth.Besides this dumb, if anyone thinks mp3's sound is better is lying or hasn't experienced better.And don't make this into a FLAC thread all I'm saying is there still a good chunk missing from the master

Don't confuse mediums. Vinyl is a completely different animal, with higher resolution than 44.1Khz audio since it is analog.

As David Michaels already explained, I am *only* referencing WAV versus FLAC.

quote:

Originally posted by vinnie97 Don't confuse mediums. Vinyl is a completely different animal, with higher resolution than 44.1Khz audio since it is analog. As David Michaels already explained, I am *only* referencing WAV versus FLAC.

That's right, I just had to argue that in some cases it takes an individual to hear quality differences. People might have to hear a vinyl to discern that quality of the mp3. Let's not get off topic this .wav vs. .mp3. Personally I prefer the more tangible choice, but I settle for .wav for obvious reasons.

Well, the only objective reason one person might perceive an MP3 differently than another in such a showdown is, all other things being equal, differences in individual hearing.

I only mentioned FLAC because it had already been brought up and I felt the need to dispel a myth.

LOL AT HEARING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WAV/FLAC

they EXACTLY the same quality at runtime (assuming same sample rate), FLAC just takes up less space.

quote:

Originally posted by Syntonic lol If you really listen to FLAC with some nice phones and listen to WAV or vinyl especially, you'll notice highs are dynamic and lows have warmth.

then you have a bad decoder for the FLAC file

Free LOSSLESS Audio Codec

The clue is in the name.

___________________
My Mixes (20/10/2009)