Flac?
- Thread starter naes
- Start date
Introdacqua
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
I use mediamonkey to convert it, you could download the shareware at download.com
I use dbpoweramp.
http://www.dbpoweramp.com/dmc.htm
Optional codecs, including flac, here:
http://www.dbpoweramp.com/codec-central.htm
http://www.dbpoweramp.com/dmc.htm
Optional codecs, including flac, here:
http://www.dbpoweramp.com/codec-central.htm
Thanks, one quick question. Could I play .alac on my iPod? I'd assume so because it's an Apple codec.
[quote name='Mojimbo']I use dbpoweramp.
http://www.dbpoweramp.com/dmc.htm
Optional codecs, including flac, here:
http://www.dbpoweramp.com/codec-central.htm[/quote]
[quote name='Mojimbo']I use dbpoweramp.
http://www.dbpoweramp.com/dmc.htm
Optional codecs, including flac, here:
http://www.dbpoweramp.com/codec-central.htm[/quote]
It's great up until you realise how hard it is to find a good portable player that supports open formats like Ogg Vorbis and FLAC.
Luckily most Samsungs do Ogg and almost all Cowons do both.
Crappy Apple stuff =\
[quote name='Squall835']You do realize that FLAC is better than MP3, right?[/quote]
Luckily most Samsungs do Ogg and almost all Cowons do both.
Crappy Apple stuff =\
[quote name='Squall835']You do realize that FLAC is better than MP3, right?[/quote]
[quote name='Squall835']You do realize that FLAC is better than MP3, right?[/QUOTE]
If I wanted lossless, I'd just use .wav and leave it at that thank you very much. FLAC is so utterly worthless. Nothing on the planet uses it anyways. And with a good MP3 encoder like LAME and the proper settings, you can get excellent MP3s. FLAC being "better" is pure bullshit and you're only fooling yourself (it's been shown that even the most anal of audio-philes can't pick out mp3s with decent bitrates from original material in blind tests).
FLAC and whatever asshat came up with it.
If I wanted lossless, I'd just use .wav and leave it at that thank you very much. FLAC is so utterly worthless. Nothing on the planet uses it anyways. And with a good MP3 encoder like LAME and the proper settings, you can get excellent MP3s. FLAC being "better" is pure bullshit and you're only fooling yourself (it's been shown that even the most anal of audio-philes can't pick out mp3s with decent bitrates from original material in blind tests).
FLAC and whatever asshat came up with it.
hiccupleftovers
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Nogib']If I wanted lossless, I'd just use .wav and leave it at that thank you very much. FLAC is so utterly worthless. Nothing on the planet uses it anyways. And with a good MP3 encoder like LAME and the proper settings, you can get excellent MP3s. FLAC being "better" is pure bullshit and you're only fooling yourself (it's been shown that even the most anal of audio-philes can't pick out mp3s with decent bitrates from original material in blind tests).
FLAC and whatever asshat came up with it.[/quote]
Just keep telling that to yourself. There is a HUGE, an absolutely tremendous difference between FLAC and MP3 especially if you hook it up to some decent speakers in your car or you home.
FLAC and whatever asshat came up with it.[/quote]Just keep telling that to yourself. There is a HUGE, an absolutely tremendous difference between FLAC and MP3 especially if you hook it up to some decent speakers in your car or you home.
Allnatural
CAGiversary!
[quote name='hiccupleftovers']Just keep telling that to yourself. There is a HUGE, an absolutely tremendous difference between FLAC and MP3 especially if you hook it up to some decent speakers in your car or you home.[/quote]
No kidding. Even in a less than ideal listening environment I can pick out the differences between mp3s and lossless codecs.
No kidding. Even in a less than ideal listening environment I can pick out the differences between mp3s and lossless codecs.
I used to think that way, but after I heard lossless .flac and compared it to a 320 MP3, I could tell a difference. But on the go (with my iPod), 320 bitrate isn't a big deal.
[quote name='Nogib']If I wanted lossless, I'd just use .wav and leave it at that thank you very much. FLAC is so utterly worthless. Nothing on the planet uses it anyways. And with a good MP3 encoder like LAME and the proper settings, you can get excellent MP3s. FLAC being "better" is pure bullshit and you're only fooling yourself (it's been shown that even the most anal of audio-philes can't pick out mp3s with decent bitrates from original material in blind tests).
FLAC and whatever asshat came up with it.[/quote]
[quote name='Nogib']If I wanted lossless, I'd just use .wav and leave it at that thank you very much. FLAC is so utterly worthless. Nothing on the planet uses it anyways. And with a good MP3 encoder like LAME and the proper settings, you can get excellent MP3s. FLAC being "better" is pure bullshit and you're only fooling yourself (it's been shown that even the most anal of audio-philes can't pick out mp3s with decent bitrates from original material in blind tests).
FLAC and whatever asshat came up with it.[/quote]
[quote name='naes']But on the go (with my iPod), 320 bitrate isn't a big deal.[/QUOTE]
For "on the go," 160 or even 128 is just fine. It's amazing that audiophiles have convinced others of the necessity for huge bitrates in situations that aren't exactly circumstances conducive to the kind of listening that can detect minute differences in sound quality.
I understand the advantages to FLAC, and I've certainly downloaded more than a few special albums in lossless format. But the idea that FLAC is the only way to go and everything else is shit is ridiculous. Uploading every album on the face of the planet in FLAC isn't necessarily going to improve the music--some of that extra information is wasted on music (let's say Black Flag or Minor Threat) that doesn't really benefit from the lossless format in the way that certain classical or jazz tracks might.
I see both sides of the problem. Audiophiles think, since FLAC is the golden standard, everything should ideally be available in FLAC, and if it's not FLAC, they disregard it. Regular joe uploaders think, hey, what's the point of putting a 850 MB FLAC torrent out there when I can put a 100 MB 160 bit torrent out there, which will serve 99% of people's needs just fine?
I really don't think FLAC should be a concern until there are devices/equipment out there that can take advantage of it. Until then, I'd hope the audiophiles realize that usage dictates the standard and FLAC isn't really a fair or realistic standard at this point in time.
For "on the go," 160 or even 128 is just fine. It's amazing that audiophiles have convinced others of the necessity for huge bitrates in situations that aren't exactly circumstances conducive to the kind of listening that can detect minute differences in sound quality.
I understand the advantages to FLAC, and I've certainly downloaded more than a few special albums in lossless format. But the idea that FLAC is the only way to go and everything else is shit is ridiculous. Uploading every album on the face of the planet in FLAC isn't necessarily going to improve the music--some of that extra information is wasted on music (let's say Black Flag or Minor Threat) that doesn't really benefit from the lossless format in the way that certain classical or jazz tracks might.
I see both sides of the problem. Audiophiles think, since FLAC is the golden standard, everything should ideally be available in FLAC, and if it's not FLAC, they disregard it. Regular joe uploaders think, hey, what's the point of putting a 850 MB FLAC torrent out there when I can put a 100 MB 160 bit torrent out there, which will serve 99% of people's needs just fine?
I really don't think FLAC should be a concern until there are devices/equipment out there that can take advantage of it. Until then, I'd hope the audiophiles realize that usage dictates the standard and FLAC isn't really a fair or realistic standard at this point in time.
bread's done