Hi everyone! So now I know how to play FLAC files on my computer, which is wonderful! ^^ The question I've had for a while though is, what's the difference between a FLAC file and an MP3 file in terms of sound quality? Is it anything super noticeable?
I've also seen some people commenting on how some commercial releases of movie soundtracks aren't any good (too loud, too intense?). What's with that?
Thanks much! :)

FLAC is lossless. MP3 is lossy.

Lossless means that all the sound data is preserved. Lossy means that some data was lost when the file was transcoded (converted). Of course, this means that FLAC files, holding more sound data, will be larger files. Sometimes you'll come across a FLAC file that someone has been labeled "lossy-sourced"; that means that even though the audio is stored in a FLAC file, it's been transcoded into FLAC from an MP3 or other lossy filetype. CDs and Blu-rays use lossless audio (DVDs don't), and most digital outlets use MP3 or other lossy formats because most consumers don't care or don't know about lossless music.

Whether you can tell the difference between lossy and lossless is ultimately up to your own ears. I personally can tell the difference with some music, but others don't care about the difference or can't hear it. It's up to you whether a slight increase in sound quality is worth the extra hard drive space.

As to why people don't like some commercial releases... I'm no expert on the matter, but from what I've read over the years:

The way it works is that the music is recorded, and then set up to sound a certain way for the film. But the recordings are handed to the OST guys too. And the sound engineers responsible for the soundtrack are inclined to make every subtle note bombastic and loud and powerful. It's called the Loudness War, because those silly sound engineers think that loud=GOOD (or maybe they're paid to think that way)... you can read a little about it here (http://dynamicrangeday.co.uk/about/). Over the years music has gotten louder and louder and louder because they think that louder music sells better (it doesn't).

I think that recording sessions, which are almost always leaked, often sound the way the music was originally recorded. Sometimes, though, heroes such as Sonic Adventure with more expertise than the rest of us take their favorite scores and share their "fixed" versions. SonicAdventure calls his edits "Deluxe Editions". His edits are far more dynamic and interesting to listen to than the original OSTs.

Anyone else can feel free to tell me I'm wrong about all that, since I really don't know too much about the matter.

HQ mp3 encodes (with updated software), there shouldn't be too much audible difference.

Unless your equipment is either German, Japanese or something fancy audiophiles like to brag about.

LAME MP3 encoder has gone through significant updates and changes over the years, so the latest version should give you very great results for a lossy MP3.
Older software (Front-ends for LAME, GUI's, All-In-One suites) no one knows, uses or cares about is usually no longer developed or developement doesn't move unless someone emails the author of the programs and will usually older versions of LAME which is stupid. Beyond stupid.

"too loud" and "too intense" has nothing to do with the format (MP3, FLAC).
It's all the mixing and mastering from the stupid people at the studios who release the music with said problems.
There's no official quality standard for releasing anything. Mixers and producers can do whatever, whenever to whomever the please.

And we all have to pay for their mistakes.
Literally, if you're the one who purchased the music.

Using MP3 or FLAC won't change the quality of the stupid mixing/mastering.

FLAC is a lossless file format.
Don't convert Mp3 to FLAC. You gain nothing except being called stupid.
Don't burn MP3 to CD and then rip with FLAC. This also makes you stupid.
If you have burned CD's from the past and don't trust the source, scarp them. Better safe than stupid. :smrt:

With lossless formats (FLAC, ALAC, APE, AIF, AIFF, WAV, etc), you can edit these without losing quality.
Except, goes with the territory, for any of the quality you lose depending on the type of editing you do.
Noise reduction removes original content. NR on a FLAC source and saving as a FLAC file again will keep as much quality as possible, minus the NR you did.
Or any other fancy editing that alters or removes the original conent.

FLAC is good to have for any such editing.

Editing with an MP3 source is not recommended, but if it's the only thing you have (IE, you cannot download or get a FLAC source anywhere else; FLAC download available but you're too lazy to download or have excuses to not download legit FLAC sources makes you stupid), then there's not much you can do except convert to lossless, edit and export as lossless. And never ever ever transcode to lossy again.
We have a few edits on this forum like that.

FLAC is also good when you want to convert to multiple formats.
Let the source file be the lossless format.
Then convert to MP3, AAC, OGG, AC3, whatever.
You can use any setting you want, any filter, any DSP, any effect or anything you want.
You'll get much better and cleaner results than you would converting MP3 to MP3 again (which is stupid).

Keeping the FLAC is handy if you want to convert it again at a later time.
Especially if you're not happy with the transcode you did previously.
For instance, you can transcode with louder volume on some tracks if they're too quiet.
Or you can convert it to MP3 again if LAME MP3 encoder updates again in the near future.
Or you want to try converting to multiple MP3 formats and do a double-blind test on the different formats to see which ones sound different.

For example, you can take a lossless source and then convert it to these formats:
MP3@CBR=320
MP3@VBR=0
MP3@CBR=224
MP3@VBR=2

Listen to each one, blindly not knowing which is which (you can do this easily with Foobar2000 and the ABX Comparator plugin).
Guess which one is which.
If you can't tell the difference between any of them, go for the one that suits your needs best.
Save space? VBR-0 (highest quality VBR) or VBR-1 or VBR-2.

VBR is really nice.
Between VBR-0 and CBR-320, you can't really hear a lot of differences, if any.
VBR uses only bits it finds revlevant, while CBR will always use a constant rate of bits, even on useless, empty parts of music data.

High bit depth, high frequency (or HD) music can be noticable.
If mixed/mastered correctly.
There's a very large war for "loudness" in HD formats.
24 bit depth, 96kHz.

The standard definition for most music, equals the specifications for CD standards:
16 bit depth, 44.1kHz.

Which is more than fine for most humans, as most humans are deafer than they wish to believe.
24/48 is a standard spec for DVD and BD audio. And some HD audio digital stores.
But, more than sufficient specs for deaf humans.

Great for editing, for reasons said previously with fancy, fancy editing.

MP3 has no bit-depth, mind you.
Since it's a lossy source.
Lossy sources (MP2, MP3, AAC, OGG, AC3, DTS) don't have bit-depths.
Any software or hardware telling you the bit-depth of any lossy format is just giving an arbitrary bit-depth.
MediaInfo loves doing this. It's more or less to quiet the stupid people who would panic if their self-diagnosed OCD didn't see a bit-depth.
Media players will decode a constant bit rate across the frequency domain.
Some will decode at 16 bit depth. Which is cute and all. But any kind of live actions to the music like EQ, volume boost, post-processing, and you might get clipping or distortion because 16 bit is limited.
Good ones will decode at 24 bit. Others will decoder higher, and sometimes in floating point, but most computer hardware can only go as high as 24bit.
32 integer / 32 floating point / 64 floating point, is all mostly for post-processing on a decoding level. Not ideal for live playback.
Although you could (FFDShow). If you get audio errors or problems, reduce output bit depth to 24 or 16 and you shouldn't get a lot of errors/problems.

FLAC has a defined bit depth, supporting up to 64 floating point, I believe.
But, don't look into that. It's not really practical for most shriners here.

DVDs don't often have lossless soundtracks, and Blurays often do - but there are exceptions to prove the rule.

As for MP3 vs FLAC... Most of the time I can't hear the difference. I still collect lossless and rip all my discs losslessly. Why? For two reasons. Firstly, as an insurance policy - I will keep the best quality possible for everything for archival purposes and because I wonder what happens if I suddenly become highly susceptible to MP3 artifacts and find that I can no longer enjoy them. Disc space is cheap and lossless codecs are ubiquitous. There is nothing to lose by keeping lossless and everything to gain. Secondly, and more importantly, because anything less is a step backwards from a base sound quality that has been a consumer standard since the early 1980s.

MP3, or for that matter any lossy codec, does not - physically CAN NOT - reproduce audio that is CD quality. I'll be buggered if I'm going to collect sound in the year 2015 in measurably poorer-quality than a CD.

As for the loudness war, it's despicable and it's what happens when the people who are placed in control a) know about computers but not music and b) pander to the lowest common denominator because they believe it will put an extra few ��� in their bank accounts.

99.9% of recording engineers make excellent sounding recordings with realistic dynamic range, transparency, and a sense of realistic soundstage. They are not to blame. The mastering people take these splendid recordings and pass them through a thousand filters, limiters, and rack console distortion machines... turning them into a claustrophobic mush of noise that totally destroys the concept of general sound quality. (Let us not forget here that the intention of any good recording should be to accurately reproduce sounds captured in a real life environment.)

It's a shame... and I hope it changes. Ironically, the resurgence of vinyl is making a minor contribution as it's more difficult (read: impossible) to cut vinyl with music that is over-saturated and over-limited to the extent of most modern CD releases - leading to the incorrect assumption that vinyl sounds better than CD. WRONG. The vinyl master is sometimes better than the CD master, but that's a product of the mastering techniques and not anything inherent to vinyl. Put the vinyl master on a CD and you've got yourself a winner.

FLAC has a defined bit depth, supporting up to 64 floating point, I believe.
But, don't look into that. It's not really practical for most shriners here.

64 bit?

Don't give the nutty audiophiles here any ideas! :p

It's worth noting, a majority of the time 320 MP3 will be sufficient to your needs. Provided there aren't any artifacts, things should be clear enough for you to comfortably enjoy that recording. Now, if you're really going to listen (and I mean really listen) to the song, then perhaps you will be able to tell the difference with FLAC. It's mostly about where you look; highs are cut off slightly with MP3, bass rolls off sooner, the soundstage is narrowed- but these effects are usually only troublesome with lower bitrate encodes.

I'd say the final tell would how much you can hear going on at once. MP3 operates under the belief that what you can't hear can be scrapped; so if your song has loud bass and other sounds, it may decide to chop off some of the highs (again, more noticeable at the lower bitrates). With FLAC, all information is kept, and played; so if you have a busy electronic track, you should be able to hear all the high synths along with the bass and vocals- none of them should "disappear" in favor of other/louder sounds.

Mostly, this boils down to how well you listen, and how well you know the song.

I would agree with Ponyo's point. Flac will start to show it's advantages when you have a proper gear to listen to. IMHO, A free Earpods that comes with an iPhone, although convenient can never triumph a good headphone set+amp.

I only have a pair of AKG headphones. They're not the best but they're rather good.

AKG are very popular as value buy, they're not that expensive but performs really well. For those in US, Massdrop sometimes have AKG K7XX at a great bargain price.

A question along those lines- what would be good headphones to have? That are relatively cheap. I have an old pair of bigger Skullcandy headphones, and Apple earbuds, but that's it!

I find that a full-bodied mustache and a pair of cans improves sound quality no end.

For buds, I'd recommend the Sony MDREX58V. Around $25, has a wide frequency response and has a very crisp and clear sound to it. I'd say the sound is very well balanced; highs don't get piercing unless you crank the source volume - which is also when the bass will start drowning everything else out. If there is a fault, the mid-range may be a little bit too quiet by comparison to the other two, but I haven't noticed it much. They've actually ruined me for non bud headphones because I keep looking for the same level of clarity and can't find it anywhere.

Owners of JVC Victor HA-S500's say they're very balanced and quite clear due to the carbon nanotubes so I've meant to give them a try ($40 on amazon) but haven''t gotten around to it. They have a successor (610 or 680, something like that) that is supposed to be improved but there's fewer followers for it so I thought it a bit of a gamble.

Really though it comes down to what you're looking for, a neutral sound, bass, highs, etc. and you should ask around on head-fi.org

I find that a full-bodied mustache and a pair of cans improves sound quality no end.

I incapable of growing one to that stature.
I can only grow a thin, whiskered stache.

But, it's true. Every thing is better if you've got a mustache (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NE5uCw7y7g4).

[[

In my experience, I've always used FLAC as a container for lossless audio. I made the transition from MP3 to FLAC some time ago due to my addiction to the sound quality of lossless audio. I can no longer stand hearing lossy music. As per the difference in quality, FLAC preserves up to all of the original audio data. That includes all the higher frequencies greater than 16kHz. Most MP3 codecs will cut off audio at the 16kHz mark to preserve file space, as that is the general practice of the term "lossy codec" which leads to audio sounding garbled and bad. As for good headphones to listen to lossless audio, the best headphones I've ever experienced for listening to lossless audio have been and still are my Astro A40's. I have tried countless "studio quality" headphones worth hundreds of dollars, and none have ever compared to the sheer power and clarity that the Astros provide, not even those $600 Sennheisers... Of course, you should decide for yourself what sounds the best to you. As a common practice, lossless audio quality is not judged solely by the container and format used, but also the equipment used to experience it! The standard Apple headphones are surprisingly amazing for lossless audio as well, for about three weeks, then they get blown out.

Most MP3 codecs will cut off audio at the 16kHz mark

On lower quality settings.
And really ancient, deprecated versions.

HQ settings don't cut off there anymore.
VBR-0 and CBR-320 are HQ settings that don't cut off.

Gabby Hays had whiskers but Lenin had a beard.

Thank you all for answering my questions! I appreciate it :) Everyone here is so nice!

Lossless is the best , the rest...

:laugh:

So funny, I don't care what you think Mister DVD lol

Wow Great Insult. LOL
"Mr DVD" lol

Not an insult, just a little joke ;-) so what about FLAC vs MP3, the same way DVD vs Bluray? it's just a serious question, so no offence Master Gold.

Yh Right.

So you are just searching fight where is no fight, I m not searching fight.

You know I prefer high quality audio / video, so I prefer to have lossless tracks and bluray / bluray uhd than MP3 / DVD, so FLAC vs MP3, I tell FLAC , it's not funny, your intervention is strange :-/

Are you guys going to have a cat-fight again?

No but mister DVD search that :-/

So What, but for people like me who do not, you sure liked rubbing in and insulting me for liking dvd.
whatever.

Excuse me SIR, you started the fight in this thread, not me, if you have ears / eyes impaires it is not my fault, I have the right to say I prefer FLAC / UHD no?

So I have nothing against you and you shares are great, but you are very susceptible :-(

In The The Purchase Thread The Other Day, You Went On And On At Me For Having Poor Sight Because I Buy DVD, Trying To Force All The UHD & FLAC On Me.

I Had My Say Now I Am Done.

I just told that The Revenant is a native 4k and the only interest of this movie is the picture so in DVD the resolution is too low to appreciate this movie so it's better to not buy it if you have not a 4k tv.

Lorddsp mother of god seriously shut the fuck up and stop pushing what you believe is right is on people. LET PEOPLE BUY AND LISTEN TO WHATEVER THE HELL THE DESIRE. IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS AND YOU ARE BEING HIGHLY RUDE AND HORRIBLE PERSON BY DOING SO! STOP MOCKING AND TREATING PEOPLE LIKE THEY ARE STUPID JUST CUZ THEY HAVE THEIR OWN PREFERENCES WITH MUSIC OR VIDEO!

Geez, I'm sorry BUT I CANNOT STAND THE INJUSTICES, AND THIS GUY KEEPS SERIOUSLY INSULTING PEOPLE ON AND ON CUZ HE THINKS HE'S SUPERIOR TO EVERYONE CUZ HE HAS UHD OR FLAC. I try but I cannot keep quiet. -.- You're a real horrible person just for that. You start mocking him and you dare to say you did't do nothing and it's his fault -.-

What are you doing hanging around the Plebs then, forums.HD-Douchebaggery.net should be a more fitting Crowd for you.

I just told that The Revenant is a native 4k

True statement on the technical specification of the filming process.


and the only interest of this movie

Now it's gone entirely subjective.


is the picture so in DVD the resolution is too low to appreciate this movie so .

Still subjective but starting to get judgemental...


it's better to not buy it if you have not a 4k tv

And now just being an ass. This is where others draw the line in listening to other prattle on about technology.

In regads to high-end audio, it's really best at being used as an intermediate for editing projects.
When CD's still rule the market and the standards is REDBOOK specifications, everything can be 16-bit/44.1kHz.
Hi-Res stores have too much that are upscaled just for the sake of sales.
Even with Hi-Res content, it's still better for editing. Even if you spent a lot of money on snake-oil "audiophile" equipment.

On every forum there are wars between guys who not see /hear difference between hi res audio / video and low res, so I rest on my position , a movie who is natively 4K should be see in 4K hardware, minimum in Full HD , but the new format add HDR (native HDR for The Revenant too) + BT2020, but as always the majority are still happy with dvd so guys like me are in minority and I don't care, I have the best audio / video quality possible now and I see the difference that's the most important.

I agree that between FLAC and 320 is not too evident than dvd between full hd / uhd but the FLAC is better to archive sounds and 320 is ok for streaming DLNA on tv and car for exemple.

I don't care

But you make elitist statements that compel others to feel you just belittled them on their preference.

I even went so far as to break your post into quotes that help illustrate this.

it's better to not buy it if you have not a 4k tv

A generalization like that makes me think I should not consider buying it on bluray and making a DVD for my mom.
You just set a rule for life in general.

A more reasonable statement that wouldn't impact others would be:

I do not want to buy DVD because I have a 4K TV

But, still gonig with the logic of native 4K: you're so screwed. Since most movies are natively 2K. And some movies with just a *few* scenes greater than 4K.
Some in 5K but resized to 4K to match the UHD-BD standard. And the native 2K gets upscaled to 4K for asshats that bought a 4K tv and want EVERYTHING to be in 4K just because they spent all that money.

HDR is just a meta tag. Movies are not encoded with HDR. They are encoded to be HDR-ready. The bluray player and the TV do all the work.

you're like a stoner. the way you go on. I've talked to so many stoners in online games that have elitist opinions about PC Master Race.
The National Socialist party of video gaming and technology.
You can spit out a few words and live by them but don't understand it as much as you wish to.

Any colorspace greater than Bt.709, most prefer DCI-P3 over BT.2020.
Most find 2020 to be too green and P3 to be juuuuust right.

I see a huge difference between BT709/ BT2020, the color are more realistic and with the HDR, the dynamic of the picture is great, I just saw Deadpool who is native 4K , the difference between the bluray ( I have too) is important.

Maybe I m so "elitist" but I have problem with a mass downscale like 4K >>> DVD mostly is the film is native 4K who is very rare for the moment.

And concerning the master 2k up to 4k in studio, the gain is there and the new color space + HDR change radically the picture even it's not a native 4K like The Martian who has better color than the bluray version.

So the new format is very good but he will not replace bluray and dvd ( unfortunately ) because DVD is cheaper to built and most people want no more than DVD quality.

The major place bluray UHD as premium, bluray as middle and DVD as the base, so the 3 formats will live together for long long time.

So the new format is very good but he will not replace bluray and dvd ( unfortunately )

Why "unfortunately"?

Not everyone has the will or the money to upgrade to this impractical technology.
Not everyone wants a big screen in their house.
Not everyone gives a rat's ass about quality. To them a movie is a movie, no matter how it's viewed.

It makes no sense for you to criticize others for not engaging in the TV Master Race. I can't tell if you're enthusiastic about the new technology or a slave to it.

I am enthusiastic about the new technology since I have laserdisc / vhs and first dolby pro logic processor :-)

So since this time, I never stop to be up to date with the last technology because it's a passion.

If we want to advance in quality with have to banish the SD quality and also the HD will be the base and more accessible, I understand that to have all the material in 4K is not possible for everyone but HD yes, screens are not expensive now and you can buy bluray player under 100 $ / €/ chf, whatever but major keeps alive DVD because it's cheaper to product, it's the only reason.

I do the same way with car, I have just replaced my BMW M235i by the new M240i ( it's the same car except the engine) because of the new 6 inline who have more power and less gaz consommation, so I will be up to date with my engine.

They wouldn't make DVDs if people weren't buying them. People buy DVDs all the time. I still buy DVDs. And I'd wager that DVDs still outsell Blu-rays.

If they stop to product DVD you will buy only bluray and we will advance in quality and stop SD quality forever!

The most people know nothing about quality and buy the most cheaper that's all, they don't care about hd / uhd / sd, they just want to see the movie but we can't advance if SD is still available, that's the fact.

Well. No. I Buy DVD's There Are More DVDs In Stores Than Blu-Ray Hence The Reason They Still Make Them, There Is A Demand For Them.

Yes, but if they stop product DVD you will have more bluray and the bluray will be cheaper, only uhd will stay expensive and for people who want more.

More thant 15 years the DVD still exist, it's time to stop SD quality, even tv channel turn all in HD so the DVD should be no more available.

If you can buy bluray for the price of a DVD, you will buy what?

And now I find a lot of bluray less then 10 chf / € etc

For Goodness Sake. What A Waste Of Time This Is.

You've stated your point more than once, lorddsp. What you're talking about is a bit unrealistic to happen. DVDs will not stop being manufactured and sold until sales drop considerably.

Literally, you have been essentially saying the same thing for like. 2 weeks.

I know that, but one day, like the VHS, the DVD will stop, but in 50 years we will see DVD again and again I m pretty sure lol.

Yesterday my wife bought Zootopia in DVD!!!!! I was so furious, so I just ripped it for our DLNA server and go back to the shop the have the cash back.

I will buy it in bluray because Disney not release yet UHD bluray.

I'll just go ahead and leave it here, then.

"It's The Time Of Preacher"

If they stop to product DVD you will buy only bluray and we will advance in quality and stop SD quality forever!

That's not how supply and demand works.

If I go to McDonald's and just want a burger, and they only offer me triple-patty Big Macs, I'm not buying that.
Thus, they've lost money.

Plus, not only are Blu-rays more expensive than DVDs, it also requires the purchase of a Blu-ray player and an HDTV. It's not an investment everyone is willing to make.
Staring at the TV all day may be important to you, but not to others. If something falls out of their usual price range they just won't buy it.

---------- Post added at 03:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:56 PM ----------


Yesterday my wife bought Zootopia in DVD!!!!! I was so furious, so I just ripped it for our DLNA server and go back to the shop the have the cash back.

Wow, your wife bought something - either for herself or as a gift to you - and you were "furious" at her and returned it? You must have an awful relationship with her.

I agree and it's the problem, we will leave with SD for long time again, so from my side, I will continue to try to have the best quality all the time because I like that.

Good Greif! :notgood:

Wow, your wife bought something - either for herself or as a gift to you - and you were "furious" at her and returned it? You must have an awful relationship with her.


For my daughter but my daughter has only bluray on her collection (I gave her my previous hdtv + bluray player.)

My wife knows that so it's was a mistake.

You just seem like a really terrible person to know in real life.

You have the technology but cannot enjoy it. I fear for you family that you're going to shoot them one day.

"Happy birthday, daddy! I got you this movie on Blu-ray!"

"You bitch! I wanted the Japanese Blu-ray because it has a higher bitrate! This is the filthy domestic Blu-ray!"

https://31.media.tumblr.com/325fb009182e9da38dedb3759dbe1d99/tumblr_n6x6n46rPD1s1uj0qo1_250.gif

ah ahah great lol!

:laugh:

You just seem like a really terrible person to know in real life.

You have the technology but cannot enjoy it. I fear for you family that you're going to shoot them one day.

I m a very kind person, I just burn all DVD I find lol

Yesterday my wife bought Zootopia in DVD!!!!! I was so furious, so I just ripped it for our DLNA server and go back to the shop the have the cash back.

Okay... this just proves how much of an horrible person you are. Seriously, stop acting like if everyone who does not do what you do is a piece of shit..

SD will always live on, no matter you want it or not, because not all content of the world has been produced in DVD. There's lots of originally produced SD content that is only in SD. because that's how they were done..

I LOVE, LOVE, Blu-ray, but not because of that, I stop buying DVD's completely (if they aren't in Blu-ray I buy the DVD.. or for missing special features.. or collecting reasons).. or tell everyone they're fucking stupid or treat them like they're dumb just because they decide to buy DVD.. seriously.. let everyone do whatever they want.. do not trat them like dumb just because they still buy DVD.. because that's extremely disrespectful and seriously makes you a HORRIBLE person..

---------- Post added at 03:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:15 PM ----------


I m a very kind person, I just burn all DVD I find lol

.. okay you have a horrible bad obsession, seriously.

---------- Post added at 03:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:15 PM ----------


"Happy birthday, daddy! I got you this movie on Blu-ray!"

"You bitch! I wanted the Japanese Blu-ray because it has a higher bitrate! This is the filthy domestic Blu-ray!"

https://31.media.tumblr.com/325fb009182e9da38dedb3759dbe1d99/tumblr_n6x6n46rPD1s1uj0qo1_250.gif

Extremely accurate.

"Happy birthday, daddy! I got you this movie on Blu-ray!"

"You bitch! I wanted the Japanese Blu-ray because it has a higher bitrate! This is the filthy domestic Blu-ray!"

https://31.media.tumblr.com/325fb009182e9da38dedb3759dbe1d99/tumblr_n6x6n46rPD1s1uj0qo1_250.gif

That is so fucking hilarious.

LOL!!!!!!

:laugh:

"Happy birthday, daddy! I got you this movie on Blu-ray!"

"You bitch! I wanted the Japanese Blu-ray because it has a higher bitrate! This is the filthy domestic Blu-ray!"

https://31.media.tumblr.com/325fb009182e9da38dedb3759dbe1d99/tumblr_n6x6n46rPD1s1uj0qo1_250.gif

:changspew:

I love imports.

But won't kill anyone over it or get furious.
I just put it on the shelf with the others to add to the collective.

Silent Hill on DVD is best from Japan from Pony Canyon.
Silent Hill on BD is best from France from Metropolitan.

I have Silent Hill BD Metropolitan , the quality is great.

Still extremely accurate. He would do it.

Okay... this just proves how much of an horrible person you are. Seriously, stop acting like if everyone who does not do what you do is a piece of shit..

SD will always live on, no matter you want it or not, because not all content of the world has been produced in DVD. There's lots of originally produced SD content that is only in SD. because that's how they were done..

I LOVE, LOVE, Blu-ray, but not because of that, I stop buying DVD's completely (if they aren't in Blu-ray I buy the DVD.. or for missing special features.. or collecting reasons).. or tell everyone they're fucking stupid or treat them like they're dumb just because they decide to buy DVD.. seriously.. let everyone do whatever they want.. do not trat them like dumb just because they still buy DVD.. because that's extremely disrespectful and seriously makes you a HORRIBLE person..

---------- Post added at 03:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:15 PM ----------



.. okay you have a horrible bad obsession, seriously.

---------- Post added at 03:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:15 PM ----------



Extremely accurate.

The LOL means it's a joke, so stop to be so serious.

The LOL means it's a joke, so stop to be so serious.

I'm sorry if it's highly expected from you judging by your words and behaviour here to people?

We Are not Laughing At Your "Joke"

*sigh*

Bluray is technically superior to DVD. Fact.
FLAC is technically superior to MP3. Fact.

What you want to watch or listen to is ENTIRELY up to you. The technical superiority of one format over another is not a matter for debate. And your personal preference for one format over another is nobody's business but yours... so it's not a matter for debate.

I know people who are DVD crazy now because they can suddenly get DVDs of everything they always wanted for crazy money. When all is said and done, they've got 1000 different movies to choose from. I even know people who are VHS crazy for the same reason - given that you can't even give away VHS tapes now, and if you don't have a lot of money, and don't particularly care about having the latest and the greatest of everything, and somebody offers you 100 VHS tapes of movies you love for �1...

Everything according to its strengths. What are you going to be doing with something? Where will you be listening or watching?

I archive everything in FLAC for critical home listening and so on... but for the car? With traffic noise, the sound of the engine, police sirens all competing for my attention? MP3 all the way.

"The lowpass filter on these MP3s is destroying the music!" - said no car driver, ever.

I fit more music on the same sized SD card and when I'm a thousand miles from home on a long, long drive I appreciate the additional choice.

TL;DR - what's "better" is decided by a whole bunch of metrics and only one of those metrics is "which one is bigger / faster / clearer / more"? :)

I agree, in my car and DLNA server I use MP3 320, but with my headphone and hi end system I use lossless.

---------- Post added at 11:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:35 PM ----------


We Are not Laughing At Your "Joke"

You should because it's a joke ;-)

You should because it's a joke ;-)

But we won't if it's not humorous. ;-)

But we won't if it's not humorous. ;-)

Oh Snap!

See That IS Funny.

But we won't if it's not humorous. ;-)

I agree ^^

I m a very kind person, I just burn all DVD I find lol

I just imagine a guy with a flame thrower in public, picking out every DVD in the store, and then proceeding to set them all on fire before getting kicked out of the shop. You have a long way before you achieve your goal, sir.

---------- Post added at 08:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:00 PM ----------

In all seriousness, people should be allowed to choose what formats they want. I speak to a lot of people in real life, and they say it doesn't matter to them what way they watch or listen to things, just as long as you can.

You simply can't ask a normal person on the street if they think mp3 or flac is better. It simply won't matter to them. You can only ask those that have further knowledge on the topic (like several people on the forum) for an answer.

The school I go to, while more recent (having celebrated 10 years last month), still has old tech. There are plenty of TVs (4:3 ones at that) that still have VHS players in either the televisions or a DVD+VHS device. Nobody goes in the room and says " Man that is so old. Why aren't we watching this on a 4K TV?" We simply sit in class and watch whatever is necessary for the lesson.

One situation I remember is when I was in advisory. I was talking to others about something when I saw someone was listening to music with their cheap earphones from the street. Curious, seeing as I hadn't bought from the street in a while, I asked if I could try them. I listened with them and I realized how good it was for me to have gone to higher places in the headphone line. Still, I needed to remain kind to the person I borrowed them from. I said I didn't really like them and perhaps could recommend something better. She proceeds to tell me "Oh, it doesn't matter to me which earphones I use to listen to music. It doesn't make a difference anyway." That's when I realized how far removed I've become from the casual reaction to technology. I've been caught in so many specific communities that I forgot what a normal person might say.

All in all, don't chastise preferences of the people of the internet when normal people wouldn't give a damn. Facts don't matter in this situation. Just feelings.

In all seriousness, people should be allowed to choose what formats they want. I speak to a lot of people in real life, and they say it doesn't matter to them what way they watch or listen to things, just as long as you can.

All in all, don't chastise preferences of the people of the internet when normal people wouldn't give a damn. Facts don't matter in this situation. Just feelings.
Well Said, That Is Exactly My Point. Thank You.

FLAC is lossless, thus better. If your HD is limited in available space, mp3 is fine.
I rip to Blade mp3 at the highest bitrate (320). Blade's encodes at low bitrate are pretty bad but great at high ones.
It doesn't have the ringing that you'll hear in some codecs (Xing & Lame) and doesn't cut-off highs like Fraunhofer.

Forget MP3. This was a trendy format back in the late 90s where storage was expensive. Lossless is the way to go nowadays, too much music spoiled in the 2000s ....