deviant ART

Browse Shop Collections Chat News Today Forum

Lost Password?

[x]

Subscribe Now | Buy deviantWEAR | Advertise Here

The eternal format debate.

Categories Forums > Entertainment > Music

=kourinthellama

May 5, 2008, 1:48:10 AM

While I completely understand the hype over vinyl - I have a turntable and a collection of vinyl myself and I know that it's a completely different sound - I don't get it when the same people go ape over lossless audio compression. I'm yet to hear a FLAC that sounds better than a 320kbps vbr mp3, even on a superb quality soundsystem. Probably the silliest people are hardcore bootleggers who insist on nothing but FLAC. Why? How many of those bootlegs have audio quality enough to justify using lossless compression? And even if, how many bootleggers have hardware enough to do justice to the quality of the sound?

So yes, I'd like to hear your opinions on different formats of music storage and playback. Your preferences? Dislikes? Pet peeves?

--
You ate the bog roll last night. You said it would save time in the morning.

Devious Comments

~~love 0 0~~

~~joy 0 0~~

~~wow 0 0~~

~~mad 0 0~~

~~sad 0 0~~

~~fear 0 0~~

~~neutral 0 0~~

~craiglindsay

May 5, 2008, 6:08:11 AM

i think the difference between lossy/lossless compression can be heard on tracks, but only when they are compared.
For example, if i heard an MP3 version of a song that i've previously heard on a lossless type, i think it's pretty obvious to hear the difference.

i think that vinyl is deffinately the clearest sound out there, but for some reason unknown to even me, i choose a CD over the lot.

--
Nae Danger, Power Ranger

~InfiniteJest

May 5, 2008, 6:10:14 AM

I question how "superb" this sound system quality is. I can tell the difference with my piddle little Sennheiser headphones.

Still, I prefer .ape, FLAC, and disk images over every other type of audio format. When it comes to MP3 the lowest I'll go is 192 kb/s.

--
And I will rape this day.

~kazamo

May 5, 2008, 8:35:54 AM

i don't really care tbh. I download the majority of my music and if it's over 128kb/s i'm happy.

--
_{ever noticed how epic the russians are?}

~happy-valentines-day

May 5, 2008, 11:38:13 AM

Yeah, music is music, whatever it's played on. Vinyl elitists, people who insist on flac, or people who complain that 128 is 'bad quality' are fucking stupid.
Vinyl's rad, but i mean, c'mon. Get over yourselves.

--
ONE TWO THREE FOUR WHO'S PUNK WHATS THE SCORE

=kourinthellama

May 5, 2008, 12:15:04 PM

Hoorah!

--
You ate the bog roll last night. You said it would save time in the morning.

=kourinthellama

May 5, 2008, 12:23:16 PM

I did a test a while back and ran ELO's Time in 192 VBR mp3 and in FLAC on my father's sound system (the latest Denon, Bose surround speakers and loads of super-expensive technology that I couldn't name if my life depended on it). I swear I couldn't hear the difference, but when I inserted the CD the difference was obvious.

Although I remember I once had a Goo Goo Dolls CD compressed into Atrac and it had actually cut the highest registers - and if I could hear that on a normal Discman, regular headphones and on the Goo Goo Dolls, that must have been really bad.

--
You ate the bog roll last night. You said it would save time in the morning.

=kourinthellama

May 5, 2008, 12:24:07 PM

Funnily enough I don't find vinyl to be the clearest - I find it to be the richest. I think a remastered CD can have much sharper audio than the vinyl, but still the vinyl will sound better.

--
You ate the bog roll last night. You said it would save time in the morning.

=dripping-dream