[sad_old_man]

I often see recommendations for, and use, Exact Audio Copy.

Hold on George I'm still struggling with the listening thingy bit? Now everyone's gone off speaking a foreign language.

[FF22]

Those seeds and stems cause a lot of pops and crakles, hence the need for Spotify..........without the damn ads

They also produced a lot of cackles!

[Carl Estes]

You mean Restraints, eh?

c

Cage I must go back to.......

c

[sad_old_man]

Photography's a lot less confusing.

[Cynycl]

Photography's a lot less confusing.

and with a lot less annoying ads

[miss_morgana]

Photography's a lot less confusing.

it is a way for one to relax and just fade off in another reality ..
I'm a photographer by the way .. But you already know this ..well except checking certain email or certain messages from certain people ..

Sent from my BlackBerry using my sad mood

[sad_old_man]

They also produced a lot of cackles!

Is that something you get with Spotify whatever that is?

[FF22]

Cage I must go back to.......

c

Funny you should mention Cage (John) in a thread on music. Or is Cage's music funny?

[FF22]

Is that something you get with Spotify whatever that is?

A while back I did have to google Spotify. I guess I'm not up on the latest and greatest.

[sad_old_man]

A while back I did have to google Spotify. I guess I'm not up on the latest and greatest.

Caught you telling lies!!!!!!!!!!!!! "you know me"!

[FF22]

Caught you telling lies!!!!!!!!!!!!! "you know me"!

Yeeeessssssssssssss, I do (is there a GAG emoticon?)

[rotorwrench]

Your questions have been more than adequately answered but I'm throwing in my 2 cents as well. First, I agree with several of the other posters that Flac is your best choice for quality and saving a little space. It's also one of the best lossless formats to archive your music with and keep the original quality. Flac will compress around 50 to 60%, whereas mp3 compresses anywhere from 80 to 90% depending on the bitrate you choose. How does mp3 codec compress? It removes music information that the designed algorithm is told that the human ear supposedly can't hear, but the effect has been demonstrated and proven to be noticeable to many people, especially those with sensitive hearing and those with a trained ear. With the advent of better quality playback equipment, many non-audiophiles also notice the difference, depending on the music. Flac removes only non-music information or non-data and compresses the original data with no loss of information whatsoever. As more and more people are preferring better quality playback formats, Flac support is increasing among devices and is also increasing in popularity within professional music circles and industry. Many people do notice the difference and the increased use of Flac indicates that.

One of the best programs for ripping to Flac is EAC (Exact Audio Copy) and has many great features, many of which you'll probably never need. But one feature it does have that you should use is error correction. It samples the music information as it's ripping and can correct many errors from the source, such as older CDs that have errors or scratches. MediaMonkey, Foobar2000 and Winamp (with a plugin) are just a few others that handle Flac ripping well also.


But the important issue is whether YOU OP will notice the difference. Because if YOU can't tell the difference or the difference between Flac and mp3 is barely discernible to you, there's no point in using Flac and loosing the extra memory. The thing to do is what I do with friends that ask about Flac or claim that there probably isn't a difference between compressed music and lossless. I have several tracks of different music, classical, pop, jazz,metal and bluegrass, especially good vocals such as Diana Krall, Charlotte Church and Haley Westenra. I have each song recorded in mp3 128kbps, mp3 256VBR and Flac. I have them listen to each song in each format and tell me which songs sounds best to them, they never knowing which format they're listening to. I then play the next song etc... I have them use my PB and Westone4 IEMs. Of the last 6 people I did that with, 4 picked the Flac tracks as the better sounding tracks to them. The other 2 were all over the board with their choices. FWIW, the pop and country tracks were the ones with least consistent preferences, neck and neck between mp3 256VBR and Flac. Mp3 128kbps was hands down most often picked as worst format.

OP, try doing a similar blind sound test with your equipment and your preference of music in both formats and decide for yourself. Remember, have someone else randomly choose the format of the songs you listen to so it will be truly a blind test. You may be surprised by the results, I was. Another FWIW. I've done this myself several times with consistent results, but when using cheaper ear buds and headphones, I do have a harder time choosing the better track on some of the songs than when I use my Westone IEMs or Sennheiser headphones. In the end, all that matters is what you like, not what we recommend.

[sad_old_man]

Your questions have been more than adequately answered but I'm throwing in my 2 cents as well. First, I agree with several of the other posters that Flac is your best choice for quality and saving a little space. It's also one of the best lossless formats to archive your music with and keep the original quality. Flac will compress around 50 to 60%, whereas mp3 compresses anywhere from 80 to 90% depending on the bitrate you choose. How does mp3 codec compress? It removes music information that the designed algorithm is told that the human ear supposedly can't hear, but the effect has been demonstrated and proven to be noticeable to many people, especially those with sensitive hearing and those with a trained ear. With the advent of better quality playback equipment, many non-audiophiles also notice the difference, depending on the music. Flac removes only non-music information or non-data and compresses the original data with no loss of information whatsoever. As more and more people are preferring better quality playback formats, Flac support is increasing among devices and is also increasing in popularity within professional music circles and industry. Many people do notice the difference and the increased use of Flac indicates that.

One of the best programs for ripping to Flac is EAC (Exact Audio Copy) and has many great features, many of which you'll probably never need. But one feature it does have that you should use is error correction. It samples the music information as it's ripping and can correct many errors from the source, such as older CDs that have errors or scratches. MediaMonkey, Foobar2000 and Winamp (with a plugin) are just a few others that handle Flac ripping well also.


But the important issue is whether YOU OP will notice the difference. Because if YOU can't tell the difference or the difference between Flac and mp3 is barely discernible to you, there's no point in using Flac and loosing the extra memory. The thing to do is what I do with friends that ask about Flac or claim that there probably isn't a difference between compressed music and lossless. I have several tracks of different music, classical, pop, jazz,metal and bluegrass, especially good vocals such as Diana Krall, Charlotte Church and Haley Westenra. I have each song recorded in mp3 128kbps, mp3 256VBR and Flac. I have them listen to each song in each format and tell me which songs sounds best to them, they never knowing which format they're listening to. I then play the next song etc... I have them use my PB and Westone4 IEMs. Of the last 6 people I did that with, 4 picked the Flac tracks as the better sounding tracks to them. The other 2 were all over the board with their choices. FWIW, the pop and country tracks were the ones with least consistent preferences, neck and neck between mp3 256VBR and Flac. Mp3 128kbps was hands down most often picked as worst format.

OP, try doing a similar blind sound test with your equipment and your preference of music in both formats and decide for yourself. Remember, have someone else randomly choose the format of the songs you listen to so it will be truly a blind test. You may be surprised by the results, I was. Another FWIW. I've done this myself several times with consistent results, but when using cheaper ear buds and headphones, I do have a harder time choosing the better track on some of the songs than when I use my Westone IEMs or Sennheiser headphones. In the end, all that matters is what you like, not what we recommend.

Just give me a moment to google what you just said? Whatever it was?

[bambinoitaliano]

Just give me a moment to google what you just said? Whatever it was?

Shut up old man!! This guy knows what he's talking about!!

[sad_old_man]

Shut up old man!! This guy knows what he's talking about!!

Yeah but I don't and I'm the one asking for help?

[bambinoitaliano]

Yeah but I don't and I'm the one asking for help?

You already got the answer from that cat. This one is for F2 as well!!

[jpash549]

While you are at it S_O_M google Audacity. The latest upgrade offers some interesting options.


September 06, 2013: Audacity 2.0.4 Released

Audacity 2.0.4 replaces all previous versions, with these improvements:

* New Effect > Reverb (based on Freeverb), that replaces GVerb.

* New View > Go to Selection Start and Go to Selection End commands.

* New Tracks > Align End to End command to append selected tracks.

* WAV files import/export now supports "Album Title", "Track Number" and "Genre" LIST INFO tags and ID3 tags.

* (Windows) New support for Windows WDM/KS host which can provide very low latencies if you reduce "Audio to Buffer" in Recording Preferences.

* (Windows Vista and later) You can now record computer playback by choosing the new Windows WASAPI host in Device Toolbar , then a "loopback" input.

* Bugs have been fixed, involving Keyboard Preferences, Equalization curves, and Effect > Change Pitch, and several more.


See the 2.0.4 Release Notes (http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Release_Notes_2.0.4) for more items and details.


Then you can explain it to me.

[sad_old_man]

You already got the answer from that cat. This one is for F2 as well!!

Don't go there!!!!!!!!

[bambinoitaliano]

Don't go there!!!!!!!!

Where?!!

[sad_old_man]

While you are at it S_O_M google Audacity. The latest upgrade offers some interesting options.


September 06, 2013: Audacity 2.0.4 Released

Audacity 2.0.4 replaces all previous versions, with these improvements:

* New Effect > Reverb (based on Freeverb), that replaces GVerb.

* New View > Go to Selection Start and Go to Selection End commands.

* New Tracks > Align End to End command to append selected tracks.

* WAV files import/export now supports "Album Title", "Track Number" and "Genre" LIST INFO tags and ID3 tags.

* (Windows) New support for Windows WDM/KS host which can provide very low latencies if you reduce "Audio to Buffer" in Recording Preferences.

* (Windows Vista and later) You can now record computer playback by choosing the new Windows WASAPI host in Device Toolbar , then a "loopback" input.

* Bugs have been fixed, involving Keyboard Preferences, Equalization curves, and Effect > Change Pitch, and several more.


See the 2.0.4 Release Notes (Release Notes 2.0.4 - Audacity Wiki) for more items and details.


Then you can explain it to me.

No it's perfectly straightforward actually. The thing is I've taken up photograph as it's easier to understand?, but thanks for the help. Wanna buy some cheap unused Bose headphones? Comes free with a carrying bag made out of a cat!

[sad_old_man]

Where?!!

Up!

[bambinoitaliano]

No it's perfectly straightforward actually. The thing is I've taken up photograph as it's easier to understand?, but thanks for the help. Wanna buy some cheap unused Bose headphones? Comes free with a carrying bag made out of a cat!

eeeeeew used headphones.....beelchh

[sad_old_man]

eeeeeew used headphones.....beelchh

Just trying to be a cat!

[bambinoitaliano]

Just trying to be a cat!

So you got wax balls spitting out of your ears?

[Djlatino]

You guys are having a fight about bitrates, audio codec/formats and how compression works between V0, 320kbps and FLAC?

Guys, that fight was settled ages ago, V0 master race for portable devices, FLAC for archiving.

Stop fighting.

Posted via CB10