nelamvr6 Wrote:
> You should really do some A/B comparisons for yourself. MP3's can sound
> quite good, if you encode them VBR with high quality presets (I use 0,
> but anything 2 or less).
>
> The file size when using VBR vs flac is much (*MUCH*) smaller. You give
> up a little bit in SQ, but
You should really do some A/B comparisons for yourself. MP3's can sound
quite good, if you encode them VBR with high quality presets (I use 0,
but anything 2 or less).
The file size when using VBR vs flac is much (*MUCH*) smaller. You give
up a little bit in SQ, but you gain a LOT in storage spa
Ali-M Wrote:
> Do you know if there's a "hack" to enable FLAC's on iPod?
You can install Rockbox ( http://www.rockbox.org/ ), but then you loose
the nice apple interface.
Lack of flac( and ogg) support and the dependency of iTunes are the
major reasons that I didn't choose an iPod.
Tom
--
t
tomsi42 Wrote:
> Right!
>
>
>
> In that case you need lossless. You should consider a 60GB model
> though. You can't get enough disk space on those players...
Do you know if there's a "hack" to enable FLAC's on iPod?
--
Ali-M
Ali-M Wrote:
> And the sound quality is the same right? I mean, like "ezkcdude" said;
> loseless is loseless. Right?
>
Right!
Ali-M Wrote:
>
> I'm very picky when it comes to sound reproduction, and frankly, I
> think my SHURE in-ear-phones deserves better than MP3's, no offence. I
> don't c
tomsi42 Wrote:
> If I remember correctly, ALAC (Apple) compressed a little better that
> FLAC.
>
> Have you thought about players from other producers (iRiver, iAudio,
> etc) ? They have models that support FLAC.
>
> Finally, do you need lossless on your player ? They eat up diskspace
> very qu
Ali-M Wrote:
> Another stupid question:
>
> I'm currently doing a back-up of all my music. As you already have
> guessed I'm using FLAC compression. However, I plan to buy an iPod in
> the near future and it got me thinking: wouldn't it be more convinient
> if I ripped my music to Apple Loseless
Another stupid question:
I'm currently doing a back-up of all my music. As you already have
guessed I'm using FLAC compression. However, I plan to buy an iPod in
the near future and it got me thinking: wouldn't it be more convinient
if I ripped my music to Apple Loseless instead of FLAC? That way
Ali-M Wrote:
> Roger that.
>
> Next question: How do you avoid the copy protection on audio cd's? I've
> got a bunch of cd's with this useless 'technology'...
The easiest thing to do is to simply defeat auto play on your CD
drives. That will defeat the majority of the copy protection schemes
o
ezkcdude Wrote:
> Now, you guys are getting into ripping versus encoding.
That's right. I brought it up as you need a correct rip before
encoding...
ezkcdude Wrote:
> FLAC is lossless. You can't change the quality of a FLAC-encoded file.
> You can *slightly* change the size of a FLAC file, bu
ezkcdude Wrote:
> Now, you guys are getting into ripping versus encoding. Ripping to WAV
> is something you have to do before do FLAC encoding. Errors can occur
> during the ripping process, but that is a different issue. Assuming the
> WAV file is a bit-for-bit copy, there is no way to produce "
Now, you guys are getting into ripping versus encoding. Ripping to WAV
is something you have to do before do FLAC encoding. Errors can occur
during the ripping process, but that is a different issue. Assuming the
WAV file is a bit-for-bit copy, there is no way to produce "lower"
quality FLAC files
Skunk Wrote:
> I selected 320, but I believe it's ignored for FLAC.
That is correct.
If you are obsessed about best possible quality, it is important that
the drive offset is set correctly and you rip in safe mode. Many people
use the AccurateRIP plugin as an extra precaution.
Of course, if
I selected 320, but I believe it's ignored for FLAC.
--
Skunk
Skunk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2685
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=24602
__
On the "External Compression Tab" there is a selection for Bit rate and
the default is 192kBit/s. Should I select the highest possible or leave
as it for Flac encoding.
Thanks
--
rocky2889
rocky2889's Profile: http://foru
Just to emphasize the point, *lossless* means no data is lost upon
decompression (not a single bit). In terms of quality, *there is no
better compression than lossless*. By definition, FLAC is a lossless
codec (encode-decode algorithm). The FLAC "quality" parameter is a
misnomer.
--
ezkcdude
S
Ali-M Wrote:
> So a higher compression ratio isn't neccesarily equal to a better rip
> quality? I'm currently using the "-8" setting.
Higher compression ratio only means a smaller file. The higher
compression takes a little longer on the compression end, and uses a
little more CPU power. The dif
So a higher compression ratio isn't neccesarily equal to a better rip
quality? I'm currently using the "-8" setting.
--
Ali-M
Ali-M's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5844
View this thread: http://f
"optimal" is a bit subjective - (optimal for speed / size / quality ?)
In terms of tutorials, there is a good one on setting up EAC to rip to
FLAC 'in the wiki' (http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.cgi?EACInstall).
--
Siduhe
--
If you're talking about FLAC, there's really no way to screw it up. It
will always be lossless, no matter what "quality" you choose.
--
ezkcdude
SB3->Derek Shek TDA1543/CS8412 NOS DAC->MIT Terminator 2
interconnects->Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)->Parasound
Halo A23 125W/ch amp
20 matches
Mail list logo