Honestly, I can't believe we're still having this debate. This is the bottom line:
Lossless is better for quality preservation reasons, while lossy is good for personal use if you choose. I don't see what more there is to discuss!
Thread
Posts in chronological order
I'd like to throw a wrench in here if I may.
This may be a problem elsewhere, but on the Queen Hub there is this terrible problem with people taking something in 64kbps quality and re-encoding it at 320, just to make their file bigger (and therefore a different "fingerprint"), so you're fooled into trying to download it, only to find that it's utter crap.
With FLAC, even if the audio is terrible, I can accept that, because more often than not, it's taken a little bit of attention and dedication to get it there. This means that lazy bastards won't simply re-encode crappy RealAudio to FLAC, but instead the FLAC is likely CD sourced, at the very least. And in that case, there's enough depth in the samples that manipulation won't completely stretch the sound into tinny oblivion.
This may be a problem elsewhere, but on the Queen Hub there is this terrible problem with people taking something in 64kbps quality and re-encoding it at 320, just to make their file bigger (and therefore a different "fingerprint"), so you're fooled into trying to download it, only to find that it's utter crap.
With FLAC, even if the audio is terrible, I can accept that, because more often than not, it's taken a little bit of attention and dedication to get it there. This means that lazy bastards won't simply re-encode crappy RealAudio to FLAC, but instead the FLAC is likely CD sourced, at the very least. And in that case, there's enough depth in the samples that manipulation won't completely stretch the sound into tinny oblivion.
I'm going to try and explain this, just ONCE and ONLY ONCE more:
The spectrum of human hearing ranges from roughly 20Hz to 20 000 Hz. However: when a sound is produced, especially so in music, the frequency of the note itself (let's say 880Hz, an A) is not the only part that matters, as 'overtones', harmonics, are present a long way up in the audio-spectrum. They are not discernible by themselves, but they DO add greatly to the overall timbre of what is played. By cutting off these frequencies, the remaining sound will sound more synthetic and even fake. That is why lossless audio is necessary. 44Khz is the standard maximum audio-equipment can play back, so that's all you need (unless you have very good equipment and very decent analogue record (novelty records up to 128KHz were made)).
The spectrum of human hearing ranges from roughly 20Hz to 20 000 Hz. However: when a sound is produced, especially so in music, the frequency of the note itself (let's say 880Hz, an A) is not the only part that matters, as 'overtones', harmonics, are present a long way up in the audio-spectrum. They are not discernible by themselves, but they DO add greatly to the overall timbre of what is played. By cutting off these frequencies, the remaining sound will sound more synthetic and even fake. That is why lossless audio is necessary. 44Khz is the standard maximum audio-equipment can play back, so that's all you need (unless you have very good equipment and very decent analogue record (novelty records up to 128KHz were made)).
Thats true, BUT.... If the overtones weren't recorded in the first place...
And I know that this doesn't stop me from encoding flac to mp3, although I rarely download Queen bootlegs. But I hate it when people get slagged for asking for mp3 shows, because FLAC is 3 times as big and an inconvenient format.
And I know that this doesn't stop me from encoding flac to mp3, although I rarely download Queen bootlegs. But I hate it when people get slagged for asking for mp3 shows, because FLAC is 3 times as big and an inconvenient format.