FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM

LOG IN Forgot Login? Register General Discussion • Trading Post • Non-Film Score Discussion  Profile • Preferences • Community Rules • Help/Contact • Search Board Search Terms:  Search Within:  topics posts since 2019 2018 posts 2017 posts 2016 posts 2015 posts 2014 posts 2013 posts 2012 posts 2011 posts 2010 posts 2009 posts 2008 posts 2007 posts 2006 posts 2005 posts 2004 posts 2003 posts 2002 posts 2001 posts 2000 posts users  search tips  You must log in or register to post.   Go to page:  1 2      Non-Film Score Discussion: WAV or FLAC?     1 2    NEXT   LAST   Last Post   Posted:   Jan 7, 2014 - 10:49 PM     By:   Brandon Brown   (Member) This has probably been asked 1,000,000 times around here. But, I'm wondering what most of you rip your soundtrack CDs as? I've got no issue with storage, so I'm contemplating FLAC or WAV. Any advice is appreciated. Thanks!    Posted:   Jan 7, 2014 - 11:07 PM     By:   Octoberman   (Member) I used to be a WAVman. Then when I started using Audacity I did some shootouts between a WAV and a FLAC of the same tracks (inverting one of them)... and they nulled each other out. It was proof enough for me that FLAC suffered no data loss (though some may feel otherwise). So I switched to FLAC--just for the additional space-saving, slight though it may be.    Posted:   Jan 7, 2014 - 11:39 PM     By:   tarasis   (Member) ALAC which is an Apple variation of FLAC. Use FLAC. It is smaller than WAV for exactly the same quality. (Think of it a little like a zip file, all the data is still there however the padding is removed but when you uncompressed the zip the file is like it was)    Posted:   Jan 8, 2014 - 12:44 AM     By:   Brandon Brown   (Member) Does it matter what FLAC compression level I use? Or, since it's all "lossless", doesn't it matter much?    Posted:   Jan 8, 2014 - 2:18 AM     By:   Mr Greg   (Member) Does it matter what FLAC compression level I use? No - there may be a slight difference on filesize, but lossless is lossless is lossless is lossless.    Posted:   Jan 8, 2014 - 8:52 AM     By:   Maleficio   (Member) Lossless is lossless, there's no need to even consider WAV.    Posted:   Jan 8, 2014 - 2:55 PM     By:   Thor   (Member) mp3, of course. With 1300 albums and counting, I couldn't have room for wav or flac files on my computer. And they wouldn't be playable in iTunes.    Posted:   Jan 8, 2014 - 8:34 PM     By:   ZapBrannigan   (Member) For the past few years I've done all my film score CDs in mp3 format at 192 kps. I used to think 160 kps was sufficient. My pop music is still at 160 and it sounds fine, but I upgraded to 192 for important/orchestral music. I can't hear a difference between 192 and the CD itself, and I don't obsess over wave forms on a computer screen, so I think I'm all set.    Posted:   Jan 8, 2014 - 8:44 PM     By:   Maleficio   (Member) It's not about wave forms on a screen or whether you can hear a difference (which given the right equipment you can), it's about having a bit perfect copy of the original CD and FLAC allows for this. MP3 is essentially 10-15% of the original file and that's quite sad.    Posted:   Jan 8, 2014 - 8:47 PM     By:   mastadge   (Member) It's not about wave forms on a screen or whether you can hear a difference (which given the right equipment you can), it's about having a bit perfect copy of the original CD and FLAC allows for this. MP3 is essentially 10-15% of the original file and that's quite sad. And if a listener's ears can't hear he difference, why is that sad? Why do I need a perfect copy of the CD when I have the CD?    Posted:   Jan 8, 2014 - 10:12 PM     By:   ZapBrannigan   (Member) If you're going to edit a music file, then lossless is best. And I always save the CD itself. But for the everyday listening copy, I just need it to sound right. How big are FLAC files, anyway? Am I saving much space?    Posted:   Jan 8, 2014 - 11:32 PM     By:   Mr Greg   (Member) How big are FLAC files, anyway? Am I saving much space? Roughly speaking (VERY roughly), a Level 8 (maximum compression) FLAC file is a little over half the corresponding WAV.    Posted:   Jan 9, 2014 - 1:53 AM     By:   Francis   (Member) It's not about wave forms on a screen or whether you can hear a difference (which given the right equipment you can), it's about having a bit perfect copy of the original CD and FLAC allows for this. MP3 is essentially 10-15% of the original file and that's quite sad. And if a listener's ears can't hear he difference, why is that sad? Why do I need a perfect copy of the CD when I have the CD? This is my reasoning as well, I rip the CDs in mp3 (192), I only have lossless copies of certain rarities. And if I want to listen to a score in perfect quality I'll just put on the CD.    Posted:   Jan 9, 2014 - 3:23 AM     By:   Thor   (Member) It's not about wave forms on a screen or whether you can hear a difference (which given the right equipment you can), it's about having a bit perfect copy of the original CD and FLAC allows for this. MP3 is essentially 10-15% of the original file and that's quite sad. And if a listener's ears can't hear he difference, why is that sad? Why do I need a perfect copy of the CD when I have the CD? Exactly.    Posted:   Jan 9, 2014 - 8:19 AM     By:   Solium   (Member) I love music but I'm not a music connoisseur. MP3's sound great if you have decent speakers hooked up to ones computer. (LLL STTMP sounds amazing.) It's indistinguishable from a CD on all my systems. The amount of space saved on the drive was another reason I go MP3. No regrets. It's also a matter of how one listens to music. 40 years ago we had a big stereo system in the living room. We sat back on the sofa or lounge chair and did nothing but take in the music. Today music is usually heard while doing other things. Without concentrating a hundred percent on the music the difference it negligible.    Posted:   Jan 9, 2014 - 9:48 AM     By:   Maleficio   (Member) It's all priorities I guess. I don't play CDs so I rip them at the highest quality possible (lossless) for sound and archival purposes. With lossless, I have my entire collection within the click of a mouse and I haven't compromised in quality at any step. If you can't hear difference because of the equipment or if sound quality isn't a concern or space issues, well then you could settle for MP3. I know I did in....1999. But if you ever decide you do want to go lossless, that's going to be a whole lot of reripping (depending on the size of you collection).    Posted:   Jan 9, 2014 - 10:42 AM     By:   MusicMad   (Member) ... It's also a matter of how one listens to music. 40 years ago we had a big stereo system in the living room. We sat back on the sofa or lounge chair and did nothing but take in the music. Today music is usually heard while doing other things. Without concentrating a hundred percent on the music the difference it negligible. Whilst I can't disagree with your views re: listening experience ... and I'm sure many others also do other things with music playing rather than simply sit and listen ... I can't disagree more with your conclusion. I play music a lot - working from home I have the opportunity to do so - and quite often I'm sitting at my PC (as now, albeit not working ) with the music floating up the stairs from the living room to my workroom (i.e. spare bedroom). I understand that many don't have this luxury and if portability of music is a major factor, etc. and budget - of course - then I have no problem in agreeing with the use of mp3, etc. But I can reliably inform you that the difference in the music is not negligible. I've just upgraded my streamer and the improvement is significant: clarity, depth and realism. For the record I use FLAC but have never used WAV (I previously used WMA) all in Lossless. I now refrain from seeking to promote one form of music transport over another because it's largely down to personal choice and what works for me won't work for everyone. I know that I am addicted to this hobby ... anyone who is happy with his/her music set-up will derive as much pleasure as I do from my music set-up. Just don't tell yourself it can't be better. Mitch    Posted:   Jan 9, 2014 - 10:50 AM     By:   Maleficio   (Member) I now refrain from seeking to promote one form of music transport over another because it's largely down to personal choice and what works for me won't work for everyone. I know that I am addicted to this hobby ... anyone who is happy with his/her music set-up will derive as much pleasure as I do from my music set-up. Just don't tell yourself it can't be better. Mitch I totally agree. You should always leave that door open.    Posted:   Jan 9, 2014 - 10:55 AM     By:   Solium   (Member) ... It's also a matter of how one listens to music. 40 years ago we had a big stereo system in the living room. We sat back on the sofa or lounge chair and did nothing but take in the music. Today music is usually heard while doing other things. Without concentrating a hundred percent on the music the difference it negligible. Whilst I can't disagree with your views re: listening experience ... and I'm sure many others also do other things with music playing rather than simply sit and listen ... I can't disagree more with your conclusion. I play music a lot - working from home I have the opportunity to do so - and quite often I'm sitting at my PC (as now, albeit not working ) with the music floating up the stairs from the living room to my workroom (i.e. spare bedroom). I understand that many don't have this luxury and if portability of music is a major factor, etc. and budget - of course - then I have no problem in agreeing with the use of mp3, etc. But I can reliably inform you that the difference in the music is not negligible. I've just upgraded my streamer and the improvement is significant: clarity, depth and realism. For the record I use FLAC but have never used WAV (I previously used WMA) all in Lossless. I now refrain from seeking to promote one form of music transport over another because it's largely down to personal choice and what works for me won't work for everyone. I know that I am addicted to this hobby ... anyone who is happy with his/her music set-up will derive as much pleasure as I do from my music set-up. Just don't tell yourself it can't be better. Mitch Oh I'm sure a CD on a $3000 dollar system sounds much better than an MP3 on a modest system. What I meant was on a modest system there is little difference between MP3 and a CD. But you wrote a good post.    Posted:   Jan 9, 2014 - 11:32 AM     By:   Rozsaphile   (Member) 40 years ago we had a big stereo system in the living room. We sat back on the sofa or lounge chair and did nothing but take in the music. Today music is usually heard while doing other things. Which says much about the state of music today. Great music is precisely that which rewards (and often demands) our full attention. Nothing wrong with background music of course, but the film scores that are worth talking about are those which have some real musical substance.     Non-Film Score Discussion: WAV or FLAC?    < 1 2  > >>  Go to page:  1 2   First Post    General Discussion • Trading Post • Non-Film Score Discussion  Profile • Preferences • Community Rules • Help/Contact • Search Board You must log in or register to post.   Go to page:  1 2

© 2024 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved. Website maintained and powered by Veraprise and Matrimont.