Thought On Audio Codec

Post by **a13n** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 2:32 am

I really can't understand the common people who wouldn't mind to take the time to convert cd-quality music into a lossy crappy compressed format and evern take the additional wasteful time to append tags to them or even burn them back to cd-r or cd-rw or transfer to portable memories, plus who dare to spend their money to low quality music via netwerk, all of which I define as "Mcdnald-ish."
Thanks for your reading.

Post by **Scourge** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 2:37 am

ok for one, I don't really care if it's the highest quality sound or not. Period. As long as it's pretty decent, that's good enough. I don't have to have the very best in everything like some consumer whore or audiophile. But yeah, going from cd to file to cd is a bit rediculous, but how many people acutally do that? That's mainly people who don't have the cd and borrow it and burn it.

Post by **+JuggerNaut+** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 3:38 am

a13n wrote:I really can't understand the common people who wouldn't mind to take the time to convert cd-quality music into a lossy crappy compressed format and evern take the additional wasteful time to append tags to them or even burn them back to cd-r or cd-rw or transfer to portable memories, plus who dare to spend their money to low quality music via netwerk, all of which I define as "Mcdnald-ish."
Thanks for your reading.

.flac for the win.

carry on.

Post by **a13n** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 7:51 am

@scourage34
I'm not a crazy audio freak for the equipment though I might be if quite a little money is provided.

@JuggerNaut
Because you've posted @ currently listeningt to, I googled it just a few days ago and found it decent.

Post by **+JuggerNaut+** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 3:54 pm

it's lossless it's only as "decent" as the source. :P

Post by **a13n** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 1:28 am

I know, I know.
But it's a daunting task to convert cda to flac. :icon27:
If only someone takes the heavy trouble to convert all my cda to flac.

Post by **+JuggerNaut+** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 1:34 am

it was daunting at first for me, too (had over 400 PURCHASED cd's at the time), but now i've got them all stored away and practically instant access to my entire collection which is also piped through my home theater setup.

Post by **l0g1c** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:31 am

I would say that ~192 is my threshold. Anything below makes me go bat-shit crazy. .flac is good for live stuff, but excessive for CD ripping imo.

Post by **+JuggerNaut+** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 11:53 am

depends what equipment you're using to play back on.

Post by **a13n** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 11:55 am

@+JuggerNaut+
So the only thing left you have to do is preying that flac would be the most major format of all?

@l0g1c
Agree'd.
cda2flac does not pay off as long as staying home.
And there should occur some loss when ripping from cd.

Post by **+JuggerNaut+** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 11:58 am

basically. mobile-wise though, i don't use .flac, only at home.

Post by **l0g1c** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 5:01 pm

I will add this, though. With the technology curve, .flac is only going to increase in popularity.

Remember when you bought a 10GB drive and went, "OMG, I'm never gonna fill this up!"

In the next 3-5 years, the storage technology will eclipse compression methods, and there will hardly be any reason not to use .flac.

Post by **a13n** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 9:50 am

If so, staying wav seems to be wiser.

Post by **plained** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 4:42 pm

i liked the smoothness of the sound on old systems
.

Post by **l0g1c** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 4:43 am

a13n wrote:If so, staying wav seems to be wiser.

Hehe

Dude#1: Hey, check out my new pocket music computer
Dude#2: Fuckin' sweet. Does it play .wav?
Dude#1: Sho 'nuff
Dude#2: Woh!

Post by **a13n** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 10:14 am

Thread closed.

Thought On Audio Codec

Thought On Audio Codec

Re: Thought On Audio Codec