The track took my breath AWAY on the first listen!! Amazing track! And thanx gyus,for the freebee!! :-D ... waiting to get Spike in the post next!! Nice Twisted times,these…..
Would be nice to get in FLAC ,I algree
Yes, I’m trying to convince YB and pledgemusic.com to release the Younger Brother B-sides in flac too, but it seems that too is going to be an mp3-release, I’m afraid. Too bad, really! Seeing as both Twisted and their fans love this music, they really should release it in proper lossless formats…
Flac-lovers, have you had a proper blindtest and confirmed that you hear a difference between 320kbps MP3 and FLAC?
The difference is not one that is easy to describe with words. But I can feel it, when I listen. Flac is more comfortable to listen to, in my humble opinion. More enjoyable. And my internet runs fast enough, and my HDD rooms enough, so why the heck not?
And I’m a regular music lover, like you. Also I’ve detected a great gain in sound quality when comparing CD quality 16 bit/44.1 kHz with 24 bit/96 kHz. Even though it is said, that the human ear can’t notice frequenices above some 20 kHz, there is more depth to our hearing than that.
If you are interested in sound quality, I suggest you check out this roundtable discussion, a delightful and informative talk in which many interesting thoughts upon sound quality are discussed.
Could it be something like picture resolution? I mean, for 50 years people were watching TV, for 30 years VHS, and actually thinking that was pretty sharp. Its now practically unbearable to see stuff at that resolution, because we have gotten used to better.
Seen as we can barely see 1 octave but hear 10 this effect would deepen on sound - the difference not being things like “above 20 kHz”, but the resolution (how many steps you perceive between 20 Hz and 20 kHz). A good instance would actually be MP3… listen to a (good) psy track at 128kbps that you are used to at 320, FLAC, CD or whatever - and you’ll actually be missing stuff.
All feelings aside, there’s no audible difference.
durr, what mattman doesn’t hear no one can hear, hurr?
it’s pretty audible when you know where to spot it. mp3 even at the highest bitrates f***s up hi hats for example. it’s similar to digital video compression. if you have noticed what artifacts look like at low bitrates you’ll spot them at the highest bitrates.
anyway it’s a learning process. it might be hard in the beginning, but after a while it needs less concentration and it ends up with just happening without conscious effort.
there are lossy audioformats which i can’t tell apart from the CD at bitrates well below 320kbps. but mp3 isn’t one of these. so please don’t judge matters you know little about.
Actually I’ve been around Hi-Fi and Audio forums for quite some years. People who say they can hear difference in power cables to their CD players, it’s all the same. You wouldn’t believe the kinds of ideas and feelings people have about audio. And the reason I bring this up is that this isn’t about what I can’t hear, it’s about what even the best ears can’t hear, as has been the case test after test. The ripping-software alone can change the sound drastically.
I’m sure you’d pass a blindtest with little problem, and would put people who have been working with audio for years to shame, like in the link I posted. I’ve done several blindtests for fun, contrary to your surprising assumption that I don’t know what I’m talking about.
The whole FLAC debate is really about the idea that something intuitive (like FLAC being uncompressed) HAS to sound better than something compressed, barring the unbelievable amounts of much more significant variables that goes into improving your sound system / Head-fi setup. It’s a pointless divergence from the things that actually matter in audio. Claiming that 320kbps MP3’s represent some sort of bottleneck is preposterous. My question remains.