View Poll Results: Which format do you prefer for your free album download?

Voters
93. You may not vote on this poll
  • MP3 (320 kbps)

    53 56.99%
  • WAV

    11 11.83%
  • FLAC

    23 24.73%
  • other?

    6 6.45%
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 63
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    oakville ontario
    Posts
    1,723

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dihnekis View Post
    Strangely, I prefer my vinyl copy of Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots to the DVD-Audio 24/96 files, although the album itself was almost certainly recorded on digital equipment.

    Pretty much counteracts everything i said above, but this is an exception.
    yeah vinyl has a sort of warm sound to it so some people prefer that even if its not as high quality. it all depends on preference.

  2. #32

    Default

    I WANT MY 24-BIT WAV.! Third disc too please (I already have the CD of Signal Morning so it wouldn't make any difference to have an already compressed format). I think that for the $55 CS have had off me I deserve it. Then I can compress the tracks to any format I like. And don't give me that 'files are too big' rubbish... I download three or four films and a couple of TV programmes a day and so a file around 1GB, split up into five or six zip/rar files, wouldn't make a shred of difference. I want quality and 320/flac just dont cut it. Where's the bottom end.? Gone/transparent.
    Dihnekis - you may like vinyl but face the facts - the 24/96 files are how TFL intended it to sound as they were mixing/mastering. There's nothing wrong with digital recording now. It's hardly the same as it was fifteen years ago with the dawn of 192k recording and Pro-Tools HD. 'Tapes phases' are a bitch to do digitally though but I've worked out a good way to do it (even though John Leckie said it was impossible).
    Love to all E6 devotees.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,417

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by telboyD View Post
    I WANT MY 24-BIT WAV.! Third disc too please (I already have the CD of Signal Morning so it wouldn't make any difference to have an already compressed format). I think that for the $55 CS have had off me I deserve it. Then I can compress the tracks to any format I like. And don't give me that 'files are too big' rubbish... I download three or four films and a couple of TV programmes a day and so a file around 1GB, split up into five or six zip/rar files, wouldn't make a shred of difference. I want quality and 320/flac just dont cut it. Where's the bottom end.? Gone/transparent.
    Dihnekis - you may like vinyl but face the facts - the 24/96 files are how TFL intended it to sound as they were mixing/mastering. There's nothing wrong with digital recording now. It's hardly the same as it was fifteen years ago with the dawn of 192k recording and Pro-Tools HD. 'Tapes phases' are a bitch to do digitally though but I've worked out a good way to do it (even though John Leckie said it was impossible).
    Love to all E6 devotees.
    I actually prefer digital for the most part. 24/96 flac files would be ideal, but the bandwidth costs associated with that much data would surely be a pain for cloud i'm sure. FLAC=WAV, literally there is no difference.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    oakville ontario
    Posts
    1,723

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dihnekis View Post
    I actually prefer digital for the most part. 24/96 flac files would be ideal, but the bandwidth costs associated with that much data would surely be a pain for cloud i'm sure. FLAC=WAV, literally there is no difference.
    there ISSS a difference man FLAC is still compressed a bit. .wav is pure PURE.

  5. #35

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    oakville ontario
    Posts
    1,723

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,417

    Default

    no, they aren't different at all. that is like saying that putting a file inside of a rar or zip archive is a different file. a zip or rar retains the exact same information, you just have to use more processing power to make use of the file (hence extracting taking a few seconds).

    if you have a flac file, you can translate it directly into a wav file with absolutely no loss in quality (hence lossless).

    the only difference between the two are the compression algorithms... a wav file uses less processing power to playback, as your computer has to process less information to play the same data back... a flac file is more complex because of its file structure, allowing a smaller filesize while retaining all the same data.

    Just like a .zip or .rar file, basically with flac you are trading CPU resources while playing back for hard drive space in storage. Which is a great trade off. Otherwise, no difference.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    oakville ontario
    Posts
    1,723

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dihnekis View Post
    no, they aren't different at all. that is like saying that putting a file inside of a rar or zip archive is a different file. a zip or rar retains the exact same information, you just have to use more processing power to make use of the file (hence extracting taking a few seconds).

    if you have a flac file, you can translate it directly into a wav file with absolutely no loss in quality (hence lossless).

    the only difference between the two are the compression algorithms... a wav file uses less processing power to playback, as your computer has to process less information to play the same data back... a flac file is more complex because of its file structure, allowing a smaller filesize while retaining all the same data.

    Just like a .zip or .rar file, basically with flac you are trading CPU resources while playing back for hard drive space in storage. Which is a great trade off. Otherwise, no difference.
    but that IS the difference.

  9. #39

    Default

    Dihnekis - Flac, like mp3, is a compression algorithm - a codec, as it's known nowadays. A '.WAV' file is a pure, unadulterated 'wave file'. Seriously, I know what I'm talking about. Having a studio I create Wav files every time I record anything. Flac, Ape etc might be constantly referred to as 'lossless' but, really, they are. They're just not as squashed as ogg, wma or mp3.

  10. #40

    Default

    Yeah, I think a lot of people are confused by how FLAC is referred to as lossless, but it's not.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •