Is there something wrong with my ears?

SVRDhand13

I really cannot tell the difference between FLAC and mp3 Pearl Jam bootlegs. What's up with that?

SVRDhand13

120 views and no response? I'm scared people lol.

Fight to get it back again

I'm here for you man!!!!

This is what I found:

http://www.overclock.net/sound-cards-co ... ss-vs.html

So I'm saying no big difference unless you have a real high end expensive system. It also depends on what you're playing it on. You might not notice it from your computer, but put some headphones on and you can.

climb_high_nz

"An MP3 sounds like hearing a rumour of a fart in a tin drum, from within ten feet of the tin drum. FLAC sounds like the joy of farting in the open air in spring..."

No there is nothing wrong with your ears....you'll be fine...enjoy what you are listening to....

jubilairesjl

I can tell a huge difference. You don't need a high end system to hear it. I can't tell a difference on my laptop speakers but if I run it through my home theater system or listen to it on my headphones I can tell a huge difference.

The biggest differences are mainly in Matt's drums sound and Jeff's bass lines. The stuff in the mid ranges don't really get affected when encoded in lossy formats, the highs and lows get raped in lossy. You might also hear quiter sounds that got drowned out before. The other difference I have noticed is that Mike's solo's seem a little bit clearer on flac.

BinauralJam

SVRDhand13 wrote:

I really cannot tell the difference between FLAC and mp3 Pearl Jam bootlegs. What's up with that?

i'm right there with ya, i don't know what the hell people are going on about.

jubilairesjl

It all depends on what you listen to them on.

Ledbetterman10

I'll take an mp3 at 320kbps over a FLAC any day. The difference is minor (to my ears), FLAC files are huge and take up a lot of space on your computer, and you can't burn FLACs to a CD.

Thief_of_silence

Ledbetterman10 wrote:

I'll take an mp3 at 320kbps over a FLAC any day. The difference is minor (to my ears), FLAC files are huge and take up a lot of space on your computer, and you can't burn FLACs to a CD.

You can if you convert them to WAV files first.....

Ledbetterman10

Thief_of_silence wrote:

Ledbetterman10 wrote:

I'll take an mp3 at 320kbps over a FLAC any day. The difference is minor (to my ears), FLAC files are huge and take up a lot of space on your computer, and you can't burn FLACs to a CD.

You can if you convert them to WAV files first.....

But would a FLAC converted to a WAV sound better than an mp3 at 320? I don't now much about audiophile stuff.

circlesdown

Where's a good website on FLAC for dummies? If I wanted to start downloading some does it take a different player, special software, etc?

Evacuation Rules

BB148952 wrote:

So I'm saying no big difference unless you have a real high end expensive system.

That's bullshit. I use a CD/WAV player with a decent pair of headphones and I can clearly hear the difference. MP3's have frequencies filtered out to save space. So you're sacrificing quality for space. I think it's ridiculous that people talked about how CD's were the greatest thing ever because of the quality difference with digital, and now we've taken a huge step backwards with MP3 and the loudness wars. It looks like CD/WAV was the pinnacle, and now there's nowhere left to go but down.

Ledbetterman10 wrote:

you can't burn FLACs to a CD.

You can easily burn FLAC to CDR if you have Nero. There's been a plug-in for years now.

FirstExit

With the official bootlegs, I just buy the mp3's then encode them to -V0. I'm fine with mp3's in this case.

But when it comes to an audience recorded bootleg, I only use FLAC and I convert to WAV to put them on my iPod.

Suziemay

SVRDhand13 wrote:

I really cannot tell the difference between FLAC and mp3 Pearl Jam bootlegs. What's up with that?

This is my take on it; if you can't hear the difference and mp3s sound just fine then just stick to those!

I used to get so caught up with getting the best, bla bla bla but if you can't tell the difference then you don't need to pay the premium to get the "best". If it's good enough for you it's good enough.

Now someone else may be able to tell the difference and if it matters to them then they should get the FLAC

Ledbetterman10

Evacuation Rules wrote:

Ledbetterman10 wrote:

you can't burn FLACs to a CD.

You can easily burn FLAC to CDR if you have Nero. There's been a plug-in for years now.

Yeah but I think you have to buy Nero which I'm not at liberty to do.

bootlegger10

SVRDhand13 wrote:

I really cannot tell the difference between FLAC and mp3 Pearl Jam bootlegs. What's up with that?

No, you just have a life.

LikeAnOcean

Most human hearing can't tell the difference between the two when the bit rate is above 192.. It all depends on the speakers too.

alwaysU

I have a free program called CDBurnerXP that lets me burn FLACs onto CDs without converting to WAV first. It's saved me a ton of time and all you have to do is put your FLACs in a folder and use the program to burn the files onto CDs.

SVRDhand13

bootlegger10 wrote:

SVRDhand13 wrote:

I really cannot tell the difference between FLAC and mp3 Pearl Jam bootlegs. What's up with that?

No, you just have a life.

Haha this was really funny.

Thanks for the responses everyone!

cutz

Ledbetterman10 wrote:

Evacuation Rules wrote:

Ledbetterman10 wrote:

you can't burn FLACs to a CD.

You can easily burn FLAC to CDR if you have Nero. There's been a plug-in for years now.

Yeah but I think you have to buy Nero which I'm not at liberty to do.

Try Winamp. Its free, and easy to use. I've been using it for a few years now, and i've had NO problems with it, and i'm VERY LOW tech.

Fight to get it back again

Evacuation Rules wrote:

BB148952 wrote:

So I'm saying no big difference unless you have a real high end expensive system.

That's bullshit. I use a CD/WAV player with a decent pair of headphones and I can clearly hear the difference. MP3's have frequencies filtered out to save space. So you're sacrificing quality for space. I think it's ridiculous that people talked about how CD's were the greatest thing ever because of the quality difference with digital, and now we've taken a huge step backwards with MP3 and the loudness wars. It looks like CD/WAV was the pinnacle, and now there's nowhere left to go but down.

Ledbetterman10 wrote:

you can't burn FLACs to a CD.

You can easily burn FLAC to CDR if you have Nero. There's been a plug-in for years now.

Bullshit? Hmm...Not a very nice way to start to get your point across.

Plain and simple, unless you have compressed the crap out of an MP3, the difference is negligble.

Smile like you mean it...

SuperStickman

My understanding is that even if you can't hear a difference, FLAC files supposedly don't deteriorate over time, where as MP3s and the burned (rather than pressed) CDs that PJ has used over the last few tours will start to degrade and sound bad as they get older.

I'm not sure how the hell that happens, (especially on the CDs) but that's what I heard.

I just learned this and still can't decide in which format to buy the 2010 shows I went to. (Mostly because FLAC does seem to be cumbersome to work with...)

LikeAnOcean

SuperStickman wrote:

My understanding is that even if you can't hear a difference, FLAC files supposedly don't deteriorate over time, where as MP3s and the burned (rather than pressed) CDs that PJ has used over the last few tours will start to degrade and sound bad as they get older.

I'm not sure how the hell that happens, (especially on the CDs) but that's what I heard.

I just learned this and still can't decide in which format to buy the 2010 shows I went to. (Mostly because FLAC does seem to be cumbersome to work with...)

Well.. Flac is digital like mp3s so it is susceptible to the same deteriorization.. Burned CDs will deteriorate the quickest. A pressed CD should last a long time, but like everything, eventially everything deteriorates. Vinyl will last the longest.

SVRDhand13

LikeAnOcean wrote:

SuperStickman wrote:

My understanding is that even if you can't hear a difference, FLAC files supposedly don't deteriorate over time, where as MP3s and the burned (rather than pressed) CDs that PJ has used over the last few tours will start to degrade and sound bad as they get older.

I'm not sure how the hell that happens, (especially on the CDs) but that's what I heard.

I just learned this and still can't decide in which format to buy the 2010 shows I went to. (Mostly because FLAC does seem to be cumbersome to work with...)

Well.. Flac is digital like mp3s so it is susceptible to the same deteriorization.. Burned CDs will deteriorate the quickest. A pressed CD should last a long time, but like everything, eventially everything deteriorates. Vinyl will last the longest.

Too bad you can't play vinyl in the car. Imagine if you could .

bazzer

FirstExit wrote:

With the official bootlegs, I just buy the mp3's then encode them to -V0. I'm fine with mp3's in this case.

But when it comes to an audience recorded bootleg, I only use FLAC and I convert to WAV to put them on my iPod.

Are you saying you get the MP3s and then reencode them to -V0? Is this to make them better (because they're bigger?). In fact, they are likely to be worse!

Evacuation Rules

bazzer wrote:

FirstExit wrote:

With the official bootlegs, I just buy the mp3's then encode them to -V0. I'm fine with mp3's in this case.

But when it comes to an audience recorded bootleg, I only use FLAC and I convert to WAV to put them on my iPod.

Are you saying you get the MP3s and then reencode them to -V0? Is this to make them better (because they're bigger?). In fact, they are likely to be worse!

I think he meant to say FLAC converted to V0. I hope he did.