Dumb Angel true lossless files?

[runnersdialzero]

I saw a demonstration online (I think it was on the Hoffman board)  where the audio information from an mp3 file was subtracted from a wav file of the same song, and what was left was extremely minimal and for the most part, inaudible.  Thoughts, anyone?

Did y'read anything posted above? The main interest in lossless is for preservation's sake. Also, it really depends on how the MP3 file is encoded, what kind of music you're dealing with, mastering etc. etc. Sometimes you lose a lot, even with optimum settings.

[sockittome]

The main interest in lossless is for preservation's sake.

Preservation schmeservation!  If it sounds good to me, I'm cool! 

Besides, it's "preserved" at the original source, yes?

[jeffcdo]

Did you read any of Dave's excellent post?

[runnersdialzero]

The main interest in lossless is for preservation's sake.

Preservation schmeservation!  If it sounds good to me, I'm cool! 

Besides, it's "preserved" at the original source, yes?

In the case of unreleased material, not always, and it becomes more and more difficult to track down a good source. "Remasters" of MP3s turn into "remasters" of MP3s, transcoded multiple times over etc. and are spread around to the point where you don't know what you're getting. In the case of retail CDs, I can see your indifference, but unreleased stuff or concert recordings should be treated differently.

There's also the case to be made for versatility. I used to collect everything in 320 (huuuge waste of space) to ensure I had everything in the "best" quality. If I wanted to edit these files for some reason or put together something cohesive from multiple sources, I'd have to transcode and lose more quality.

In the case of MP3 players, these huge 320kbps MP3s were a huge waste of space. Nowadays I can batch convert to V2 or V1, fit a fuckton more music on it and if I want to listen at home or in the car, I have CD quality or higher organized exactly how I want it. Cool. It's the best of both worlds and also forward thinking - hard drives and connections continue to improve and lossy formats are gonna be used minimally if at all in the future. I won't need to catch up much when that day comes.

Anyway, even aside from that, preservation and folks paying attention to this sort of thing is why you're not paying 20 dollars on iTunes for 96kbps DRM files. A lot of people used to think 96kbps sounded good until higher quality formats came along and they knew better.

[Dave Modny]

The main interest in lossless is for preservation's sake. Also, it really depends on how the MP3 file is encoded, what kind of music you're dealing with, mastering etc. etc. Sometimes you lose a lot, even with optimum settings.

BTW, Runners, would you (or anyone) happen to know, offhand, if the Pink Man's SOT uploads are all unscathed and as they originally were? I've never taken the time to do a frequency analysis or look/listen for other nasties.

TIA!

[Jason]

Dumb Angel as far as I'm aware was always lossless-sourced material. Get the Boot on the other hand...that's a fucking mess. Next to nothing on there is "lossless" yet it was put out as a CDR and shared as "FLAC". The 1980 Brian/Michael tracks (River Deep Mountain High and Why Don't They Let Us Fall In Love) were definitely SOURCED from a good quality copy of the tapes and then whomever leaked them decided to mp3 them to death. A bunch of the other tracks are similarly degraded by people looking to cover their asses and claim "oh, it's a DIFFERENT source!"

[Mikie]

Hi Mikie,

I don't think it's so much a matter of whether or not someone can detect a difference with the naked ear (so to speak), but rather, the notion that the pool has now been forever polluted. That is, once people start transcoding things, who's to say this won't happen several times within the lineage of something and with god-knows-what bitrates or encoders. And, that will definitely be noticeable to the naked ear. Even more so, if someone takes it upon his or herself to "remaster" something, and throw it back into the circulating pool as well, now we're getting even further and further away from the original. All this is fine and dandy if someone simply wants to do it for their own personal use (IPods, etc), but all it takes is one person to convert it back to FLAC and upload it somewhere, with those files then being propagated like wildfire. There could be 15 transcodes within, even though the resulting file is being moved around as a "FLAC." It's like playing "telephone" with digital files....lol.

And that's the nice thing about having a virgin FLAC file with known and verifiable lineage (i.e. MD5 files, etc.). In the case of a ripped CD, it's a pristine clone of the original (assuming correct offsets, etc.). Or, in the case of a simple (preferably lossless) recording, an unscathed, pure original. It can stay that way forever.

I'm with ya on that, Dave.  Complete agreement.

[shangaijoeBB]

soniclovenoize, I assume you're cooking up a new album for your blog (which im' a big fan of btw)? Any teasers? 

Landlocked and A/C. 

pretty sweet! Looking forward to it!