STU
Active topics
  1. Originally posted by Risto:Its mainly a measure against degradation after successive burning and ripping. If you do that lossy, it will sound like crap after a few iterations.


    And if that happens, I can imagine the original taper will get mighty pissed off if he/she hears someone talking about his/her recording "that it's sounding absolutely crap".

  2. Originally posted by dylbagz:Hey guys, i'm wondering why everyone over there at U2torrents is so hell-bent on ensuring all their content is in lossless format?

    to be honest, i don't think most people can tell the difference between a 320kbps MP3 and a FLAC/lossless file.

    here's a couple of sites that show that most people are the same:

    http://www.mail-archive.com/ripping@lists.slimdevices.com/msg04510.html
    http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/439212/poll-audible-difference-between-flac-and-320kbps-mp3

    your thoughts?


    I agree with you. No one can honestly say that they can tell the difference between 320kps mp3 and FLAC/lossless. They're probably all audiophiles.
  3. Originally posted by EyesWithPrideB3:The long and short of it:

    -Some people CAN tell the difference between lossless and an mp3. I myself cannot, but I have absolutely no quarrel with those who claim to be able to- if they can hear it, more power to them.

    -Tapers prefer all their content be in lossless because they are the ones who have taped shows and made their recordings available to the entire world, and in the grand scheme of things, with very little recognition (I've listened to about 150 bootlegs and I couldn't match up a single taper to a single show save for one.). They like to ensure that their content is in lossless because that's the way they've recorded it- they shouldn't be "settling" for a downgraded mp3 version of something when they're one of the ones helping do the work to make you and I happy.

    -No matter what you'd like to argue, there's a scientific explanation for why lossless technically sounds better than an mp3...so let's not have that debate, it's really not worth it.

    -If it's not affecting you directly, best to just keep on listening to what you want to listen to and let those who want the lossless, hunt the lossless


    You said you can't tell the difference but then you say there's a "scientific explanation for why lossless technically sounds better than an mp3"

    Huh?
  4. You may not hear it but it does technically sound better. It's just logical. Uncompressed is better quality whether you hear it or not.


  6. personal opinion

    and the people here at u2start are much more friendly and willing to give advice, or that's been my experience at least


  7. is there a topic of the month here?
    i wouldn't even know hey
  8. nah there isnt a tpoci of the month at all, it was jsut a joke ir ortder to say that this was gonna be a funny topic :y
  9. tpoci? Wtf. My mobile phone and that three pints of guiness are making their effect, and i cant edit my message from my phone. Oh well good night


  10. ye i sorta figured you were making it out like it was comical..

    but isn't the "Topic of the Month" idea a decent one?
    There's just about everything else "of the Month," so why couldn't there be a topic that is featured for the month?
  12. i think this topic was a good one, just btw

    might get some people a little annoyed, but i still think it is interesting enough?