Jim wrote: > > Time to choose how important lossless is to you, if it's quite > acceptable to lose entire tracks of a CD as "the other one sounds the > same", or "ReplayGain will sort out the volume difference" then by all > means do it, but then ask yourself why you chose lossless and if you > are quite happy to listen to tracks with different volumes or digitally > applied amplitude adjustments then maybe you should do another > FLAC<>320kbpsMP3 blind listening test as you could save a lot of cash > if you switch over to MP3 - you did do one in the first place didn't > you? You didn't just chose FLAC because "they" told you to did you? >
I didn't do any blind listening tests. I chose FLAC primarily because it's future-proof in the sense that I can liberally transcode to other formats. I also chose it because it's OSS and not patent-encumbered. And because it enables gapless playback. I'm not ashamed to admit I chose FLAC based on information "they" told me. Come to think of it, I haven't even read the license or validated an uncompressed FLAC against the original wav file. On the other hand, I agree 100% with the many potential pitfalls of duplicate removal you point out, including problems with gaps, volume differences, different sound due to digital mastering & transfer quality, tainting of a lossless collection, etc. Most of these pitfalls apply to MP3 collections, too. That said, it may work for those who don't tend to listen in "album" mode. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
