Yes, FLAC is lossless - so no option of different levels. It's also produces files that are a lot larger than even the highest quality MP3. So it _would_ make a difference, to the size of your library.
Chris -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Goodinson Sent: 08 November 2005 12:54 To: [email protected] Subject: [slim] Lossy vs lossless formats - total newbie question I've not researched this _at all_ and I'm sure I could find the answers on Google within a few mins. But just wanted to get some opinions from some audiophiles... I've always used MP3, and on my cheap-ass stereo it sounds fine. Personally, I actually thought MP3 was fine so long as you went for a higher quality (e.g. 320kbps vs 92kbps - I normally use 160 due as a trade-off between filesize and quality). But I only just realised from reading the mailing list that FLAC is superior to MP3. So FLAC is lossless? And MP3 is lossy? Can you encode to FLAC with different levels of quality in the same way as with MP3? (e.g. will a 320kbps MP3 be better than a low quality FLAC, or doesn't it work like that?) I've never used FLAC before, but wondering if I should start re-ripping my music collection... Clearly it wouldn't make a difference right now but it would benefit me once I get round to getting a proper stereo system... Cheers! Dan. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
