The only difference from me is that my girlfriend find some more realistic dynamic in the FLAC file
And why would I play lossy files when I have lossless source?You are too narrow minded about this. I have vast collection of audio CDs, which I've ripped and put away; I have FLAC files on my HDD which is connected to media center, and mp3's and m4a's of them on internal HDD in computer, so I don't have to transcode every time when I put music on iPod.Giving that I can't ABX 160 kbit mp3 from FLAC, do you really think I should stop listening to FLACs and listen to lossy encodes? Why should I do that? I already have lossless files, so why should I listen to lossy at home?
Quote from: hlloyge on 10 February, 2012, 07:56:45 AMAnd why would I play lossy files when I have lossless source?Why wouldn't you play the lossy files?
And why would I play lossy files when I have lossless source?
she detect 3 time on 5 when she hear the position of an instrument...
but as far as I know no one is complaing when watching JPGs instead of TIFF.
Code: [Select]but as far as I know no one is complaing when watching JPGs instead of TIFF.That would be PNG (around 200 euros) and its certainly used more and more.I'd say that the state with lossy video is: full-transparency is requested right now (Huge LCD/plasma panels (at least 2000 euros) do make a difference and my old x264 encodes do not really look uber sharp today).p.s. all true except the 200 and 2000 euro part and the entire irrelevance when comparing with audio.
I really do not understand why people are so strict when speaking about audio.
Quote from: SHiV on 13 February, 2012, 03:35:32 PMI really do not understand why people are so strict when speaking about audio.Audio is a science. Why not be strict when speaking about it?