qwe456
發表於 2011-8-24 17:26
本人的論點是兩者保持妥當下，CD可為你提供永不磨損的條件，終身享受，這亦是CD在84年面世時的號召。
HDD人所共知是有磨損的。
Big_McIn 發表於 2011-8-24 15:38 http://www.post76.com/discuss/images/common/back.gif
Red: It's simply not true.
Blue: That is true, but you can make unlimited copies of the files without any errors/ loss of information...Something you can't do with CDs.And hard drives actually last longer than you think.
You keep repeating things that are either wrong or irrelevant.Stop misleading people.Reasoning with people here who pretend to know is getting very annoying...
chhanthony
發表於 2011-8-24 17:31
各位大佬，可唔可以話，檔案訊息係的確可以100%收錄，
而所謂嘅"失真""音色""好唔好聽"係由"重播"呢part做成，
如果可以直接比較，會唔會可以揾部好似Olive咁嘅機，
先用佢去將CD rip入機內HDD，之後再用佢嚟重播file同CD比較有無分別呢?
以同一部機rip同一部機播嘅方式會唔會較公平?
chhanthony
發表於 2011-8-24 17:34
而FLAC 同wav
可唔可以睇成AV入面嘅LPCM同DTS HDMA同Dolby TrueHD呢個分別
當然DTS HDMA同Dolby TrueHD除咗無損壓縮外重多咗混音技術。
qwe456
發表於 2011-8-24 17:37
而FLAC 同wav
可唔可以睇成AV入面嘅LPCM同DTS HDMA同Dolby TrueHD呢個分別
當然DTS HDMA同Dolby TrueHD除咗 ...
chhanthony 發表於 2011-8-24 17:34 http://www.post76.com/discuss/images/common/back.gif
FLAC vs. wav...For what it is, it's just compressed vs. uncompressed.And FLAC has a metadata system that allows you to tag the files, etc. while you can't do that with wav, not natively.
joelkw
發表於 2011-8-24 17:39
本帖最後由 joelkw 於 2011-8-24 17:41 編輯
各位大佬，可唔可以話，檔案訊息係的確可以100%收錄，
而所謂嘅"失真""音色""好唔好聽"係由"重播"呢part做 ...
chhanthony 發表於 2011-8-24 17:31 http://www.post76.com/discuss/images/common/back.gif
唔好意思~~ 又要搭訕~
其實用咩方法都冇用, 因最後接收係人耳, 感覺呢樣野冇劃一標準, 同一首歌, 一千個人聽, 可以有一千個意見同感覺, 樓主呢個post係唔會有答案, 一個冇劃一標準o既感性問題, 點能夠夾硬要用理性數據o黎答? 所以根本冇辯論o既必要.
chhanthony
發表於 2011-8-24 17:42
FLAC vs. wav...For what it is, it's just compressed vs. uncompressed.And FLAC has a metad ...
qwe456 發表於 2011-8-24 17:37 http://www.post76.com/discuss/images/common/back.gif
qwe456
你攪到我想轉嗮啲wav做FLAC，但一望住啲folders就即刻軟嗮{:6_202:}
chhanthony
發表於 2011-8-24 17:44
唔好意思~~ 又要搭訕~
其實用咩方法都冇用, 因最後接收係人耳, 感覺呢樣野冇劃一標準, 同一首歌, 一千個 ...
joelkw 發表於 2011-8-24 17:39 http://www.post76.com/discuss/images/common/back.gif
一班人用blind test方式投票可以嗎?
qwe456
發表於 2011-8-24 17:46
各位大佬，可唔可以話，檔案訊息係的確可以100%收錄，
而所謂嘅"失真""音色""好唔好聽"係由"重播"呢part做成，
如果可以直接比較，會唔會可以揾部好似Olive咁嘅機，
先用佢去將CD rip入機內HDD，之後再用佢嚟重播file同CD比較有無分別呢?
以同一部機rip同一部機播嘅方式會唔會較公平?
chhanthony 發表於 2011-8-24 17:31 http://www.post76.com/discuss/images/common/back.gif
Red: That's debatable.CDs deteriorate over time and it's irrecoverable deterioration.And reading a CD is almost never perfect, depending on a whole bunch of factors.Ripping a CD is no different from playing it.The only difference is, once the CD is ripped into digital files, the digital copy is set in stone and will never deteriorate again.Of course, you are also stuck with any errors that might have occurred while you ripped the CD.
Blue: For digital files, you are right because you don't have much room for errors in reading the source.But for CDs, you also have to deal with deterioration in the CD, vibration, and a trillion other things you might care about.
joelkw
發表於 2011-8-24 17:48
一班人用blind test方式投票可以嗎?
chhanthony 發表於 2011-8-24 17:44 http://www.post76.com/discuss/images/common/back.gif
咁只係將答案範圍收窄, 最終都冇可能達成一致共識~~
因為你會覺得你自己耳朵係權威, 別人一樣可以, 個個都可以係權威, 咁點會有最終答案?
qwe456
發表於 2011-8-24 17:50
qwe456
你攪到我想轉嗮啲wav做FLAC，但一望住啲folders就即刻軟嗮
chhanthony 發表於 2011-8-24 17:42 http://www.post76.com/discuss/images/common/back.gif
Nothing wrong with wav at all if you have plenty of hard drive space, and if you don't mind not having the files tagged (you can always use folders, etc.)
By the way, space isn't much of a problem for me (still have another 2.7TB of free space on my RAID) but I always use FLAC because I like having my music organized with tags and stuff.
頁:
1
2
3
4
5
6
[7]
8
9
10
11
12
