Those which you love to listen...
For similar artists you can search on last.fm. Easy as that.
On topick.
It depends on you music taste, but you can try to join two biggest of them - what & waffles.
Which is the best music tracker.
- Thread starter natYO
- Start date
Those which you love to listen...
For similar artists you can search on last.fm. Easy as that.
On topick.
It depends on you music taste, but you can try to join two biggest of them - what & waffles.
Just a question... how do both relate? If a FLAC happened to be corrupted during compression and you created a torrent to upload it somewhere, your client wouldn't be able to tell the difference between that and an error-free rip, and other peers would compare what they leech against the hash in the .torrent metadata (which is that of the corrupted FLAC).
Unless you're talking about the files being corrupted while they download, which indeed wouldn't be a problem due to the very same reason you talk of.
tucsonsunapt
New member
I am confused as to which is the best site for music.
from what I have browsed arnd, seems to be waffles or what?
Help me out peepz
from what I have browsed arnd, seems to be waffles or what?
Help me out peepz
BeYouTea ♥
New member
What is a V0/V2? I always use a 320 :dabs: .... pls explain.
@DeadPoet, I am doing that presently...Using the Last.Fm app on my ipod touch is really good.
But also looking for a more social interaction where I can find music recommended my people. I also checkout the Billboard top 100 and preview all songs ... If I like any, I usually download that album it comes from and then I keep track of the artist/band.
I assume he's talking about random filesystem errors or localized hard disk failure. While I'm not that familiar with the error redundancy in FLACs (since I don't worry about that sort of thing), they do keep internal md5 sums of the audio data only (the FLAC "fingerprint"). You can test FLACs against their own fingerprints to check for file corruption. They also have verification built into the encoding process (though so do most encoders) with the -V flag.Just a question... how do both relate? If a FLAC happened to be corrupted during compression and you created a torrent to upload it somewhere, your client wouldn't be able to tell the difference between that and an error-free rip, and other peers would compare what they leech against the hash in the .torrent metadata (which is that of the corrupted FLAC).
Unless you're talking about the files being corrupted while they download, which indeed wouldn't be a problem due to the very same reason you talk of.
Not really... you can't even tag WAV files (lol). Sound qualitywise they'll be identical. That's like saying RAR > AVI when the former is simply a compression of the latter.
I don't want to have to use a non-standard java based encoder/decoder to get a feature that should be native. Does APE support sampling rates higher than 48kHz btw? Aside from slightly better compression (we're talking a few MB tops here in most cases), which is achieved by having a slower decode/encode speed, what are the other advantages that actually matter?
Sugarrush247
New member
What has the most variety and greatest # of torrents. Pedro's has the strictest quality standards. Various niche trackers are better for diversity in specific genres. That about sums it up 
The I.T. Tech Guy
New member
What has the most variety and greatest # of torrents. Pedro's has the strictest quality standards. Various niche trackers are better for diversity in specific genres. That about sums it up
Might as well ask, anything that's genre specific for R&B?
What is good, but in all honestly google.com is the best source for music, as long as you don't need FLAC and v2 releases are ok for you.
ANAL ASSAULT
New member
Both are LAME presets. If I remember correctly, V0 = ~245Kbits VBR, while V2 = ~192Kbits VBR. A lot of people download V0s because they make a good balance between quality and filesize. Scene music releases use the latter.
ღaqυa мaяιneღ
New member
@anon-sbi, your telling me to stick to 320 if I want the best quality????
firemedic0703
New member
You can generally find any album in 320kbps mp3 on google, no need to settle for V2/0.
Julio Batista
New member
yes, but you seem to forget that wav audio files can be read on any player.
that's what makes the difference for me.
Well no, stick to some sort of lossless format if you want the best quality...
As for 320, the thing is that 320 is a constant bitrate of 320kbps throughout the song, meaning even for low resolution parts such as extremely quiet bits or silence, it's recording at 320kbps when it's a complete waste of space. What V0 and V2 do is record at a variable bitrate on a per-frame basis, meaning it'll use 320kbps if needed and a lower bitrate if not, decreasing the size of the file. V2 has a lower target bitrate so there shouldn't really be any frames encoded at 320, but V0 is mostly between 224-320kbps.
While 320 is technically a higher quality, the quality to size trade-off isn't good at all. That's why V0 is the most popular format to download at What/Waffles.
Also V0/V2 ensures that the LAME codec was used, which is the best MP3 encoder. 320kbps files could have come from any encoder.
As for 320, the thing is that 320 is a constant bitrate of 320kbps throughout the song, meaning even for low resolution parts such as extremely quiet bits or silence, it's recording at 320kbps when it's a complete waste of space. What V0 and V2 do is record at a variable bitrate on a per-frame basis, meaning it'll use 320kbps if needed and a lower bitrate if not, decreasing the size of the file. V2 has a lower target bitrate so there shouldn't really be any frames encoded at 320, but V0 is mostly between 224-320kbps.
While 320 is technically a higher quality, the quality to size trade-off isn't good at all. That's why V0 is the most popular format to download at What/Waffles.
Also V0/V2 ensures that the LAME codec was used, which is the best MP3 encoder. 320kbps files could have come from any encoder.
Well, 320Kbit is the max quality MP3 can offer, although 320 CBR rips have this issue of compressing all parts of the audio with that bitrate, even if they're silent or barely audible, just like ca_aok said.
Perfect quality can only be achieved by a well-done FLAC (or any other lossless format) rip of the CD. Lossless compression makes sure no audio frequencies are sacrificed - of course, you have to deal with larger files.
Coastie Girl
New member
APEs > FLACs (till they get corrupted at least). Honestly I'm not trying to be offensive but FLACs seem to be the biggest thing right now, while they're only popular because of its high tendency to overlook corruption/errors, but APEs are still a far superior encode format.
People care about the size of the file, so they save it as a FLAC rather than as a WAV (which is beautiful because it can save the different instruments to different channels, like photoshop does with layers), but APEs do that better. People reason that FLACs have more leeway for corruption, but in this day and age, with torrenting having in-built anti-corruption methods, I'm sure that's not a problem. That's not all, I'm sure a few people would be willing to code a file re-builder for APEs when/if they become a huge thing.
I'm just sick and tired of the hordes of people running around asking for FLACs when they don't know jack about quality formats (I've used APEs for as long as I remember) and probably can't even hear the difference.
/morning rant (not aimed at you anon)
dominguezsex
New member
I have to agree with him on this one as the flac players i use now arent as user friendly and often have bugs in them that i wouldnt experience with say WMP or something preloaded onto the computer...