112kbps-320kbps MP3 vs. FLAC VGRemixes?

[Audity]

I heard that 320kbps is totally indistinguishable by the human ear. But then FLACs came out. There has to be some point to FLAC then, right? Perhaps with a really ear-worthy human and some extremely audiophilic headphones, someone could pick out some differences between the two. Anyone have any idea at all? I know WAVs are 1411kbps or something like that, and heard that's way overkill, and is only used as a standard for .CDA because it fits on a standard CD fully, without having tons of songs on a CD by one artist (I just made that very last part up, maybe. Wait, the whole sentence might not make sense. asoifjoiwfja).

(Please read forward in the thread a bit before coming to any conclusions)

[TCK]

The point of FLAC is to be completely indistinguishable from a source wave file, while decreasing the storage space required. This comes at a cost of processing power required to decode the format though. It's also open source, if you're into that sort of thing.

Any mp3 encoded file will not strictly be as good as a FLAC encoded file. There are people who will be able to distinguish between a 320kbps mp3 file and a lossless file. However, those people are few and far between, and even then they'd likely need decent equipment to detect differences.

Ultimately, it depends on what you want the file for. During production, I would never recommend saving in a lossless format, and 320kbps is no exception. If you're releasing a file on the other hand, I'd be very surprised if 320kbps wasn't sufficient for anyone.

[Yoozer]

FLAC is very handy for archiving and taking along source files for wave-editing, recording etc. Why waste space when it's not necessary?

Even 320kbps will mean a loss in fidelity. It's like working with JPGs in Photoshop; a BMP or TGA is simply clean and completely free from artifacts, no matter how indistinguishable.

[Audity]

Reason being is I'm thinking of starting a site (probably with torrents for each song) where people submit their OCRemixes at either 320kbps or using FLAC. I'm sure the public would appreciate the hard disk space being saved on their computers if I went with 320kbps, but then in the future (possibly quite a bit in the future) I might as well have just started doing FLAC. 100 terabyte hard drives anyone? Even then, there are those who won't be able to buy those even WAY FARTHER in the future. So it's more leaning toward 320kbps right now.

It's not only headphones, but speakers. Even crappy speakers seem to get a nice range of treble and bass sounds, so with a decent to awesome speakers, I wonder if the difference would be more noticable in the bass and treble. I think I myself would be better at picking out discrepancies in bass than in treble. I'd imagine your body could even tell differences better than your ears, but these are just my wonderings.

[consonance]

If you want to use torrents to distribute high resolution songs, so be it, but let me tell you that there is no reason why this would even be desirable. First, FLACs are big. Yes, they are maybe half the size of WAVs, but it's not economic to store that many, except for archival purposes. No one wants to have a music library filled with FLAC files. You can't tell the difference between a 320 kbps MP3 and a FLAC, so why bother? FLACs are only good for live recordings, such as the ones at dimeadozen.org, where you can find bootlegs of concerts (legality disputed & distributed via BitTorrent).

I really doubt that people will listen to songs to find points where the sounds are slightly muddled by compression. If people do, then they're missing the point of music altogether.

If you want perfect sound quality, listen to your record player.

[andyjayne]

During production, I would never recommend saving in a lossless format
Surely you mean always?

[TCK]

During production, I would never recommend saving in a lossless format
Surely you mean always?Actually I meant lossy :P

A site like this might be useful, not necessarily for downloading lossless files to play, but for downloading lossless files to convert into something that's more suitable than the default format (most likely for those files that are 6 minutes plus in length which tend to be encoded in 128kbps less).

[OverCoat]

I heard that 320kbps is totally indistinguishable by the human ear.

indistinguishable to what? CD quality? Quality doesn't stop at CDs :) That's why we have DVD-A and Hi-Def CDs and SCDs and all that.

That said, I think a partial mirror site of sorts that hosts FLAC and/or other lossless formats would be a good idea. I know a few people [not a lot, though] that prefer flac encoding over mp3 because hard drive space isn't so limiting anymore.

[Zoola]

I heard that 320kbps is totally indistinguishable by the human ear.

indistinguishable to what? CD quality? Quality doesn't stop at CDs :) That's why we have DVD-A and Hi-Def CDs and SCDs and all that.

That said, I think a partial mirror site of sorts that hosts FLAC and/or other lossless formats would be a good idea. I know a few people [not a lot, though] that prefer flac encoding over mp3 because hard drive space isn't so limiting anymore.
True, but even on cable it takes some time to download a 16 meg file vs 3 meg.

[Compyfox]

It might be a deja vu, but I'm pretty sure I heard this discussion before...

OMG I'M IN THE FUCKING MATRIX!!! o_O

[Audity]

If you want to use torrents to distribute high resolution songs, so be it, but let me tell you that there is no reason why this would even be desirable. First, FLACs are big. Yes, they are maybe half the size of WAVs, but it's not economic to store that many, except for archival purposes. No one wants to have a music library filled with FLAC files. You can't tell the difference between a 320 kbps MP3 and a FLAC, so why bother? FLACs are only good for live recordings, such as the ones at dimeadozen.org, where you can find bootlegs of concerts (legality disputed & distributed via BitTorrent).

I really doubt that people will listen to songs to find points where the sounds are slightly muddled by compression. If people do, then they're missing the point of music altogether.

If you want perfect sound quality, listen to your record player.

Cool.

Given that, unless more people want to discuss FLAC vs. 320kbps, I've made my decision (320kbps all the way, until maybe like 2050 when everything's uber ultimate and I'll be dead) while getting a little bit of info, so I won't mind if the thread is locked. Or, it will probably die out on its own.

And no, you are not having deja vu. I posted something similar to this in general discussion. Not a good idea, for me anyway. Though, I think I had a little less clarity when I did that.

[TCK]

If you want to use torrents to distribute high resolution songs, so be it, but let me tell you that there is no reason why this would even be desirable. First, FLACs are big. Yes, they are maybe half the size of WAVs, but it's not economic to store that many, except for archival purposes. No one wants to have a music library filled with FLAC files. You can't tell the difference between a 320 kbps MP3 and a FLAC, so why bother? FLACs are only good for live recordings, such as the ones at dimeadozen.org, where you can find bootlegs of concerts (legality disputed & distributed via BitTorrent).

I really doubt that people will listen to songs to find points where the sounds are slightly muddled by compression. If people do, then they're missing the point of music altogether.

If you want perfect sound quality, listen to your record player.

Cool.

Given that, unless more people want to discuss FLAC vs. 320kbps, I've made my decision (320kbps all the way, until maybe like 2050 when everything's uber ultimate and I'll be dead) while getting a little bit of info, so I won't mind if the thread is locked. Or, it will probably die out on its own.

And no, you are not having deja vu. I posted something similar to this in general discussion. Not a good idea, for me anyway. Though, I think I had a little less clarity when I did that.To be honest, given the purpose that I and those who would actually use such a site, 320kbps isn't desirable. Only advantage that 320kbps offers over FLAC is a smaller file size (by about half I would imagine), and I wouldn't dream of transcoding a lossy file, no matter how high quality it is.

[Audity]

I dunno. All I know is that there are a ton of 128kbps MP3s on this site, and the difference is completely noticable, unless I'm dumb and a douche. All I want is to offer the chance to those artists interested in re-encoding their source files to 320kbps (or something like that, but definitely not FLAC; dunno what similar options there are to 320kbps MP3s [OGG Vorbis?]). I think I have enough ideas and content for the site in mind that it would be a useful site. If it isn't, then I've learned a valuable lesson somewhere along the line probably.

I also realize that raising the bit rate won't do everything. Something might not be mastered right to make me believe something in any particular song could be fixed with a higher bit rate. I was thinking of also giving a chance to fix mastering as well by allowing newly mastered OCRs, but then that wouldn't really stay true to the essense of the site being one that has OCR mp3s at a higher bit rate. I don't want to be another remixing community. I won't even have a General Discussion -- just some useful forum here and there.

I also realize not everyone keeps their source files, which I think is really not a good idea, but what can I do =). Also, they might have already upgraded, or it could have been unfortunately deleted by a hard drive crash or what have you, which I hear about WAY too often. Kind of disheartening.

[Geoffrey Taucer]

I heard that 320kbps is totally indistinguishable by the human ear. But then FLACs came out. There has to be some point to FLAC then, right?
It's not so much about immediate audible differences as the fact that when mixing, etc, it's a good idea to mix with lossless formats. You may not be able to tell the difference between a lossless version and a 320k mp3, but if you reincode that mp3 at 320k several times in the process of mixing and then compare it to the original, those differences are greatly magnified.

[TCK]

To be honest, I'd be surprised if you were to get more than a quarter of pre OCR01250 remixes as source files. Still, getting remixes submitted from now on would be worth it in my eyes.

Still, I can't help but feel that for something like this to work, it needs to be lossless or nothing. That's my opinion though.

[Audity]

First off, apology to TCK, since I didn't quite understand what you were talking about in your second to last post. Didn't know if you were pro-FLAC or what.

So, Taucer's post could be seen as advice to remixers in general? Would it be something I have to consider for my site?

And yes, getting something out of all the massive OCRs of the past will not heed large percentages, but all the recent mixes and future mixes have way better chances. Might as well start "now". I mean, I understand http is really convenient, and at that convenience there can't be insane file sizes going around, but, especially if it was a FLAC site, the place will basically be roaming with audiophiles, and they will go to the unconventional ways if needed. Yeah, that's me. Not that torrents are hard to understand or even new.

Okay well. As soon as I actually create such a site, it will gather a bit more attention, and then I can make a poll/discussion on whether it should be FLAC or something else.

Hm. Given TCK's opinion, I am getting the feeling that there would be a benefit to FLAC files other than just so listeners can get their jollies.

[consonance]

And no, you are not having deja vu. I posted something similar to this in general discussion. Not a good idea, for me anyway. Though, I think I had a little less clarity when I did that.
I suppose I hadn't joined the forum by the time whenever you were talking about this, since I don't remember you having done so before. I'm sorry if you think I was rude in my last post, because I can see the potential of a site with higher resolution mixes. I just think that using FLAC is going overboard.

[TCK]

And no, you are not having deja vu. I posted something similar to this in general discussion. Not a good idea, for me anyway. Though, I think I had a little less clarity when I did that.
I suppose I hadn't joined the forum by the time whenever you were talking about this, since I don't remember you having done so before. I'm sorry if you think I was rude in my last post, because I can see the potential of a site with higher resolution mixes. I just think that using FLAC is going overboard.Arguably, going over 192kbps mp3 is going overboard. It's a preference thing.

[Minor Arcana]

It depends on what you want to do with the FLAC file. If you're just listening to it, it might be overboard. But if you want to transcode it to fit on your iPod... well...

[Compyfox]

Well there's another problem. There's always screaming "OMG I want FLACs!" or "OMG I want OGGs cause they're the future", etc. But it depends on the one who submits the track, too.

As example:
If I say "okay this track is fine as is, and it's only for internet purposes", then I sure wouldn't go the FLAC way, but the mp3 way (VBR encoding up to 192, encoders are as good already and without oscilators and very detailed FFTs you don't recognise a difference at all).

On the other hand, if I really want to produce in high-end, I go with 48kHz and save the files for later use (Redbook Audio) on data DVDs. Storing possibilities are kinda endless nowadays. But it still counts: if it's for the internet, mp3 is where it's at. FLAC is a nice possibility but you can be sure that 95% of the users won't send you source files or anything. Like already mentioned, it's also a bandwidth issue. (even with 6MBit DSL I need 5-7hours to upload a RAR packed audio CD pack with 500-600MB!).



At the moment, the Fraunhofer institute is working on "lossless Dolby" formats, and a new "user format" that is lossless too, but this still takes a while - and will also include certain licenses.

Then again... we consumers heard everything so far: Vinyl Records, Audio Tapes, the first era of CDs, then mp3s. From dynamic material to overcompressed material.

To be honest... some really don't care what format it is in, as long as it's accessable (and mp3 is the majority, also in terms of portable players). Only the audiophiles are like "can't you release as FLAC?!" - then again, those people don't really buy CDs (anymore).

Vicious cycle....


And "this" is why I wrote that this discussion is very familiar. A wonder that this didn't turn out into a flamewar yet.

[Audity]

So, to summarize and add some things:

--Bandwidth issue on user upload - some remixers might not be interested in that for what it's worth, especially if using FLAC. But would it have any benefit for remixers to have a site full of lossless/higher encoded versions of their works?

--More standardized lossless forms will eventually come. I heard that FLAC is the most compressed lossless format right now (might be wrong), but then that just leaves the question of whether or not there will be way better/standardized lossless formats in the future anyway.

--I'd say the majority of people don't care or don't even know anything about kbps. That doesn't mean it won't be more enjoyable at much higher quality rates, though.

I mainly thought of doing this for myself, but might as well have others benefit. It would help if I had some examples between a 128kbps-160kbps remix and 320kbps MP3 or FLAC of the same remix. I definitely won't be taking any source files themselves.

[Spc1st]

Aren't there other lossless formats which compresses somewhat more than FLAC? What are your thoughts about those?

[suzumebachi]

you guys are totally forgetting about something:

ogg.

iirc 192kbps ogg encoding is ~ 320kbps mp3. that should save you even more space and bandwidth.

*prepares for compy attack*

[sgx]

I'll never want to get stuff in FLAC or OGG format really, because of one reason - they don't work on my mp3 player and I don't want to have to convert.

[TCK]

Aren't there other lossless formats which compresses somewhat more than FLAC? What are your thoughts about those?There are lossless formats that compress better than FLAC, but compatability is minimal, and the general rule is the more you compress the more processing it takes to decompress. FLAC is reasonable in this aspect.

you guys are totally forgetting about something:

ogg.

iirc 192kbps ogg encoding is ~ 320kbps mp3. that should save you even more space and bandwidth.

*prepares for compy attack*Ogg is better than mp3 per kbps, but it's nowhere near as good as that. Plus there's the whole issue of compatability, which is more serious with a lossy format.

EDIT: I'll never want to get stuff in FLAC or OGG format really, because of one reason - they don't work on my mp3 player and I don't want to have to convert.How feasible is converting on request? As in, you have the FLAC on the site, and people can request to download either the FLAC, or a specific file format/bitrate file converted on the fly?

[suzumebachi]

unless they're doing their own hosting (highly unlikely) or using a dedicated server that allows them to install scripts and shit, that's never gonna happen.

[Spc1st]

[quote=Spc1st]Aren't there other lossless formats which compresses somewhat more than FLAC? What are your thoughts about those?There are lossless formats that compress better than FLAC, but compatability is minimal, and the general rule is the more you compress the more processing it takes to decompress. FLAC is reasonable in this aspect.

Compatability, eh? My Winamp FLAC plugin always ends upcrashing if it plays too long a track (ie, CD-rips). For that reason, I tend to prefer APE a bit more, but for the most part, I have to agree that the differences between lossless and hi-vbr mp3 or ogg or aac or whatever often is psycho-pyschoacoustical.

[Audity]

Yeah, uh I guess I forgot about compatibility. More reason to think about 320 MP3 or whatever. Like I said, there's still time for I make such a site (and more time to discuss whatever needs to be discussed).

"unless they're doing their own hosting (highly unlikely) or using a dedicated server that allows them to install scripts and shit, that's never gonna happen."

Who's they? My friend is doing all the coding. I'm hoping to learn something in the summer or in the fall from a class (I'm not too motivated without a class). If he makes a good way for me to update it not involving too much code, I can run it. We won't be doing the hosting and we won't have a dedicated server. But...I'll leave that at that.

[Compyfox]

--Bandwidth issue on user upload - some remixers might not be interested in that for what it's worth, especially if using FLAC. But would it have any benefit for remixers to have a site full of lossless/higher encoded versions of their works?

Remixers are usually not getting paid for their work (unless the remix is commercial) - most of the people don't really care, don't feel the hassle and the like. In other words... they want to get their stuff to the masses. Audiophiles might think different, but the majority goes the mp3 way.

--More standardized lossless forms will eventually come. I heard that FLAC is the most compressed lossless format right now (might be wrong), but then that just leaves the question of whether or not there will be way better/standardized lossless formats in the future anyway.

Dolby HD is the future, according to Dolby. Same counts to MLP or DTS+, or in short: the new formats for BlueRay and HDTV. Though as with the eternal struggle between "DVD-A and SACD", even here there's no set standard yet.

--I'd say the majority of people don't care or don't even know anything about kbps. That doesn't mean it won't be more enjoyable at much higher quality rates, though.

It's a fact that the majority still uses boomboxes (aka crappy amps, portable systems, CD players, mp3 players). And those systems can't reflect everything perfectly anyway. Only highend studios can level that out. Testing the files with "special testing tools" is another thing, but without completely perfectly setup room/environment, you can forget to hear anything drastic in terms of "artefacts".


I mainly thought of doing this for myself, but might as well have others benefit. It would help if I had some examples between a 128kbps-160kbps remix and 320kbps MP3 or FLAC of the same remix. I definitely won't be taking any source files themselves.

Like I said... it depends on the system you listen to, and in this case even on the encoder. For this "audiophile babling", there's Hydrogen Audio. Ton of crackheads who ate the wisdom with spoons and flame everybody who thinks different (I had to feel the wrath of them a while ago, this is why I wrote "flame war" and "deja vu", as this discussion turns out the same). It also depends on the music material.

For example: An orchestra track that is in -14dB to -12dB RMS (like the Chrono Symphonic project) can sound totally awesome in 128kbit, while rocksongs in -8dB to -6dB RMS can sound totally messed up. Depending on the encoder of course and each listeners tells different things (like I said: different environments, not to mention preferences).

Difference technically between 320kbit and FLAC. *pft*
I barely know anybody who can distinguish the mp3 from the FLAC. Well if we talk about dynamic and not "squarewave pushed" music again.


I see where you come from, but I don't see any practical use in this "crusade", if I may say so.


I'll never want to get stuff in FLAC or OGG format really, because of one reason - they don't work on my mp3 player and I don't want to have to convert.

I totally agree here. I used tons of mp3 players so far. Most of them can't even play something different than mp3 in 44kHz. I'm lucky that my latest one can play mp3s in VBR and 48kHz 24bit, which is rare. But "getting inspiration" is so much easier this way. Most players can play mp3 VBR however, but only in 44kHz. And we don't wanna talk about DRM (WMV and AAC) issues here.


Anyway... just my 2c on this issue. Do whatever you feel like to do. But don't expect too much from the mixers. I stick to mp3 however, in the kbit I want, not somebody "forced" me too. Same counts to FLAC - so "sorry" from my side already.

[suzumebachi]

eww WMA *cringe*. don't get me wrong, it's not a bad format, but the DRM stabs it in the chest, turns it into a horse and beats it, places it in a coffin, drives in the nails, and buries it 6 feet underground somewhere outside of seattle.

[TCK]

Erm, what the hell does DRM have to do with anything? Completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

[Minor Arcana]

If I encode stuff nowadays, I use AAC. Yeah, it's proprietary, but it's also a standard.

Also, the encoding format is not Ogg. It's Vorbis. Ogg is simply a wrapper (that's why you can get Ogg/Vorbis or Ogg/FLAC).

CompyFox, I don't really think the poster is trying to start a war of which format is better, but rather, trying to solve a problem that is a neat idea, but not really a problem, so to speak.

[suzumebachi]

Erm, what the hell does DRM have to do with anything? Completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

as irrelevant as a post pointing out how irrelevant it is? or a post pointing out how irrelevant a post that points out how irrelevant another post is? ;)

i think i just confused myself.

also, DRM ftl.

[/irrelevant]

[TCK]

Erm, what the hell does DRM have to do with anything? Completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

as irrelevant as a post pointing out how irrelevant it is? or a post pointing out how irrelevant a post that points out how irrelevant another post is? ;)

i think i just confused myself.

also, DRM ftl.

[/irrelevant]Well, it wasn't you who brought up DRM in the first place. But still, why on earth would DRM be an issue?

This is becoming what it shouldn't be - a format wars thread.

[Audity]

To get back on.

This post of mine actually has some direction/progression of thought! So be forwarned.

Geoffrey Taucer wrote:
"It's not so much about immediate audible differences as the fact that when mixing, etc, it's a good idea to mix with lossless formats. You may not be able to tell the difference between a lossless version and a 320k mp3, but if you reincode that mp3 at 320k several times in the process of mixing and then compare it to the original, those differences are greatly magnified."

What exactly is meant by "in the process of mixing"?

I could always have people submit wav files and then have a bunch of tutorials on what to do to convert it to a variety of useful formats. Barf. Or do something like that AND allow 320kbps MP3s. But I won't do any of those things (FLACs and WAVs are pretty much interchangeable anyway, right? No loss between constantly converting those back and forth?) Below:

Something to consider, for CompyFox I guess: yes, there are multiple things you can do to an MP3 to make it the most compressed without having practically anything be heard different by ear for 99% of the people who listen to it. But, for the purpose of my site (whatever it's going to be), I can't be listening to individual demands, or be giving advice on what to do before submitting to make whatever style arrangement sound the best while being the most compressed (since I would suck at that anyway, and would be impractical for anyone who wouldn't suck). So, why not just play it safe at 320kbps? Now that that is established, time to thrash it! -> if someone wanted to convert 320k to something lower for space saving issues, a FLAC type would be better, since there's that fact mentioned in the above quote (minus "in the process of mixing"). Saying all this comes to my temporary-once-again conclusion: FLAC would be the thing to do. Wouldn't any future lossless audio formats just have more compression ability? They're always going to be lossless, so no matter which lossless format I would do, I could always upgrade. I might be losing sight of some knowledge at this point...

My original inquiry in the thread title was mainly to see about one aspect about distinguishability, but with all this input from these posts and the gradual move in the topic simply towards one subject: my site I want to create, it seems there's more to it than distinguishability. Having one standard format, lossless compression, for such a site seems like a good idea. Those lossless compressions could be converted to mp3s, or whatever, for that percentage of site-goers willing to seek out that one potential worth of having FLACs.

At first I was thinking I would just do OCR. Then I thought of VGMix's upper tiers. But just now I thought, if I'm doing FLAC, which is hard to make remixers want to give in the first place, why not just make the site accept any vgremix from anywhere? More exposure.

It would seem daunting for the average listener to download FLACs, but who knows when the times will change. If a site is made now, then there won't be regretting in the future.

FLVGR.

[Minor Arcana]

I don't see it as being worth your time or money. I don't believe that there's a market out there for people who want to download lossless mixes (or even mixes encoded at 320kbps MP3).

Your bandwidth costs would be horrendous, too. Grabbing a CD's worth of lossless music would easily be 200-300MB, maybe more. If 100 people download a CD in a month, you'll easily break the maximum bandwidth permitted by most entry-level hosting providers.

[Audity]

Torrents: there goes 95% the money motivation requirement. I'd offer them individually but gradually move toward bulk torrents, since in utorrent you can just pick and choose which songs you want.

Other than that, I think it would be an extremely worthy investment of my time, because I really enjoy the remixes that I keep on my hard drive, but I don't want to be selfish, so I'll create a site that benefits at least a few others. Then again, I still don't have an example of what a difference from a 128kbps mp3 to a FLAC sounds like. Disco Dan's SnakeManGetsDown is only 112kbps, but I thought that was one of the best songs on the site at the time. It would be that much more enjoyable, possibly (no examples), if it was a little less muddy. Like I said earlier, there's also how the mix was mastered, among other things that could attribute to the song being muddy or whatever, so I might be running into a ton of variables here. This is why I think an example would be good. I don't really want to make something in Reason and find out myself, because I'd rather have someone who's more knowledgeable about quality produce an example.

[Chavous]

What all this boils down to is personal opinion.

Audity: There is no need to ask for opinions and then try to defend yourself. You want to start a site like that? Start it, don't worry about other people's opinions. Maybe some audiophiles will tag along with you and help you in the making of the site and other things for it. But remember: you will be seeding the files yourself, along with maybe a few other people. This is going to take up your computer's speed and you may constantly get comments like "Can somebody please seed this file" and such like that.

But go right ahead and make it. If the idea doesn't take off, then use the site for something else.

Good luck!

[Minor Arcana]

Torrents: there goes 95% the money motivation requirement. I'd offer them individually but gradually move toward bulk torrents, since in utorrent you can just pick and choose which songs you want.

Torrents only work when the files are in high demand. As Chavous said, you'll probably be seeding virtually yourself.

[Audity]

Yes. I know all I have to do is create the site in the first place and see what happens.

I could always convert everything I receive to massive different formats, and offer every single one of them via the bit torrent client: utorrent. All I would have to do is tell people to choose which format they want by using that program, unchecking everything by right clicking any box and selecting that option, then checking the ones of interest. I would try to use as little torrent files as possible.

So yeah, if uh, someone wants to try this site idea out without torrents I'll have no complaints =).

[Poga]

I can certainly appreciate Audity's desire to preserve the integrity of the work he enjoys and cares about. From a personal standpoint, I share much of his mentality. My stance is quite an impractical one, but (as the result of a combination of philosophical reasons and minor OCD) I prefer files (or at least ones that I value) that have not undergone compression, unnecessary or proprietary encoding, and are not left with remnants distinguishable from the original work itself. Additionally, a lack of compression and such irreversible alterations would allow one to 'future-proof' artistic works as much as reasonably possible in the current state of digital media and their associated limitations.

On the other hand, audiophiles (of which, in most senses, I am not one) are frequently victims of their own self-induced placebo effect—often claiming to detect sonically trivial differences that are likely only the result of psychological suggestion. You have people who will spend thousands of dollars on platinum wiring, and spend exponentially more than that trying to build an acoustically 'perfect' room sensitive enough to detect fluctuations in the astral plane. Sometimes people end up focusing too much on their equipment and forgetting that their ears have limits (and possibly even damage and/or hearing loss), no matter how 'trained' or sensitive they may be. If preserving auditory quality is their objective, most of these people would be better off saving their money from being spent on that $5 million studio and instead buying some $5 salmon oil and gingko biloba supplements. But to each his own, I suppose.

All of this being said, Audity's idea could be put to use and still maintain its practicality. Simply offering files with better compression rates in formats such as MP3, however, would defeat much of its purpose. I'd suggest sticking with a lossless format if archival integrity is your goal. Then again, in the end it's up to you. Perhaps you should invent a 'gainy' format and use that. It'd be like lossless—but better! It actually adds tons of unnecessary data to the files, just for the purpose of taking up more space and being hardcore. Afterall, Why worry about breaking even when you can Gain?™

[OverCoat]

I listen to .mod files from 1988

suck it, 16-bit audio :D