Flac vs mp3
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)Posted by: wrongun92
It seems a lot of people are into flac music. I have read rave reviews about flac format. So I decided to download some myself and test out how true this was.
I really did not see much difference if at all between flac and mp3 vbr 192. Perhaps, it was the source of the flac but it seemed genuine enough. Perhaps, i need to download more of the flac format and my specific download did not do justice to this rave format.
What do you feel about this? :naughty:
Posted by: Skizo
The quality of sound depends on much more than the quality of rip and encoding.
You need to take into account your speakers, listening device, sound card, etc.
If those devices are not up to par, then indeed you will not tell any difference.
Posted by: S!X
FLAC is what you want if you're burning cd's but for general listening I get V0 rips.
Posted by: dave12
definitely flac has more quality than mp3 but it depend on ripping
Posted by: Skizo
definitely flac has more quality than mp3 but it depend on ripping
FLAC or MP3 is the result of the ripping.
Posted by: orfik
The FLAC vs MP3 conversation is an ignorant one. Even if you don't believe that FLAC sounds better (which it does, and I'd bet a large sum of money the people who think it doesn't don't have the components to make that claim), it's an archival codec before anything else. You use it to keep perfect copies of CDs so that you don't need to disturb your physical media. From FLAC you can transcode to any of the lossy codecs and maintain the maximum amount of quality. You cannot transcode from lossy to lossy without a significant degradation in the file. Should some advanced lossy codec emerge in the future, you can still use those FLAC archives to convert to that, instead of being stuck with a lossy library technically inferior to the new codec. Take iterations of LAME: archive all your files in one generation of the codec and you're stuck with it.
Posted by: Skizo
People who wish to debate this subject, I usually send off to listen to a good acoustic song or album.
Jack Johnson's "Taylor" is a great one.
Posted by: orfik
My epiphany song was Cyann & Ben - Guilty. The cymbals, the bass..:lol:
Posted by: Monkeee
If your a casual listener of music, i doubt you'll even tell the remote difference of V0 from FLAC.
Posted by: wrongun92
My source was Linkin Park and I listened in winamp and my earphones are pretty good
Posted by: 4play
you really are not going to notice a massive difference between flac and a high bitrate encoded mp3 if your listening to Linkin park. mp3 tends to cut off very high and very low frequencies when they encode music. Unless the music actually has these (classical or acoustic) and your equipment is capable of reproducing them then your not going to notice.
mp3 has become amazingly popular due to the fact the file size is small and its almost impossible for the average consumer listening to the killers on their ipod on the train in the morning with the background noise to notice any difference.
Posted by: shutdk
_flac_
Posted by: DyNast
I prefer mp3, I FLAC files are too big
Posted by: grimms
The FLAC vs MP3 conversation is an ignorant one. Even if you don't believe that FLAC sounds better (which it does, and I'd bet a large sum of money the people who think it doesn't don't have the components to make that claim), it's an archival codec before anything else. You use it to keep perfect copies of CDs so that you don't need to disturb your physical media. From FLAC you can transcode to any of the lossy codecs and maintain the maximum amount of quality. You cannot transcode from lossy to lossy without a significant degradation in the file. Should some advanced lossy codec emerge in the future, you can still use those FLAC archives to convert to that, instead of being stuck with a lossy library technically inferior to the new codec. Take iterations of LAME: archive all your files in one generation of the codec and you're stuck with it.
That pretty much sums it up. I prefer mp3 V0 rips, but if i was to burn a cd Flac wins the money pot.
Posted by: wrongun92
you really are not going to notice a massive difference between flac and a high bitrate encoded mp3 if your listening to Linkin park. mp3 tends to cut off very high and very low frequencies when they encode music. Unless the music actually has these (classical or acoustic) and your equipment is capable of reproducing them then your not going to notice.
mp3 has become amazingly popular due to the fact the file size is small and its almost impossible for the average consumer listening to the killers on their ipod on the train in the morning with the background noise to notice any difference.
I see, I'll try something classical.
Posted by: Juggeli
V0 MP3 is my choice. For me the FLAC just isn't worth the space
Posted by: Mrststyle
FLAC for sure :)
Posted by: tiolewis
Flac !
Posted by: Skizo
What's the point here?
One is lossy. One is lossless.
There's no comparison at all.
Are we going to compare DVDs to VHS next?
Posted by: esoterik
FLAC is not worth the hard drive space in my opinion. V0 is perfect. Every album I have is in V0.
Posted by: orfik
Like I said, the greatest benefit of FLAC is that it's essentially future proof. I hope you all still love your precious mp3s when we're walking around with BIONIC EARS.
Posted by: Scavenger
For listen at home, I don't need very good quality cuz i dont hear the different, MP3 its great for me.
Posted by: ajsi
mp3 for me
Posted by: ivenkii
The quality of sound depends on much more than the quality of rip and encoding.
You need to take into account your speakers, listening device, sound card, etc.
If those devices are not up to par, then indeed you will not tell any difference.
agree :yup:
Posted by: gan.nez
flac and ogg for me!!
Posted by: Morgoth
Lossy for me because of smaller files and not too much difference between lossless and V0 rip. IMO if you want unmatched quality then it's better to get original CDs.
Posted by: Ph4wX
havn't read the 3pages, but heres my oppinion
i think that FLAC is good, but not for downloading music.. in my oppinion, the POINT of flac is, if you have a CD yourself, and you want to keep it, in PERFECT condition on your harddrive... then, you lose nothing... but if you want to download from internet, lossy is way better....
so yea, lots of people choose FLAC because the quality is better, but thats wrong, because your ears will surely feel no differance between v0/320 and FLAC.... the only purpose of FLAC is have a PERFECT copy of something..
Posted by: orfik
Buy better speakers.
Posted by: Dionysus
as hard drives get bigger, the need for compression (even V0's) becomes less and less.
Posted by: AuReDo
For me ---> mp3
Posted by: inrainbows
The FLAC vs MP3 conversation is an ignorant one. Even if you don't believe that FLAC sounds better (which it does, and I'd bet a large sum of money the people who think it doesn't don't have the components to make that claim), it's an archival codec before anything else. You use it to keep perfect copies of CDs so that you don't need to disturb your physical media. From FLAC you can transcode to any of the lossy codecs and maintain the maximum amount of quality. You cannot transcode from lossy to lossy without a significant degradation in the file. Should some advanced lossy codec emerge in the future, you can still use those FLAC archives to convert to that, instead of being stuck with a lossy library technically inferior to the new codec. Take iterations of LAME: archive all your files in one generation of the codec and you're stuck with it.
That's true.Consider a flac file eg. 100mb, a lossy ripping is half or less of it, because of compression.
I do not support any lossy format (V0 sometimes is a good solution though)
Posted by: Express
which one do u think is best to download?? flac or mp3...
Posted by: digmen1
Excuse my ignorance (as a user for 25 years) but what is V0 ?
Regards
Digby
Posted by: lostdemon
I prefer V0 mp3 over flac.
Space saving on my harddrive and to me sounds perfectly fine.
@digmen
V0 is a way you can rip your original cd to mp3. And the best way
You can use Exact Audio Copy EAC to accpmlish this.
Posted by: Acumen
Encoders are always improving, so it's better to archive lossless so that you can simply update your portable music by converting the lossless archives instead of redownloading your entire collection of music in that new-and-improved lossy encoding format.
I don't want to be stuck with an archive full of outdated MP3s 5 or 10 years down the road.
Like I said, the greatest benefit of FLAC is that it's essentially future proof. I hope you all still love your precious mp3s when we're walking around with BIONIC EARS.
People still won't listen.
Posted by: ahcorac72
I prefer mp3.
Posted by: Aermetikvm
flac it's great
Posted by: eram
its just a matter of hdd space , in some years flac will be the only format around imo
Posted by: Skizo
@digmen
V0 is a way you can rip your original cd to mp3. And the best way
You can use Exact Audio Copy EAC to accpmlish this.
It is NOT the best. V0 is a lossy format. Any lossless format is abviously going to be better.
digi - for more info, see this (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lame#Detailed_explanation_.28long_answer.29).
Posted by: ♫NiViDiA.XFX♫
mp3 the best
Posted by: formos
flac is much better but i prefer mp3-easier to download
Posted by: BelleandSeb
I don't think anyone can actually, 100%, genuinely, definitely, tell the difference between FLAC and V0. It's not worth it in my book.
Posted by: markupmaster
I prefer mp3 because FLAC takes up more room and mp3 sounds good enough for me..
Posted by: Sanka113
With samsung busting out larger and larger SSD's the more likely that we'll see large jumps in mp3 player capacity in the near future. With more capacity people will be more privy to be the larger flac files on them.
Posted by: ksauron
FLAC is good for building a quality library and listening through the output by amps...no distortion whatsoever .
mp3 is good for listening to tunes through earplugs n so on ...
(Read on iPods and etc.etc..)
Posted by: lopezfd
FLAC, obviously! Then just convert to to MP3s when loading your mp3 player
Posted by: Mesazon
I prefer Mp3s yet!!
Posted by: novell
yes mp3 flac take too much space
Posted by: tryambaka
I prefer Flac, but i download much more mp3 than flac..
Posted by: conat
If I really like the album, then I download it in FLAC. But I have more mp3's then Flac.
Posted by: pelegosto
I prefer Flac
Posted by: silent h3ro
I prefer mp3 since my Zune doesn't support Flac and mp3 is smaller in size so that is another plus.
Posted by: rtxs
i prefer flac...
the mp3 have a small size but the flac quality are much better
Posted by: Bassi2o
i prefer mp3
dont have enough space for flac
Posted by: bobtong
only flac
Posted by: Sonki123
i prefer Mp3 ..i hate FLAC
Posted by: pacmunchkin
The day that I buy a portable music player that plays flac, and at the same time buy some £200 headphones, I will probably start downloading flac files, but until that day, I will stick to mp3, as my hardware just doesn't provide me with a reason for justifying the extra hdd space.
As for having to redownload all my music, I don't keep that larger music collection on my computer, so will probably be not too much of an effort to get hold of it all again.
Posted by: Am0MuK
It's like DVD and BluRay
Posted by: fstalk
mp3
Posted by: sLAP
I prefer mp3 ...
Posted by: curtanwoo
FLAC is bigger but lossless. MP3 is smaller but lossy.
You can't compare a lossless compression to a lossy one - it simply doesn't make sense. The file formats are used for two different things!
Posted by: Catcher
Depends on the FLAC source and depends on the mp3 source.
There are different ways to compress FLAC as well as mp3's.
But mostly FLAC is my choice.
Posted by: Trippin'
I usually end up getting the same album in both formats.
I prefer the audio quality of FLAC, so I download that and burn it to CDs.
I also have an MP3 player though, and I'm too lazy to convert them to V0 myself. :P
Posted by: GRB23
Flac ftw
Posted by: edgarb
Mp3 v0 for me over flac, i have downloaded 2 albums on flac and v0, played both on a $2000 stereo setup, and they sound the exact same. you can tell the difference if you turn off some extra option on the receiver - just barely, but once you turn the option on they sound identicle, i take it the option adds in extra information missing. but to me they sound the same, and my bro too. i will run more tests later on, but to be honest i was disappointed
Posted by: bry_187
v0 and FLAC = win. Wouldn't listen to anything of a lesser quality now unless I had to... or it's an audiobook/mixtape etc. All comes down to personal preference/availability :)
Posted by: Pierr0
I love music mp3
Posted by: john legend
flac of course but i don't always find what i want so mp3s good two..
Posted by: internazionale 1908
quality is everything so FLAC
cheers
Posted by: digital_sc4rz
I feel the same way :yup:
FLAC is not worth the hard drive space in my opinion. V0 is perfect. Every album I have is in V0.
Posted by: anjelik
V0 is great for that size,but you can do everything with FLAC even you can make your own rip or burn into a CD to play in the car :)
Posted by: sheriff 01
all i have been downloading lately has been flac. i'm very picky with music quality and low bitrate mp3's just won't cut it for me.
Posted by: WhiteLV
mp3
Posted by: spenz
If you want to hear the obvious infinite difference of FLAC and Mp3 regardless if its V0 or not. Use a transparent pair of speakers. You will realize that the increase loudness of Mp3 tracks is mostly due to the loss of it's fullness due to compression.
Posted by: daveflp
mp3
Posted by: mbucari1
I'll take a 192Kbps AAC over ANY mp3.
Posted by: BubbAblack
mp3
Posted by: snakebite
If your a casual listener of music, i doubt you'll even tell the remote difference of V0 from FLAC.
Yep I total agree and also if u dont have much bandwith Mp3 only like 80megs where Flac is over 400 megs So Mp3 would be the way to go
Posted by: bangang
If bandwidth and HD space weren't an issue, I'd say FLAC all the way. But V0, or even V2 are mostly good enough and they are a lot smaller. I'd have to buy 3TB of new storage to be able to listen to all my music from my HD if I'd only download FLAC.
And there's of course also the issue of compatibility. My legacy mp3-player won't play it, and converting files is just too much trouble.
I'm sure we'll only be downloading lossless in the future, but the technology (mp3-players/bandwidth/HDs) just aren't fully suited for that yet.