Is FLAC really "better" than high-bit rate MP3?

[megabyteme]

I have been grabbing quite a bit of music lately to feed my new stereo. I find the FLAC albums from What to be quite nice. I have also grabbed some MP3 albums, but don't think they sound quite as amazing. It is easy to get fooled by audio gimmicks (fancy interconnects, speaker wire, etc), and I have to wonder if I am simply biased towards FLAC...

Thoughts?

[haslingdene]

There are some technical reasons why FLAC is 'really' better, but if it sounds better to you, that's ultimately what matters.

[Cabalo]

Without going deeper into the discussion, or getting all technical, I don't see any reason to download FLAC instead 320Kb/s. At least on my sound setup, which is quite good btw. Some professional DJ friends of mine also say that it's very rare the case when they need a flac version of a song.
I stopped bothering downloading FLAC, as I used to do a lot, and just moved on to high rate MP3. In the end it was all a waste of bandwidth.

[Skiz]

There are some technical reasons why FLAC is 'really' better, but if it sounds better to you, that's ultimately what matters.

It isn't very technical at all, really. FLAC is a completely lossless format of audio, when referring to quality. MP3, with its varying degrees, has lost some of that quality.

Like Cabalo, I have lost nearly all of my interest in FLAC. The real usefulness of FLAC for me is when I'm burning music onto a disc to play in the truck or something. I've always felt in the past that MP3s on a burned disc have a high probability of sounding like shite, so these days I'll download the FLAC version and burn that onto a disc, giving me an exact quality replica of the purchased CD.

I still have a shit-ton of FLAC but I don't download much of anything but V0 these days. I just so rarely tell the difference.

MBM, you should have the wife set up a Pepsi Challenge type thing for you, and play some FLAC and V0 versions of albums and see if you can tell the difference.

[megabyteme]

MBM, you should have the wife set up a Pepsi Challenge type thing for you, and play some FLAC and V0 versions of albums and see if you can tell the difference.

That could be fun. I'll see if we have time over the weekend. :)

[Burnsy]

I only ever downloaded a couple of FLAC albums and tbh I never noticed any massive difference.

Given, I don't have a stupidly priced stereo at home, I don't have time to listen to much music in work and the vast majority of the time the only chance I have to listen to some tunes is in the car driving (I do a lot of motorway driving)...

Maybe it's the fact I don't have the necessary quality of hardware to benefit from the lossless rips, but I find ripping .mp3 copies of albums serves me just as well as the few FLAC albums I have in my collection.

[Nissouri]

I prefer FLACs myself, mainly because they offer a (hopefully) perfect duplicate of the original. My hobby is to play around with music editing software doing compilations, remixes and mashups, so losses is a must. FLACs are also useful for saving work in progress when removing noise and glitches from captures of vinyl recordings or restoring dynamic range to bootlegs and old radio programs. FLACs offer a true source for conversion to various types of mp3s for the stuff I give to friends and post in forums with full quality control of the output. I also used FLAC to back up all my CDs and stored the originals in a closet, gaining lots of shelf space in the living room.

While spectrum analysis shows a clear loss in high frequencies between FLACs and MP3s, I’m sure only dogs or aliens can notice this difference most of the time. So if you do this kind of geeky music manipulation, like to recreate perfect copies of CDs, fancy yourself an audiophile or simply wanna be a snob, FLAC is the way to go. I would guess this desire for perfection applies to less than 5% of the world’s music-listening population – the rest just want their tunes to sound good!

The price to pay for FLACs is storage – over there on the book shelf, I have six 1 Tb Passport drives that hold my FLAC backups and have started filling number seven. Converted to V0, which I listen to most of the time, all of them fit on a single 500 Mb Passport with room for plenty more.

[P2PDog]

I download all my music in FLAC format now. I honestly can't tell the difference with the equipment I have, but since disc space isn't an issue for me, I figure why not have the best quality file available.

[dontknow]

I only downloaded flac rips since get a Pedros. And I think flac is better than mp3.

[Quarterquack]

To be honest, it all comes down to the audio setup one has. A few years ago I was content listening to 128kbps rips of metallica from youtube. Sure, they sounded like absolute crap, but the novely of not having to run through a whole disc inserting ordeal in order to listen to that one track I had a hankering for had me beat.

Fast forward a few years later, and I sincerely can't listen to 128kbps MP3 without hurting my ears. It's all garbage, to be honest. With any pair of decent headphones you can also easily tell the difference between a 320/V0/V2 to be honest. Between 320kbps MP3's and FLAC's, the difference is more subtle, but still very much existent, especially when it comes to a good number of instruments playing at the same time, and a 320kbps MP3 encode suddenly sounds "crowded". This difference is incredibly noticeable with metal songs that rely heavily on cymbals for example, where they are always washed away by other instruments in crappy encodes.

[c0ld]

You need decent equipment and good* ears to tell, the difference is massive then. I only have flac for the music I listen to over and over.

*good isn't really the right word, accustomed? attuned? ie, you know the music you are listening to intimately and are aware of your equipments quirks.

[vthl]

i think yes it is the best and has more fillrate

[c0ld]

fillrate
lol, that's video you retard.

[Speedo]

It all depends on how good your hearing is. I have been listening to loud music for many years but still have perfect hearing. It's pretty much a miracle. I have done tests on myself and I can hear the difference between 320kbps and wav and at 35 I can also hear the sounds that only teens are supposed to hear, the kind that will scare them away.

It all depends. If you have average hearing it's fine with both 320 or flac.

[ifishcat]

i kinda like that from flac, all the other (smaller in size) formats can be created (as needed).

[th0r]

apart from the inherent sound quality differences b/t .flac and .mp3 files, .flac is great for archival purposes: .flac/.wav files could be used to create 100% accurate copies of cds/dvds, where ripping/transcoding .mp3 files would obviously fall very short of an accurate copy not only in the data, but in the sound, too

[Stabber]

I wouldn't say it's better unless you have a very good audio equipment to understand the difference . But with flac you are 100% that you get the best quality . I only download in flac quality the albums that i really like .

[striviz]

Well, FLAC is referred to as "lossless" for a good reason :P
Of course, in a cheap set of headphones, the difference isn't obvious. But on a good audio system... :D

[apextwin146]

apart from the inherent sound quality differences b/t .flac and .mp3 files, .flac is great for archival purposes: .flac/.wav files could be used to create 100% accurate copies of cds/dvds, where ripping/transcoding .mp3 files would obviously fall very short of an accurate copy not only in the data, but in the sound, too
i thought you were into this Lossless shit so you would be knowing that its impossible to create a 100% acc copy of the cds. The issues relating to Burn quality,Error concealment etc associated with the Compact Disc mechanism almost make it certain that the same quality cant be achieved. You should really read up on EFM and CIRC to quell any doubts relating to this. But Hey i will give u credit that atleast u knw that Sound and Data are different, not a proponent of the "bit is bit " philosophy.
Also Flac is a Lossless compression rather than just saying Lossless. Its quite misleading that way actually

[1000possibleclaws]

The real usefulness of FLAC for me is when I'm burning music onto a disc to play in the truck or something.

The only reason I've ever snatched that format

[Monteiro]

I only downloaded flac rips since get a Pedros. And I think flac is better than mp3.

[apextwin146]

I only downloaded flac rips since get a Pedros. And I think flac is better than mp3.
Yeah we will just believe it cuz you say so. Any other facts you wanna create while u r at it?

[rounder]

320 pwns flac.. why dl 30mb song ???

[nemo8]

Flac is definitely better, and not just the quality, but the filesize too!
An mp3 is three times bigger when it has the same quality as a flac.

[obaletan]

Flac is definitely better, and not just the quality, but the filesize too!
An mp3 is three times bigger when it has the same quality as a flac.

I think you may wanna read up on your facts flac<->mp3.... though i dont agree that mp3 is better :)



I only downloaded flac rips since get a Pedros. And I think flac is better than mp3.
Yeah we will just believe it cuz you say so. Any other facts you wanna create while u r at it?

I can create facts.... I promise they will be interesting :P

[Element4l]

Flac is pretty much lossless quality (correct me if I'm wrong) but it takes up a huge amount of space. Over 30-40 mb per song depending on the length. I believe MP3 is one of the greatest inventions because how the hell else would you fit 60 000 songs on your ipod? How would you keep your seeding ratio up if you always download flac?

I download all my favorite artists best albums in flac, the others in 320 kbps MP3 or VBR MP3. Then convert them, place in itunes and put the originals away for safe keeping.

[sandman_1]

FLAC as others have said is lossless. What that means is when decompressed to something like WAV or RAW format, it is bit exact to the original be it CD, DVD, ect.. There are other lossless compressions schemes besides FLAC. Monkey Audio is just as good as FLAC in compression and in some cases better.

MP3 is a lossy compression scheme. Once something is converted to MP3, you have lost things in the music/audio that cannot be recovered. So decompression results in inaccurate copy of the original and won't be bit exact.

My recommendations, listen to FLAC at the house and listen to mp3 on portables. If you have decent audio equipment in your home, you can tell the difference between FLAC and 320bit MP3 or at least I can with my ears. MP3 seems to destroy the high end range of frequencies and makes instruments like cymbals sound washed out.

With that said, today's music is overly compressed, Dynamic Range Compressed that is, and has the loudness jacked up to the point of distortion and clipping so the distinction between FLAC and MP3 will be even harder to tell, the cd version of Death Magnetic by Metallica is a good example of this.

[Krunch]

i think yes it is the best and has more fillrate

[anon]

fillrate

Thanks for enlightening us. :frusty:

[josecitox]

Its 2032132465749543131657986541 better in every way.

[belabartok]

It's much better!

[obaletan]

fillrate

thanks for enlightening us. :frusty:

hahaha

[th0r]

Flac is pretty much lossless quality (correct me if I'm wrong) but it takes up a huge amount of space. Over 30-40 mb per song depending on the length.flac is a lossless audio codec, hence its name free lossless audio codec; .flac (or most lossless audio file formats) files are large because .mp3 files are compressed and lose information when they are ripped that way from audio sources


What that means is when decompressed to something like WAV or RAW format, it is bit exact to the original be it CD, DVD, ect.depending on how you rip audio from its source, you can obtain a 100% exact copy of practically any cd/dvd audio source; it doesn't really matter what your compression scheme is as long as it's lossless and you make tweaks to ensure you get a 100% copy


MP3 seems to destroy the high end range of frequencies and makes instruments like cymbals sound washed out.exactly and imo, you don't always need an equipment setup in the $1,000 range just to say this b/c most times, at least for me, you can pick the very subtle differences in the quality of audio b/t the two file formats

[sandman_1]

Thor wrote:

depending on how you rip audio from its source, you can obtain a 100% exact copy of practically any cd/dvd audio source; it doesn't really matter what your compression scheme is as long as it's lossless and you make tweaks to ensure you get a 100% copy




Yes this is true. EAC is a great program for doing this and properly calibrating your drive to get an accurate rip. However, I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say, even though we are both on the same page. I was pretty much making that point since Wav and Raw are uncompressed formats and would be bit exact copies of the original if ripped correctly before hand.



Thor wrote:

exactly and imo, you don't always need an equipment setup in the $1,000 range just to say this b/c most times, at least for me, you can pick the very subtle differences in the quality of audio b/t the two file formats



Really all you need is good ears. :D I did a ABX test with Foobar 2000 with a mp3 and wav of the same song. Guessed the mp3 20 times in a row, which basically means less than %1 chance of it being just coincidental. So even with PC speakers, you can tell the difference.

[needmusic90]

MP3 won't be around forever lol, better lossy formats exist already but wont play on ur mp3 player. I keep flcs so that when a more effective format become dominant I don't have to redownload all my mp3s i have now

[nye]

It's lossless, duh it's better!

[Renzokuken-]

Actually, you can't tell the difference on two channel or headphones. Evident with 5 channel or more though. It sounds better.

[sandman_1]

Actually, you can't tell the difference on two channel or headphones. Evident with 5 channel or more though. It sounds better.

You must either have bad 2 channel speakers, bad headphones, or bad ears.

[eminter_25391]

It's obviously better. The problem is sometimes you can't feel it

[lea88]

Offcourse FLAC is much better. You need to have the right equipment in order to hear the difference. If all you have are normal speakers, amplifier and receiver you would hardly notice any difference but as you invest in your system, the detail and clarity improves exponentionaly.

[JustDOSE]

I have been grabbing quite a bit of music lately to feed my new stereo. I find the FLAC albums from What to be quite nice. I have also grabbed some MP3 albums, but don't think they sound quite as amazing. It is easy to get fooled by audio gimmicks (fancy interconnects, speaker wire, etc), and I have to wonder if I am simply biased towards FLAC...

Thoughts?


/facepalm..... its better, now please put the computer down and walk away

[pineappleseeds]

FLAC is better, however if you cannot tell the sound quality difference, there's no point in downloading a bigger file. V0/320kbs does the job for me.

[whatcdfan]

I have been grabbing quite a bit of music lately to feed my new stereo. I find the FLAC albums from What to be quite nice. I have also grabbed some MP3 albums, but don't think they sound quite as amazing. It is easy to get fooled by audio gimmicks (fancy interconnects, speaker wire, etc), and I have to wonder if I am simply biased towards FLAC...

Thoughts?

hmmmm.......u have found FST but u dont know what the difference between a FLAC and MP3 amazing, well as far as i am concerned i only grab mp3's coz they are playable at my sound system which dosent plays any of the lossless formats be it flac, ape, or alac except WAVs but i look for flacs to download rather then mp3's coz many times if went technical and found that mp3's i downloaded were reencoded from mp3's with lesser quality so its basically not HQ mp3 its low quality instead which i cannot listen considering i already listening to lossy, i dl flacs and other lossless formats to re encode them to mp3 myself so that i can have "REAL" 320 kbps or V2 coz ripping from lossless is same as ripping from original cds's

[A]

hmmmm.......u have found FST but u dont know what the difference between a FLAC and MP3 amazing
He knows the difference between FLAC and MP3 in theory but he wanted to confirm the real "hearing" difference practically.You didn't understand what he meant,amazing.

Almost all of my music collection consists of MP3 V0 with exception being some Classical Music which I wanted to burn to a CD to play in my car.

[anon]

ripping from lossless is same as ripping from original cds's

Assuming the lossless rip is "perfect" itself to begin with, of course.

[fedje]

..... i also use flac.... but i wonder what is the best bitrate of mp3....

[anon]

i wonder what is the best bitrate of mp3....

If "best" means "highest" here, then 320Kbps.

[megabyteme]

hmmmm.......u have found FST but u dont know what the difference between a FLAC and MP3 amazing
He knows the difference between FLAC and MP3 in theory but he wanted to confirm the real "hearing" difference practically.You didn't understand what he meant,amazing.

Almost all of my music collection consists of MP3 V0 with exception being some Classical Music which I wanted to burn to a CD to play in my car.

Thanks, Aby. You understood my question perfectly. How the others missed it?... :idunno:

[zot]

I discovered to my surprise that the MP3 player can indeed make a difference, as some don't play MP3s 100% perfectly all the time.

In my case, VLC Media Player (yeah, I know, It's not really an optimal MP3 player) played one note of a song badly, so I thought it was just a bad MP3. After I downloaded a different MP3, the bad note sounded exactly the same. So I tried an old copy of Winamp, and the note sounded perfect.

[iLOVENZB]

Lossless may be 'better' (theoretically) but it's pretty much pointless over vbr, unless of coarse some of you are autistic which seems to be the case here.

Does anyone know what exactly is compressed when you rip to FLAC compared to other lossless formats?

[jkl49]

I can't get into the technical side of it too much, but basically just all the portions of samples that fall below 0db and above the highest peak point. In other words, the parts that basically have no audio data there. So the dynamic range also plays a big factor. Anwayy, one example for instance, if you take a brand new album that has volume-compression and is maxed out for levels and then you encode it to flac, the space you'll save will be average. On the other hand, if you take a home recording in wav or something you did yourself, you might save as much as 50% of the original filesize. If it's a recording of a very low dB level, you might save even more than half.


Edit: And actually, I think I misread your question a little bit, but maybe it at least answers it partially.

[sandman_1]

Lossless may be 'better' (theoretically) but it's pretty much pointless over vbr, unless of coarse some of you are autistic which seems to be the case here.

Does anyone know what exactly is compressed when you rip to FLAC compared to other lossless formats?

There isn't any "theoretical" about it. It is better because it is lossless. If done right, it can bit exact to the original raw track. If you have good hearing, you can tell the difference between a lossy mp3 track, HQ VBR or CBR, and a lossless track. Foobar has a component that will do a double blind test of two tracks, http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx. I did it and was able to pick out the lossy mp3 track 20 times in a row. I figured that was enough since the chance that it was coincidence that I picked that track 20 times in a row were so minute that it was nearly impossible.

I would assume that all lossless formats are similar in nature in that they find repeating strings. Some use better algorithms than others and such. It is really not that much different than using file compression such as RAR and ZIP except that it has been optimized for audio.

[megabyteme]

I would assume that all lossless formats are similar in nature in that they find repeating strings. Some use better algorithms than others and such. It is really not that much different than using file compression such as RAR and ZIP except that it has been optimized for audio.

I always thought my zip files sounded a bit "off"... :D

[sandman_1]

I would assume that all lossless formats are similar in nature in that they find repeating strings. Some use better algorithms than others and such. It is really not that much different than using file compression such as RAR and ZIP except that it has been optimized for audio.

I always thought my zip files sounded a bit "off"... :D
:w00t: LOL

[extractor]

Flac is way much better. I am learning to rip now.ANy help is always appreciated.

[iLOVENZB]

extractor: Have a look at this guide: http://www.calonet.org/eac-ripping-guide/

[anon]

Another good EAC ripping resource:
http://xunside.info/eac/Setup/setup1.html

[whatcdfan]

ripping from lossless is same as ripping from original cds's

Assuming the lossless rip is "perfect" itself to begin with, of course.

truth be said,Anon :yup:

[tragedi]

I listen only flanc on my iPod

for sure Flanc is better

[whatcdfan]

i wonder what is the best bitrate of mp3....

If "best" means "highest" here, then 320Kbps.

free format 640kbps but has a limited player compatibility

[Speedo]

I listen only flanc on my iPod

for sure Flanc is better

War is over, the flancks are free. Flac.

I can hear a difference between 320 and wav/flac but I have a miracle of hearing. I'm mid 30's and can still hear the frequencies they want to scare teenagers away with and if that is put to use I might have to get kids to buy me smokes. How that is? I have no idea since I haven't been to nice to my ears. As I recall 320 cuts the freq at 20-22khz witch is beyond normal human hearing so therefor it does not matter, except for on a dancefloor maybe where the vibration of the bass doen't obey the khz.

[GlazeKing]

I download all my music in FLAC format now. I honestly can't tell the difference with the equipment I have, but since disc space isn't an issue for me, I figure why not have the best quality file available.

Good point. If disk space isn't an issue then why nit have the best quality.

[cinephilia]

then, why not sticking with wav ? any player can read it once burned... unlike flac :mellow:

[Ronnie Coleman]

I only downloaded flac rips since get a Pedros. And I think flac is better than mp3.
Yeah we will just believe it cuz you say so. Any other facts you wanna create while u r at it?
There is no need to create any facts. FLAC IS better than mp3 because it is lossless. I thought that was clear enough. Those who have large HDDs will need to consider forgeting mp3. ;)

[sandman_1]

then, why not sticking with wav ? any player can read it once burned... unlike flac :mellow:

True but FLAC/APE can compress that wav down quite a bit. Flac decompresses to wav anyway so there is really no point in keeping a wav file around.

[anon]

Those who have large HDDs will need to consider forgeting mp3. ;)

I have a 1TB drive and still haven't forgotten about MP3s... simply because with my current equipment I don't notice any difference, but I can fit much more music this way.

[cinephilia]

then, why not sticking with wav ? any player can read it once burned... unlike flac :mellow:

True but FLAC/APE can compress that wav down quite a bit. Flac decompresses to wav anyway so there is really no point in keeping a wav file around.
the point is that wav is compatible with literally everything. music is about sharing - i see no point in only being able to play flac files on your flac-compatible player or computer.

i mean you're not able to play your music anywhere nor you can lend albums to friends that doesn't have the 'right' equipment. this is a big disadvantage in my eyes.

[jkl49]

As I recall 320 cuts the freq at 20-22khz witch is beyond normal human hearing

Only some 320 encodes do this. In fact, if anyone knows any off-hand that do or still do, please let me know or post it here. It used to be that there was no real freq cutoff with 320k mp3, but now some encoders seem to have them cut off at around 16-18khz.

[Expeto]

Those who have large HDDs will need to consider forgeting mp3. ;)

I have a 1TB drive and still haven't forgotten about MP3s... simply because with my current equipment I don't notice any difference, but I can fit much more music this way.

:yes: just because we you have lots of space doesn't mean you should fill it with unnecessary stuff.

To be honest I prefer mp3 and ogg files to flac. The discussions is not about which is better, its about definition of the "better". To me "better" is lower file size, and high portable player support, so mp3 is my guy. I throw my music to a ftp location and stream directly from there to my netbook so smaller file size helps alot to my use. I'm happy with "few times smaller file size" instead of "a hardly noticeable quality difference"

[sandman_1]

the point is that wav is compatible with literally everything. music is about sharing - i see no point in only being able to play flac files on your flac-compatible player or computer.

i mean you're not able to play your music anywhere nor you can lend albums to friends that doesn't have the 'right' equipment. this is a big disadvantage in my eyes.

You can decompress it and convert the track to any format of your choosing so I am not seeing your argument here. I can convert a whole album from FLAC to MP3 HQ VBR directly with Foobar and Lame in less than a minute. Or I can burn an Audio CD in less than 3 minutes using the .cue file mounted in Imgburn.

[cinephilia]

i was talking about burned discs. what's burned is generally not on my hdd anymore.

but yeah, sure... next time i wanna bring some music to a friend, i'll think about ripping, converting and burning everything again into more compatible formats.

[Expeto]

the point is that wav is compatible with literally everything. music is about sharing - i see no point in only being able to play flac files on your flac-compatible player or computer.

i mean you're not able to play your music anywhere nor you can lend albums to friends that doesn't have the 'right' equipment. this is a big disadvantage in my eyes.

You can decompress it and convert the track to any format of your choosing so I am not seeing your argument here. I can convert a whole album from FLAC to MP3 HQ VBR directly with Foobar and Lame in less than a minute. Or I can burn an Audio CD in less than 3 minutes using the .cue file mounted in Imgburn.

so you are saying, to listen some music everybody should learn to encode and burn disks? why to use a codec anyway? we can just use RAW formats

[cinephilia]

it's really simple. flac is cool. raw formats aren't.

[sandman_1]

so you are saying, to listen some music everybody should learn to encode and burn disks? why to use a codec anyway? we can just use RAW formats


So using Foobar 2000 + Lame is too difficult for you to do or burn an audio disk? Must be a monumental task for you to do anything. :blink:

Why compress files? Hmmm, maybe to save space. :rolleyes:


i was talking about burned discs. what's burned is generally not on my hdd anymore.

but yeah, sure... next time i wanna bring some music to a friend, i'll think about ripping, converting and burning everything again into more compatible formats.

On PC, about any player can play FLAC files, even Windows Media Player with directshow filters. If you are talking about playing it in a portable player, then what is the problem about having it convert to say mp3 on the fly directly to that device? You gotta transfer the files at some point.

[Expeto]

So using Foobar 2000 + Lame is too difficult for you to do or burn an audio disk? Must be a monumental task for you to do anything. :blink:

Why compress files? Hmmm, maybe to save space. :rolleyes:

First of all, I can encode a file from my arch cli, way before your point and drool gui even shows up. In my home PC, I don't even have to anything, my crontab scripts automatically converts every complete music of any format file in my /home/download/ and saves them as ogg vorbis to my /home/music/ and adds them to my xmms playlists.

Some people with large hdd space said they didn't cared about the size, and I'm saying if your hdd doesn't matter why not go with raw. Why to use a compressed format at all?




On PC, about any player can play FLAC files, even Windows Media Player with directshow filters. If you are talking about playing it in a portable player, then what is the problem about having it convert to say mp3 on the fly directly to that device? You gotta transfer the files at some point.
the problem is its unnecessary, the difference is unnoticeable. You are adding unnecessary complexity.

I love FLAC, its open source and its great. Its a perfect format for backup, its almost %40 smaller than raw files, replay gain support, very easy to work with and easy to encode. When an audio expert talks about it I respect them, they can hear the difference, but many of the time FLAC supporters are bunch of noobs trying to brag about their audio skills. FLAC is 6times larger with unnoticeable quality difference, it drains battery very fast on portable players, its not for everyday use.

[cinephilia]

On PC, about any player can play FLAC files, even Windows Media Player with directshow filters. If you are talking about playing it in a portable player, then what is the problem about having it convert to say mp3 on the fly directly to that device? You gotta transfer the files at some point.
there must be some misunderstanding. i'm just saying that if space isn't an issue, then why not sticking with WAV, especially if you burn your music onto discs ? unlike FLAC, WAV is compatible with any CD player and you don't have to convert anything before burning.

[sandman_1]

First of all, I can encode a file from my arch cli, way before your point and drool gui even shows up. In my home PC, I don't even have to anything, my crontab scripts automatically converts every complete music of any format file in my /home/download/ and saves them as ogg vorbis to my /home/music/ and adds them to my xmms playlists.

Some people with large hdd space said they didn't cared about the size, and I'm saying if your hdd doesn't matter why not go with raw. Why to use a compressed format at all?



the problem is its unnecessary, the difference is unnoticeable. You are adding unnecessary complexity.

I love FLAC, its open source and its great. Its a perfect format for backup, its almost %40 smaller than raw files, replay gain support, very easy to work with and easy to encode. When an audio expert talks about it I respect them, they can hear the difference, but many of the time FLAC supporters are bunch of noobs trying to brag about their audio skills. FLAC is 6times larger with unnoticeable quality difference, it drains battery very fast on portable players, its not for everyday use.


Yes it is for archival purposes. If you are at your place of residence, why listen to something inferior, i.e. some lossy format, when you have the lossless version available? And there is noticeable difference if you know what to listen for. You do not need to have bionic ears to know the difference. Personally I can spot the difference with PC speakers with Foobar and its Double Blind component just to prove that it wasn't just a coincidence.

And I never said use it on portable players. MP3 has its uses, i.e. portability. Also I would like to know how keeping your music, in its original bit exact form, is somehow being a "noob" as you so eloquently put it?



On PC, about any player can play FLAC files, even Windows Media Player with directshow filters. If you are talking about playing it in a portable player, then what is the problem about having it convert to say mp3 on the fly directly to that device? You gotta transfer the files at some point.
there must be some misunderstanding. i'm just saying that if space isn't an issue, then why not sticking with WAV, especially if you burn your music onto discs ? unlike FLAC, WAV is compatible with any CD player and you don't have to convert anything before burning.

Wav is a Windows format. It is a RAW audio file with a header. AFAIK, plain jane CD players will not play WAV files unless it explicitly says so in the spec's.

[Expeto]

Yes it is for archival purposes. If you are at your place of residence, why listen to something inferior, i.e. some lossy format, when you have the lossless version available? And there is noticeable difference if you know what to listen for. You do not need to have bionic ears to know the difference. Personally I can spot the difference with PC speakers with Foobar and its Double Blind component just to prove that it wasn't just a coincidence.

Still what applies to you doesn't not apply to me. FLAC, like any codec, is a trade-off. For me 6x space, lack of native player support does not worth a small quality difference. Same goes for most of the users, so there no point pushing FLAC into general use.

First of all, I'm sorry, that noob thing wasn't intended for you. I was talking in general.

Also I would like to know how keeping your music, in its original bit exact form, is somehow being a "noob" as you so eloquently put it?
You are also speaking generally here. For a person, who is not going to work on the file, who can't tell the difference of quality, using a lossless form is not just noob but also idiotic. Its a fact that, many of the FLAC users are bunch of imitators trying to look like experts. Again, I'm not talking about you here.

[sandman_1]

Still what applies to you doesn't not apply to me. FLAC, like any codec, is a trade-off. For me 6x space, lack of native player support does not worth a small quality difference. Same goes for most of the users, so there no point pushing FLAC into general use.

First of all, I'm sorry, that noob thing wasn't intended for you. I was talking in general.

Also I would like to know how keeping your music, in its original bit exact form, is somehow being a "noob" as you so eloquently put it?
You are also speaking generally here. For a person, who is not going to work on the file, who can't tell the difference of quality, using a lossless form is not just noob but also idiotic. Its a fact that, many of the FLAC users are bunch of imitators trying to look like experts. Again, I'm not talking about you here.


Well I suppose we will have to disagree on opinion here but I do see where you are coming from. Some people cannot tell a difference in MP3 as opposed to a CD track or other lossless source. Part of that I think is due to other things like Dynamic Range Compression and increased loudness in today's music. When you got that with clipping and limited range, it could be difficult to point out which is which with all of the distortion.

[cinephilia]

On PC, about any player can play FLAC files, even Windows Media Player with directshow filters. If you are talking about playing it in a portable player, then what is the problem about having it convert to say mp3 on the fly directly to that device? You gotta transfer the files at some point.
there must be some misunderstanding. i'm just saying that if space isn't an issue, then why not sticking with WAV, especially if you burn your music onto discs ? unlike FLAC, WAV is compatible with any CD player and you don't have to convert anything before burning.

Wav is a Windows format. It is a RAW audio file with a header. AFAIK, plain jane CD players will not play WAV files unless it explicitly says so in the spec's.
then, i must have confused with cda or whatever it's called.

[Xbox_360]

Flac will be a lot better if you have a decent set of speakers and sound system or if you can personally tell the difference. All you can do is listen to a flac rip and a 320kbps mp3 and tell if you can hear a difference between the two.

[whatcdfan]

i can see a huge difference in FLAC/APE and mp3 320kbps practically

[DeadPoet]

i can see a huge difference in FLAC/APE and mp3 320kbps practically

If I may ask, what's your sound system?

[whatcdfan]

5.1 channel woofer system attached to my PC

[DeadPoet]

5.1 channel woofer system attached to my PC

Could you be more specific?
What kind of woofer sys you have (brand, model, specs, etc...)?

[buggyfresh]

I don't have more than 1.25 TB space for storage/seeding so I stick to v0's. Have and have done a fair bit of flac ripping myself but my equipment must be sh*t as I really can't hear anything to justify me using 5x the space! Rarely downloaded FLAC any more.

[GlazeKing]

To me FLAC is like HD. Why not have the best quality of a file. FLAC can easily be converted into mp3 and moved to ipod or whatever you want and still have the FLAC album and etc..

[DeadPoet]

If you have really bad sound system mp3's sounds better than FLAC...
So it's not like FLAC always will sound better than mp3's.

[sandman_1]

If you have really bad sound system mp3's sounds better than FLAC...
So it's not like FLAC always will sound better than mp3's.

I would gather that the person with a POS sound system wouldn't probably know or even deal with FLAC files. If you have ok speakers, even PC speakers, you can notice a difference.

[Humbucker]

Using lossless as a fail-safe mechanism can't be argued against, but have you ever wondered why listening tests are not conducted for lossy encodings at “high” bitrates (~256)? I challenge you to find anyone who can differentiate (a song, not problem sample-- after all people attend concerts to listen to music) between a MP3 -V0 encoded music and a FLAC encoded music. Yes, using lossless might give you the satisfaction of knowing that “this is as good as it gets”, but honestly, you'd be hard pressed to find people who can differentiate between a lossy and a lossless.

[ScottK]

To me FLAC is like HD. Why not have the best quality of a file. FLAC can easily be converted into mp3 and moved to ipod or whatever you want and still have the FLAC album and etc..

because of size? :idunno:

[DeadPoet]

To me FLAC is like HD. Why not have the best quality of a file. FLAC can easily be converted into mp3 and moved to ipod or whatever you want and still have the FLAC album and etc..

What's the point of flac if you can't notice any difference?
It's like downloading full bluray movie and watch it on laptop with 15.6" screen wearing acme 2$ headphones...


because of size? :idunno:

HDD's are becoming cheaper everyday and you can get 1tb's storage under 100$ which is pretty affordable, in my opinion.
Plus, I don't think you need TB's of music whether it's lossles or lossy format. Download what you enjoy/will listen not all discography of Bob Marley (including live recordings) if you like only "No woman no cry" etc...

[ScottK]

my favourite player is winamp..so you know.. :P

[DeadPoet]

Yeah, mine too.

Lot of my friends using foobar though. Is there any noticible difference in terms of quality?

[sandman_1]

Using lossless as a fail-safe mechanism can't be argued against, but have you ever wondered why listening tests are not conducted for lossy encodings at “high” bitrates (~256)? I challenge you to find anyone who can differentiate (a song, not problem sample-- after all people attend concerts to listen to music) between a MP3 -V0 encoded music and a FLAC encoded music. Yes, using lossless might give you the satisfaction of knowing that “this is as good as it gets”, but honestly, you'd be hard pressed to find people who can differentiate between a lossy and a lossless.


I can and it isn't hard to do if you know what to look for. I have done ABX with Foobar 2000 with a MP3 320k CBR vs Flac.

[Humbucker]

Using lossless as a fail-safe mechanism can't be argued against, but have you ever wondered why listening tests are not conducted for lossy encodings at “high” bitrates (~256)? I challenge you to find anyone who can differentiate (a song, not problem sample-- after all people attend concerts to listen to music) between a MP3 -V0 encoded music and a FLAC encoded music. Yes, using lossless might give you the satisfaction of knowing that “this is as good as it gets”, but honestly, you'd be hard pressed to find people who can differentiate between a lossy and a lossless.


I can and it isn't hard to do if you know what to look for. I have done ABX with Foobar 2000 with a MP3 320k CBR vs Flac.

Instead of ABX, add some FLAC and mp3 files in Foobar. Shuffle them, close your eyes and out of 10 songs, make guesses between FLAC and mp3....Mathematically, 5 of your answers should be wrong
Out of curiosity, you prefer 320 CBR over V0? :o

[th0r]

Lot of my friends using foobar though. Is there any noticible difference in terms of quality?there shouldn't be a loss in sound quality (if that's what you're referring to) unless foobar, for some reason, is downsampling your flac files


I can and it isn't hard to do if you know what to look for. I have done ABX with Foobar 2000 with a MP3 320k CBR vs Flac.i can, too, but what humbucker's saying is an interesting test for those (like myself) who prefer flac over mp3. if you look at flac files verses mp3 files structurally (as in an audio editing program) you can see the obvious differences in bitrate, clipping, etc., but that's a biased test that isn't really applicable in a debate over sound quality

[Galardo]

I haven't found any difference between them except for the size as FLAC is way heavier than mp3 ;)

[sandman_1]

Instead of ABX, add some FLAC and mp3 files in Foobar. Shuffle them, close your eyes and out of 10 songs, make guesses between FLAC and mp3....Mathematically, 5 of your answers should be wrong
Out of curiosity, you prefer 320 CBR over V0? :o

What do you think a double blind ABX test is? :blink: Mathematically? I did it 20+ times correctly identifying the lossless from the lossy track and vice versa, so your mathematics is really messed up.

No I do not prefer 320K CBR. I did that only for the test since that is the highest quality setting for MP3.

Double Blind ABX test

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABX_test

Foobar 2000 ABX component which is what I used to conduct the test. Try it out yourself.

http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx

Also, Mathematically, the probability of me getting 20 right out of 20 just by mere coincidence is

1/(2^20)= 0.00000095367431640625% a very very minute chance.

[nnmx]

I haven't found any difference between them except for the size as FLAC is way heavier than mp3 ;)
If you had good audio system, you would find ;)

[tuque1]

Only on speakers and good headphones

[Godforsaken]

Easy answer to the dilemma! Depends on where do you here the songs from and if your storage is big!! If it's a big stereo and your hdd counts lots of TBs then flac is made for you!! On the other hand if you use 2 little speakers and not a huge Hdd mp3 @ 320kbps seems ideal!!

[anon]

FLAC is very fantastic

It's FLACtastic!

[MoRbIdAnGeL]

Yeah, It's good when you have good speakers or headphones. And it slightly depends on type of the music you are listening.

[Godforsaken]

Yeah, It's good when you have good speakers or headphones. And it slightly depends on type of the music you are listening.

Yes of course!! You can enjoy Instrumental music or music including lots of instruments easier with the flac format!!

[Diggler]

FLAC with Foobar better than mp3, but I almost find everything in mp3.

[eindelijkraak]

I agree, i've ripped all my music into Flac.Play it in Foobar2k.
If you have a good soundsystem which is capable of portraying a nice "3D image", (with two speakers by the way) you can best use a lossless format like flac.
it's bit by bit identical to the orriginal.
On good recordings you can really hear the room-information thats in the music.I like not to loose anything when i rip my music.

[ELJOKER]

well the two of them are the same to me

[killuminati96]

Flac is like getting the CD from the store for free only reduced in size, but not quality. This thread is basically asking if a CD is better than an mp3. What do you think the answer is?

[DeadPoet]

Offcourse it's better but the main question is - whether it's worth the space...

[hatemmonir]

it is better

[v3ctor]

FLAC is indeed quality music format. If you have poor output device and think FLAC will turn you face into a Gusta guy, then Bitch please.
Well I mostly download mp3 for portable media devices and Bitrate matters

[IdolEyes787]

FLAC is indeed quality music format. If you have poor output device and think FLAC will turn you face into a Gusta guy, then Bitch please.


Oddly I've never thought anything would turn me into a Gusta guy probably owing to the fact I have absolutely no idea what that is.:unsure:

[v3ctor]

FLAC is indeed quality music format. If you have poor output device and think FLAC will turn you face into a Gusta guy, then Bitch please.


Oddly I've never thought anything would turn me into a Gusta guy probably owing to the fact I have absolutely no idea what that is.:unsure:

lol I think the following link will be a bit useful. They have explained most of the stuff regarding FLAC and bitrate.

http://lifehacker.com/5810575/does-bitrate-really-make-a-difference-in-my-music

[anon]

it is better

http://filesharingtalk.com/fst/useravatar/avatar251257_11.gif

[IdolEyes787]

Oddly I've never thought anything would turn me into a Gusta guy probably owing to the fact I have absolutely no idea what that is.:unsure:

lol I think the following link will be a bit useful. They have explained most of the stuff regarding FLAC and bitrate.

http://lifehacker.com/5810575/does-bitrate-really-make-a-difference-in-my-music


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2f-MZ2HRHQ

[nh0xk0d0n]

I think FLAC is really better than MP3. It's main reason I'm only download FLAC music on Internet. I can feel different between FLAC and MP3 when listen in my Jamo D500 :D

[cl4shch4mp]

flac > MP3 period.

[331]

its better for sure but I bet not everyone from ppl who downloading FLAC format see diffrent then MP3.... its not worth to keep FLAC ( more space you need ). Its just mine opinion

[Evanescence]

Yes of course , just try a good player , I use AIMP2 ...

[LosHooligun]

I just download FLAC to transcode to LAME VBR V0

[sharept]

320kbps and FLAC. I like most.

[Busaum]

FLAC is too mainstream. I prefer AHX.

[manker]

FLAC is too mainstream. I prefer AHX.
:lol:
I used to like memes, but they're too mainstream now.

[yoyoman123]

Most people can't tell the difference betwen 320kbps and flac. I'm sure you could tell the difference if you looked out for them. But i feel a lot of people only listen to flac because they are OCD'ed and wanting the best of everything even if the difference is very marginal and a much slower download speed. But that's just my opinion, if u like flac i can't stop you but flac doesn't justify it for me :)

[justlooking]

I'm sure that lossless is better, because all the data is there, however without an outstanding setup and a phenomenal ear, the difference could be reduced to almost nothing compared to a 320. I love it when guys who've been listening to loud music for 20 years claim to be able to hear the most minute differences, but when they get a hearing test, they're found to be practically deaf.

[Tecato97]

Well sure they can PROVE that FLAC is better quality-wise than MP3, but for practical listening, it makes no real difference.

[crazycabbie702]

It's like high def tv or 1440dpi printing it's just numbers to re-market the same old idea. The human ear can't hear all that and FLAC are just larger files to upload onto ratio topsites for extra credits..
Well sure they can PROVE that FLAC is better quality-wise than MP3, but for practical listening, it makes no real difference.

[Gamer_155]

I can never hear the difference between a good 320kbp MP3 and an avg FLAC

[getuce]

Use the right format for your needs. FLAC is good for archiving your golden masters or similar. If you ever have to encode something at a lower bit rate than 320kbp, say 128kbp, then it's better to start from a FLAC source than from an already degraded 320kbp version.

[PJay]

I do a lot of headphone listening and, you're right, 128 kbps mp3s are unlistenable for me. I honestly can't tell the difference between 320 kpbs and FLAC, though.

[PJay]

I can never hear the difference between a good 320kbp MP3 and an avg FLAC

Neither can I. But, given a choice between the two. I'll choose a FLAC download, even though I know there's no noticeable difference.

[sindri1980]

I think you need to have some decent gear to really appreciate the difference.

[Tel-Bot]

I generally find that bit rates are dependent on the method of playback. If you're using a basic non hifi setup, then 128k is fine for those without a discerning ear. But as a rule of thumb I use a flac or cda source & rip down to 320k mp3 as standard. It all depends on how picky you are and if you're a grade A audiophile then you're guaranteed to notice the difference. For background noise, 128k is fine.

It all depends on your set up. I'm an audiophile so CDA source / FLAC and mp3 at 320 is the bare minimum for me. Anything else, I really notice the drop in quality. My other half on the other hand could probably listen to 96k to without noticing. It's in the ear of the listener to coin a phrase.

[prossi109]

I was always listening at 256/320kbps stuff but after I bought the B&W P5 then FLAC is the only choice for me :)

[megabyteme]

I was always listening at 256/320kbps stuff but after I bought the B&W P5 then FLAC is the only choice for me :)

Congrats on your purchase. During better times, I purchased a pair of their speakers. Even now that things are much tighter, I still cannot bring myself to part with them.

[IdolEyes787]

I was always listening at 256/320kbps stuff but after I bought the B&W P5 then FLAC is the only choice for me :)

Congrats on your purchase. During better times, I purchased a pair of their speakers. Even now that things are much tighter, I still cannot bring myself to part with them.

I have mediocre earphones but I compensate by taking a lot of Quaaludes before listening to anything.

[kulysses]

yes it is, i never understood why if something is free and better than paid or restricted codec why not use it in devices. Android finally added native support

[b33f]

I do a lot of headphone listening and, you're right, 128 kbps mp3s are unlistenable for me. I honestly can't tell the difference between 320 kpbs and FLAC, though.

I would agree. My setup at home on my PC includes:

139870 as my DAC and headphone amplifier to drive
139871

But I can hear a drop in sound quality with any mp3 at 192k or less.

[dvir_grn]

FLAC is 2400 bit against 320bit of MP3

[IdolEyes787]

By the same type of logic,all V8's are inherently better than all v6's.

[megabyteme]

By the same type of logic,all V8's are inherently better than all v6's.

If this "logic" thing was so grate, wouldn't they teech it in skools? :ermm:

[piercerseth]

FLAC is 2400 bit against 320bit of MP3
Wait, what?

[ledryno2000]

Although I usually listen to mp3 versions of the music I prefer lossless versions when I can get them. It allows me to encode to mp3 at different bit rates and decide how much I'm willing to sacrifice audio clarity for file space.

[anon]

FLAC is 2400 bit against 320bit of MP3

:slap:

[b33f]

I used to have that mentality, but with hard drives becoming cheaper than before, I prefer all my music to be lossless.

[r12010]

Lossless is great and my preferable file type for archiving my material. However there is a reality of the weakest link in the chain. Often times we are listening to music on bundled iPhone headphones sitting on a bus or down in the gym. The extra bits are somewhat wasted as to really appreciate the difference you need speakers, amp, cabling , an entire chain of good quality equipment.

[Stabber]

You will need a good audio equipment in order to tell a difference . That includes a good pair of headphones , amplifier and dac if you are using it with pc

[joseph1]

I prefer FLAC. I ripped my CD collection and chose FLAC so I could have exact copies of the source. That said, its not so convenient for mobile use.I

[frosty2]

i can hear it ( i think ) but is it worth trouble. Not for me.

[peternova]

i can hear it ( i think ) but is it worth trouble. Not for me.

I'm pretty much the same. I prefer FLAC but mostly use mp3.

[TheGoodUsername]

It depends on the music for me. I typically notice the mp3 compression most in very "noisy" songs, eg. World's end girlfriend's stuff or Kashiwa Daisuke's.

[spiralout9]

I archive my music/CDs in FLAC but as far as listening to music on my phone or laptop it's stored as mp3. Yeah I doubt I can tell the difference between 320kbps and FLAC.

[thrasher]

I can't tell the difference between 320kbps and FLAC.

[crack98]

I'm downloading mp3 only. I don't care about the format - i mean mp3 or flac is for me the same. I would compare analog or digital source.. I have a old technics 1210 mk2 and of course listening to vinyl is different than listening to mp3.

[demod8698]

It's for the discerning ear and sometimes even depends on the way the final product was produced / recorded. Honestly, there are too many variables to make a generic observation.

[iLOVENZB]

Let's compare FLAC

I'm looking at 3 releases:

Hans_Zimmer-Inception_Music_From_The_Motion_Picture-OST-CD-FLAC-2010-FORSAKEN | 229.22 MiB
[TEAM ELITE] Hans Zimmer - Inception - Original Soundtrack - Flac | 499.89 MB
Inception 5.1 Soundtrack (2010, Hans Zimmer) FLAC | 1,045 MB



1. is a scene release. If we look at the NFO the presets are: 640 kbps / 44.1kHz / 2 channels preset.

157238

2. Is a p2p release which is double the file size.

3. Is a p2p release, 24bit/44khz. Pretty sure its an extra from the 2 disc edition of the film. Double the size again of previous rls

Spectrograms:
How are you supposed to read these? I know they're supposed to be a visual representation to a track but what exactly do the colours mean? A brief game of spot the difference reveals there appears to be more red in the scene track ... meaning?

1. 157240

2. 157239

3. Still downloading

[piercerseth]

Spectrograms:
How are you supposed to read these? I know they're supposed to be a visual representation to a track but what exactly do the colours mean? A brief game of spot the difference reveals there appears to be more red in the scene track ... meaning?

The only thing those are good for is spotting lossy transcodes where you'll see a delineation @16K and a cutoff at or below 18-19.

I was okay with the scene when they were still using V2 on their mp3s. I have tin ears though.

[anon]

I was okay with the scene when they were still using V2 on their mp3s.

What do they use now? It's been a while since I last downloaded a Scene rip.

[piercerseth]

I was okay with the scene when they were still using V2 on their mp3s.

What do they use now? It's been a while since I last downloaded a Scene rip.

LAME 3.98.4 set to V0 iirc

[Tecato97]

From a simple, basic listening standpoint: The answer is no.

If you have the disk capacity the store multiple FLAC albums, then by all means do so. If space is an issue, then MP3s encoded with any recents version of LAME beyond 192kbps should be just fine - mostly.

[IdolEyes787]

I just bought a Astell & Kern AK100 II and Noble Audio Kaiser 10s and I can say for a fact that I just wasted three thousand dollars.

I'm now contemplating getting hypnotized into believing there's an appreciable difference so I won't feel so bad.

This is what is known as throwing good money after bad.:)

[ugurano]

flac better of mp3, why more bitrate, and hearing better

[DitchCrew]

ears of the beholder....

[IdolEyes787]

ears of the beholder....

As far as one can observe with one's ears, yeah.

[onehalfau]

FLAC stands for Free Lossless Audio Codec, an audio format similar to MP3, but lossless, meaning that audio is compressed in FLAC without any loss in quality.

So there FLAC is better than MP3

[Mr_Horse]

I always prefer lossless over lossy, when I have good equipment(not phone or realtek audio :happy: ).