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

[belabartok]

It's much better!

[obaletan]

fillrate

thanks for enlightening us.

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. 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.