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

[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"...

[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"...

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

[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