FLAC? - Page 4

dont know if this thread is still alive but I recently purchased some songs off of iTunes, 256 kbps AAC, and while they are of excellent quality, I always had the impression that FLAC would always sound noticeably better and more detailed than any lossy format especially when played through the appropriate audio equipment like a high-end DAC, amp and good quality headphones. So, after some time and out of curiosity, I acquired FLAC versions of the songs I had and played them in Foobar. They sounded pretty normal to me, nothing special. I then used the ABX Comparator plugin to compare the AAC version of the songs to the FLAC songs directly and to see if I could distinguish the two, but I couldnt tell a difference. They sounded virtually similar. so its either:

a) my ears arent that good

b) AAC is a much better format than we give it credit for

c) FLAC is overrated

or maybe a bit of all of the above.

Needless to say, I dont think I'll be going out of my way to obtain FLAC files anymore. FLAC  files are good for archiving purposes, but for music listening, when an FLAC file is 3-4 times larger in file size than the corresponding AAC or MP3 and yet sounds virtually the same, I dont think it justifies its large file size.

It is a really old thread you commented(4 years old) on, but yes aac is better than the equivalent of mp3 and your ears might not be able to tell the difference. Feel fortunate that you can not hear the difference as it will save you money and space.

Not just thread necromancy - he also cross-posted in another dead thread in the Computer Audio section. :(

I've written this in another thread recently, but I'd like to share the experience here also.

I will always remember once I went to an audio event... There was a demo of these four-zero priced speakers, and a recording engineer endorsing them, though admitting that its Genelec multi-amplified reference speakers used in his monitoring system costed "N" times less. By the way, he put two master CDs into the CD player. They were two normal CDs, I mean, both redbook 16/44, and they were two digital remasters of the same analog tape.  

The only difference was that one was remastered with a 16/44 ADC, the other with a 24/88 ADC.

I did not expect I would have heard any difference. (Actually, I think no-one in the audience did... We were just listening to two CDs!). I wasn't waiting for anything new to come to my ears. But it did. Hell, I did hear the undeniable difference, and I was very far from the "sweet spot" indeed.

The engineer grinned looking at our disoriented faces... And therefore I had the proof HD files did a difference and started to gain interest into those...

My personal opinion is that in audiophilia, everything seems to be very very subjective, on what makes a difference - it's always about diminishing returns, isn't it? (1)

But recording quality has reached very high peaks, recently: the playback quality that only few people in the word with a reel tape recorder could afford, now has come more widespread thanks to digital high resolution mastering and remastering. (2)

Because of point (1), though, there are many urban legends around about HD files being a hoax... While they are not at all...

I'm not boasting anything, I don't think my hearing to be better that anyone else's hearing here, nor that one would need a luxurious rig to catch the difference.

It's just that the difference is completely objective and catchable, it's not something one can claim to hear while another one does not, such as cables' burn-in.

But... You DO NOT need anything really expensive... When it comes to headphones, 1000€ are more than enough for a whole, brand new, objectively great rig.

It's just that the importance of room acoustics and OS+SW configuration are the most important and underestimated points here, even if they are completely free.

In the end, maybe they're underestimated just because of that.