Is FLAC worth it..? - Page 9

AIFF is just a waste of space, you could save a lot of space by transcoding your FLACs to ALAC and still retain the exact same sound quality.

Interesting, I'll look into that later.

Interesting, I'll look into that later.

It's funny how going back to YouTube videos can seem so poor in quality versus listening to FLAC. Now I use WinAmp so I never have problems with capability, but transfering to ALAC pretty much takes care of all compatability concerns. Obviously better suited cans will bring out the details, but this only works to a certain point. I actually think 320kbps stand neck and neck with FLAC until you really have a strong and consistent enough set-up (and that chains is only as strong as the weakest link so choose wisely).

I am using atrac3plus 352 kbs and flac files, I even want to get rid of the 1411 kbs flac files and replace them with Hi-res files.
It's really worth it.
To enjoy the quality of flac it has to be ripped from the cd, some material was ripped to mp3 and later converted to flac, this files will never sound beter then the compressed source.

For me is the gappless play of atrac and flac the reason to use it.

Let me pick the album and you can hear the difference in soundstage and detail immediatly.
Try a origially ripped cd to Apple-lossles on an I pad. With a good headphone you will be amazed.

it's definetly worth it. I can distinguish between FLAC and mp3 320 in blind test. tested using foobar ABX comparator and had 70%-80% correct answer

If you have the space yes. But I prefer to just have the CD (and/or vinyl) and have a 320kbps mp3 ripped for my iphone.

The percentage in the ABX comparator is the probability that's you're guessing (like flipping a coin and calling it). And in order to be statistically significant, it must be inferior to 5%.

So either you had a 70% chance that you were guessing (i.e. you can't tell the difference) or you had a 30% chance that you were guessing (i.e. you still can't tell the difference).

i mean 8 correct anser

 

my abx test report

maybe only lucky

 

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.2.3
2013/02/27 23:50:17

File A: F:\Music FLAC\Katy Perry - Teenage Dream (2010)\04 - Firework.flac
File B: F:\Music FLAC\Katy Perry - Teenage Dream FULL ALBUM 320kbps Firework.mp3

23:50:17 : Test started.
23:51:03 : 01/01  50.0%
23:52:06 : 01/02  75.0%
23:52:57 : 02/03  50.0%
23:53:57 : 03/04  31.3%
23:54:40 : 04/05  18.8%
23:55:59 : 05/06  10.9%
23:57:29 : 06/07  6.3%
23:58:26 : 07/08  3.5%
23:59:13 : 07/09  9.0%
23:59:56 : 08/10  5.5%
00:00:09 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 8/10 (5.5%)

I see it in this way, FLAC is not ubiquitous, but who knows, maybe later it will be part of the next revolution when space won't be an issue and and companies will sell uncompressed formats to guarantee the highest quality using it as a marketing strategy. It will definitely happen.

I keep both most of the time. Just futureproof

Check out my user profile. I have 18.00 terabytes of high speed USB 3 external storage capacity.

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/651749/switched-from-flac-to-mp3/60#post_9220899

 

This was my thread on the topic of flac versus MP3.

 

I have a backup of my FLAC music library in my CrashPlan+ account. I have 2.30 terabytes of data backed up to my CrashPlan+ account for the next 2.70 years. I also have Verizon FiOS Quantum maximum speed fiber optic Internet and the quadruple play package at home.

 

It's not worth it for me. I can't tell the difference between -v0 VBR MP3 and FLAC reliably enough in ABX test results. I fail with less than 0.01 percent correct when I compare 12 albums with 12 or more FLAC and --preset-insane 320 Kbps MP3 tracks in ABX test trials. That's well over 144 tracks to compare.

 

I deleted my local copy of my FLAC music library. I kept my MP3 library. I saved hundreds of gigabytes of data space which is not really a big concern for me since I have more data storage capacity than most people that I know of.

 

I have 15,084 songs most of which use Fraunhofer or LAME 3.9.9 --preset-insane 320 Kbps MP3 codec and format. It's totaling 152.7 gigabytes of data space which is very large by most people's standard for MP3s. I have 563 DVD-Videos which I used HandBrake to encode and compress into .M4V files totaling 511.8 gigabytes of data.

 

FLAC sounds crisp and clear, but with standard resolution 16 bits and 44.1 or 48 kHz material, it's a wash between -v0 VBR MP3. I can't tell the differences reliably in ABX test results.

 

I'm keeping my local copy of MP3s because it's a universal codec and format and it's got pretty good efficiency for 2013 standards. I love the MP3 codec and format. I think it's a better choice for those with limited storage capacity devices for the foreseeable future.

 

edit:

 

I checked my CrashPlan+ account and my flac library totals 402.4 gigabytes. That's a lot of data space for music and I don't have the largest music library in the world. I'm putting this out there just to let you know that I don't think flac is worth it for listening to music. For archival purposes, yes it is.

Edited by Leslie Dorner - 3/6/13 at 9:03am