Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › Is FLAC worth it..?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is FLAC worth it..? - Page 3

post #31 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aman View Post
FLAC is scientifically not worth the hard disk space, if your only goal in encoding to this format is to listen.
I don't know whether I can hear the difference between FLAC and 320K MP3. And at 10 cents of HD space per CD, I couldn't care less. I'm going with FLAC because there is absolutely no reason not to.

Quote:
On the other hand, if you're planning on also keeping an archive of your CDs, or want to be able to convert to any other format on the fly, then I'd say go for it.
Exactly. This is enough reason right here.
post #32 of 131
I tend to agree with the guy above me, though his post is sure to incite some interesting responses. =p

Edit: dammit, the guy above the guy above me.
post #33 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Punnisher View Post
You can get a 500gb external for just over $100.

I have 71gb of flac files, and that's a lot of music. About 3000 songs total. I'd be surprised if you could fill 500gb+ with your collection.
11K flac tracks at 290GiB, and thats only from about 2-3 years of collecting. I actually have more flac backed up on DVD, but its stuff that i didnt like so much so I took it out my library.

127 DVD's, say 4.2GiB each, I reckon there is over 500GiB there.
post #34 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aman View Post
No human ear can detect the frequencies removed from any 320K MP3 file because the frequencies are either extremely high-pitched (well above 22k) or extremely obscure and irrelevant (a very specific frequency like 12.5008k or something like this).
You realize a 44.1 kHz CD doesn't have frequencies higher than 22.05 kHz, right? Nyquist theory being what it is. And why would one particular frequency be more obscure than any other within the audible range? So, although I agree with your basic premise, I'm not sure you have all the facts straight about lossy encoding. Where the compression is mostly done, afaik, is taking advantage of pyschoacoustic phenomena, such as masking:

Psychoacoustics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
post #35 of 131
Its worth noting that most mp3 encoders tend to cut off anything above 18-19K even at 320KB/s.
post #36 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by ezkcdude View Post
You realize a 44.1 kHz CD doesn't have frequencies higher than 22.05 kHz, right? Nyquist theory being what it is. And why would one particular frequency be more obscure than any other within the audible range? So, although I agree with your basic premise, I'm not sure you have all the facts straight about lossy encoding. Where the compression is mostly done, afaik, is taking advantage of pyschoacoustic phenomena, such as masking:

Psychoacoustics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You're absolutely right. However, you're forgetting about headroom and its inclusion in the encoding process.

Just because the frequencies aren't there doesn't mean that there isn't space being taken up on the file to represent those frequencies. In other words, even though there aren't any frequencies beyond 22.05k in a normal CD during normal playback, there is still hard disk space consuming the empty space between 22.05k and 40k (or whatever the highest frequency in an MP3 file is - I forget exactly, but it's somewhere around there).
post #37 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aman View Post
You're absolutely right. However, you're forgetting about headroom and its inclusion in the encoding process.

Just because the frequencies aren't there doesn't mean that there isn't space being taken up on the file to represent those frequencies. In other words, even though there aren't any frequencies beyond 22.05k in a normal CD during normal playback, there is still hard disk space consuming the empty space between 22.05k and 40k (or whatever the highest frequency in an MP3 file is - I forget exactly, but it's somewhere around there).
Now, it's pretty clear you have no idea how sampling works.
post #38 of 131
40k? On an Mp3 file?

Like stated above most (if not all) MP3 converters make the cutoff at 18/19k.
Just look at an MP3 file (even a 320KB/s one) in any spectrum analyzer (Audition, Nero, etc.) and you'll see that wall quite clearly.

With the hard disk space at the price it is today, it starts making all sense to use lossless codecs. Moreover if you're going to use it in quality reproduction systems and don't really want to loose the secondary harmonics that you don't hear so well (or at all), but you feel them enrichening the music. (The part where the psychoacoustic model has its weak spot. But then again, it wasn't developed to be used in high resolution audio systems so it's still a great model.)
post #39 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aman View Post

On the other hand, if you're planning on also keeping an archive of your CDs, or want to be able to convert to any other format on the fly, then I'd say go for it. FLAC is an incredible, advanced, and convenient format.
Bingo. This is why FLAC exists, imo.
post #40 of 131
I can hear the difference between MP3 and FLAC on my system without even trying. After a while my ears got quite good at spotting the compression and once i started noticing it i could'nt ignore the effect. If you want to burn files as cd's to play in any conventional setup it's well worth having them in a lossless format if possible. Ipod users may not notice any difference though appart from the larger file size.
post #41 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by davym View Post
After a while my ears got quite good at spotting the compression and once i started noticing it i could'nt ignore the effect.
Once you know what to look/listen/taste/feel for it is a one-way street, as with everything. There is little to no reason left not to use lossless these days. Due to the conveniences of those formats, you can easily keep a lossy secondary archive if your portable player has too little capacity. Beyond all rationale of psychoacoustics I think it is a strange idea to run megabuck setups at less than maximum potential. Personally, the mere idea of "missing out" due to lossy codecs is far more damaging to my listening experience than actually noticing the compression.
post #42 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by davym View Post
I can hear the difference between MP3 and FLAC on my system without even trying. After a while my ears got quite good at spotting the compression and once i started noticing it i could'nt ignore the effect. If you want to burn files as cd's to play in any conventional setup it's well worth having them in a lossless format if possible. Ipod users may not notice any difference though appart from the larger file size.
???

The dynamic qualities of a track do not change when compressed from lossless to lossy.

To all who say there's a noticeable difference between lossless and 192k+ lossy files, do what I suggested earlier and then get back to me. Polarity inverse a lossy track with its lossless counterpart and tell me how much of a difference you actually hear. You may be surprised.
post #43 of 131
Generally not worth it for the immediate sound quality improvements; I'd venture to say that 99.9% of people cannot reliably hear a difference between well-encoded, high bit rate (V0 or 320) mp3 and lossless audio.

The real reason to use FLAC is right here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aman View Post
On the other hand, if you're planning on also keeping an archive of your CDs, or want to be able to convert to any other format on the fly, then I'd say go for it. FLAC is an incredible, advanced, and convenient format.
post #44 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aman View Post
Anybody who says they can hear the difference between a standardly-compressed MP3 file and its FLAC counterpart is either lying, suffering from placebo, or needs to tell me where I can get a drug that would heighten somebody's senses that much.
Well said!
post #45 of 131

I know this is an old thread, but I found it on a Google search, and wanted to ask a question regarding this:

 

Aman mentioned using FLAC mainly for converting to any other format on the fly. I'm confused as to why this is mentioned as a usefulness of FLAC files - can't you convert any format with the right software? Something like Sony Sound Forge or ACID?

 

I'm definitely not as well informed on this kind of stuff, so someone please enlighten me.

 

Also, I've heard that a 320 mp3 vs. a FLAC has no real audible difference, but I've just as well heard the opposite. If there would be any difference in what you can hear, what kind of system (assuming listening on a PC) would be necessary? Which is the most important here, speakers or soundcard?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Music
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › Is FLAC worth it..?