Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › Difference between MP3 and FLAC?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Difference between MP3 and FLAC? - Page 5

post #61 of 93
6/23/09 at 9:02am
I only said that <224kbit MP3 sounds like junk(and yes 192JS *is* essentially junk), I've never said that 320S was so bad, just that it's so big that why bother w/ its distortion when you can go "extra high" APE?..it's iriverdude who said that
Reply
post #62 of 93
6/23/09 at 9:02am
Quote:
but don't pretend they sound rubbish
Sorry but they do, if you can't tell your gear isn't good enough. Just listen to some music on a pair of floorstanders with decent low end, and pay attention to the bass. With mp3 it sounds like boy racer bass. With PCM/flac/ogg it doesn't have that boomy one noted bass imbalance.

Cymbals don't sound right either.
Reply
post #63 of 93
6/23/09 at 9:03am
For Christ sake... have we been speaking about calibration in this topic ? Not at all...

You are mixing up the calibration of a hi-end audio equipment (where you can easily hear some differences between lossy and lossless, if using a well mastered CD or a SACD) and the fact that yours ears won't be able to tell much the difference on a standard audio equipment.

And don't make me say what I don't : as a HiFi lover i'm using lossless (flac, ape, wavpack, pick the one you like), and I really enjoy it with my headphones.
But when switching to my poor PC stereo speakers it's completely useless, and a mp3 is realy sufficient, and sometimes sounding better because of the bass boost...
Reply
post #64 of 93
6/23/09 at 9:09am
Quote:
But when switching to my poor PC stereo speakers it's completely useless,
My PC audio system is worth £10,000. Ok it's not but it's still good, better than most and still able to hear crappy mp3.

Quote:
sometimes sounding better because of the bass boost...
oh dear.
Reply
post #65 of 93
6/23/09 at 9:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little country rat View Post
the fact that yours ears won't be able to tell much the difference on a standard audio equipment.
sorry, that's something we lack! but we're thinking about it...I'm personally eying some pretty awesome Creative speakers

I'm listening to the best of compilation from Cymande, and boy does lossless sound good

on 70's acoustic funk, lossy is not such a good option tbh...prolly far better on loudness war material, though!
Reply
post #66 of 93
6/23/09 at 9:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post
I only said that <224kbit MP3 sounds like junk(and yes 192JS *is* essentially junk), I've never said that 320S was so bad, just that it's so big that why bother w/ its distortion when you can go "extra high" APE?..it's iriverdude who said that
Then why post a graph of a WAV file and a 320kbps MP3 and complain about distortion? Then make blanket statements like these:

"but truth is I don't do mp3, the SQ lacks" (when responding to me stating that the difference between 320kbps and FLAC is minimal)

or

"it makes the trebles clearer and more transparent/true to life" (in direct response again to me saying 320kbps is essentially the same as FLAC, which in context implies that the treble is clearer and more transparent compared to 320kbps MP3).



Quote:
Originally Posted by iriverdude View Post
Sorry but they do, if you can't tell your gear isn't good enough. Just listen to some music on a pair of floorstanders with decent low end, and pay attention to the bass. With mp3 it sounds like boy racer bass. With PCM/flac/ogg it doesn't have that boomy one noted bass imbalance.

Cymbals don't sound right either.
So is "your gear isn't good enough" your all encompassing argument from now on. It is a audiophile cliche. So arguments must be purchased now? There are plenty of people with plenty of equipment that will attest that 320kbps MP3 cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called "rubbish". At worst they are slightly lesser than lossless... slightly.

DBX a well encoded MP3 then decide if it really deserves the designation as "rubbish" like you say it does. And especially ask yourself if leeperry, specifically with his gear is just deluding himself.
Reply
post #67 of 93
6/23/09 at 9:32am
Quote:
DBX a well encoded MP3 then decide if it really deserves the designation as "rubbish" like you say it does
I already have, and so have three other people one being a Naim owner. All picked out as flac sounding the best, with ogg second, then mp3 the worst. Ogg & Mp3 both VBR and identical file size.

What will it take for cloth eared people admit that mp3 is inferior?
Reply
post #68 of 93
6/23/09 at 9:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pistachio View Post
There are plenty of people with plenty of equipment that will attest that 320kbps MP3 cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called "rubbish". At worst they are slightly lesser than lossless... slightly.
yes, I'm not interested in "lesser than lossless" SQ tbh, as this is pretty much the only point where I can actually improve the SQ. but yeah, MP3 is nice and all....just not audiophile. nero AAC is far better.
Reply
post #69 of 93
6/23/09 at 9:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by iriverdude View Post
I already have, and so have three other people one being a Naim owner. All picked out as flac sounding the best, with ogg second, then mp3 the worst. Ogg & Mp3 both VBR and identical file size.

What will it take for cloth eared people admit that mp3 is inferior?
That is far from the point. This isn't an issue of which is the best lossy format, or which format sounds the best. It is the claim that 320kbps mp3 sounds "rubbish". You are misunderstanding the argument.


Not that it can't be done, not that it is the best lossy format. But that it is a stretch to call 320 kbps MP3 "rubbish" and especially that alot of people should go out and DBX for themslves, because they probably believe in their ability to differentiate far more than they actually can.
Reply
post #70 of 93
6/23/09 at 10:18am
I think MP3's are a fine solution to those with limited storage space for whatever reason. I also think it only makes sense to have lossless files FLAC, ALAC, or WAV, as your "main" source. Why would a person purposefully choose to have lossy audio? Just because you can't tell a difference right now, on your current setup doesn't mean you will never be able to hear a difference. By using FLAC, I know i'm ready for future upgrades to my system. Those using MP3's may be left wanting.

I'm a newcomer to this type of thing so I had no horse in the race until last year. Looking at it from scratch I just don't see a good reason to have your main music library stored as MP3's only. Fine to stick 200 albums on your portable that way, but a poor choice for home use IMO.
Reply
post #71 of 93
6/23/09 at 12:32pm
if your gear is up to scratch, lossy compressed audio sounds... well... compressed. The soundstage sounds narrower, less air between instruments, vocals start to sound less smooth/robotic, bass lacks that oomph, blah blah blah.....

if I was listenin to my sony s739 outside w/ the stock earbuds with the active noise cancellation turned on... yes i'll use MP3s. If i have my imod => amp => IE8, then definately lossless. If i'm at home w/ my balanced m3/hd650, i feel sorry for my senns if they're not fed lossless....

If you had a ferarri, would you fill it w/ cheap fuel? My rig isn't even up to ferarri standards yet... maybe high end toyota/low end lexus? (i wish... ^o^)
Reply
post #72 of 93
6/23/09 at 11:22pm
+1 D 4 Dog

If a person is using MP3's of any flavor they are tied to that forever. By using a lossless codec a person is not restricted. If I decide to start buying "hi-definition" audio (DVD-A's I guess) then I can and it should be a pretty much seamless transition from where I am today.

It seems pretty funny that on a web site called "Head-Fi" we're talking about how lossy sound files are "just as good" as lossless. Does anyone really think music companies started using 44.1kHz sample rates just to fill up space with stuff we couldn't hear? Or were they trying to give us the best audio quality available?
Reply
post #73 of 93
6/24/09 at 6:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by D_4_Dog View Post
if your gear is up to scratch, lossy compressed audio sounds... well... compressed. The soundstage sounds narrower, less air between instruments, vocals start to sound less smooth/robotic, bass lacks that oomph, blah blah blah.
so your encoders and decoders are adding crosstalk now?
Reply
post #74 of 93
6/24/09 at 7:10am
"160Kbit MP3 should be enough for anybody", everyone knows that! I read it on Hydrogen Audio so it's true
Reply
post #75 of 93
6/24/09 at 8:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by iriverdude View Post
My PC audio system is worth £10,000. Ok it's not but it's still good, better than most and still able to hear crappy mp3.
Probably better than mine I guess, 'cause I assure you playing a FLAC on my setup is completely useless...

Quote:
It seems pretty funny that on a web site called "Head-Fi" we're talking about how lossy sound files are "just as good" as lossless. Does anyone really think music companies started using 44.1kHz sample rates just to fill up space with stuff we couldn't hear? Or were they trying to give us the best audio quality available?
The samplerate has been chosen to reproduce 22 kHz, considered as the limit of human ear, and in order to be able to do it you need to double the samplerate frequency (it's maths)...
And I don't want to be rude but 44,1kHz samplerate is not that much when speaking of frequencies above 18 kHz. To acquire a higher quality switching to 96 kHz is quite a good idea.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Computer Audio
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › Difference between MP3 and FLAC?