Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Poll: Audible Difference between FLAC and 320kbps MP3?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Poll: Audible Difference between FLAC and 320kbps MP3? - Page 2

post #16 of 242
I can't tell the difference.

Though as a caveat, I have only listened to FLAC and 320kpbs out of my laptop out and UE super.fi 5. So I strongly suspect that if I improve the setup, I should be able to tell the difference.
post #17 of 242
Personally i can always tell the difference between flac and 320 mp3.
For me there is always miles more detail,clarity and space with flac,no matter whether it's the best or the worst recording flac always sounds better.
post #18 of 242
can i tell when something not flac? yes but sometimes im really not sure so id have to say 320 is going to be good enough but if i knew for a fact something was in 320 and not flac id just start listening for defects
post #19 of 242
I went with "I can distinguish a FLAC file as superior, after much time spent A/B-ing"

Certainly for classical music, I can distinguish the two relatively easily. Having done an extensive DBT, I can say that it's very very hard, but the differences are there. My amp is almost here, and once it arrives I'm sure that the differences will be more evident.

Having an extremely clean system is necessary in order to distinguish FLAC from 320kbps.
post #20 of 242
The different MP3 encoders to not perform equally, so the result (transparent or not) may vary depending on the encoder used.
Worth making notice of for those performing listening tests...
post #21 of 242
To me LAME mp3 sounds better than ogg (aotuv b5 version as well) in 250kb vbr and higher. There's more fullness in the ogg format but it seems artificially done, I prefer how LAME seems to degrade mainly drums but retains microdetails.
post #22 of 242
I can only tell 128/192kbps vs flac.
post #23 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by haloxt View Post
To me LAME mp3 sounds better than ogg (aotuv b5 version as well) in 250kb vbr and higher. There's more fullness in the ogg format but it seems artificially done, I prefer how LAME seems to degrade mainly drums but retains microdetails.
I agree, LAME is the best mp3 encoder in my experience. It's basically impossible to differentiate the two unless you are into high level gear.
post #24 of 242
On my computer, I ripped my mp3 files (320 cbr) from my FLAC files. When played through Foobar, the mp3 files sound a bit flat, almost muffled slightly. I converted some FLAC to ALAC, and both sound flat via iTunes. I think it could be the player and encoding. Maybe it's a placebo?
post #25 of 242
Banned head-fier tangerine said the same thing about alac vs. wav on his ipod. There might be differences in which format takes more cpu and which takes more hard drive spinning, but who knows if that could alter the sound. Many people on head-fi believe there's an audible difference in ASIO software, maybe what causes the difference between alac and wave is the same. Or all of it could be placebo . I don't really feel motivated to try to find out if wav sounds better than flac since space is important to me atm, maybe when they have 500gb mp3 players for $300.
post #26 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by brotherlen View Post
On my computer, I ripped my mp3 files (320 cbr) from my FLAC files. When played through Foobar, the mp3 files sound a bit flat, almost muffled slightly. I converted some FLAC to ALAC, and both sound flat via iTunes. I think it could be the player and encoding. Maybe it's a placebo?
I think that's due to the player. iTunes has always sounded inferior for me when compared to Foobar. It's a shame; I love the GUI and other features, but SQ wise it's no good. Now I use it only to sample music I'm interested in purchasing, through the iTunes store.
post #27 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berlioz View Post
I think that's due to the player. iTunes has always sounded inferior for me when compared to Foobar. It's a shame; I love the GUI and other features, but SQ wise it's no good. Now I use it only to sample music I'm interested in purchasing, through the iTunes store.
I agree, Foobar is way superior to itunes in SQ and I am not a long time user of Foobar. Before I got this mac, I did tons of A/B with the two and Monkey Media and Foobar was outstanding in comparison. I did then add the asio which even helped more.

Now with this mac I don't know what to do. I tried COG to play flac files and it worked at first but then lost all the files and wouldn't except new ones into the player, so I never got to do any a/b tests. The only other thing I have seen for mac that i am aware of is Amarra which when i checked was a $1400. piece of software.....I heard it has come down to about $1000 but still.
post #28 of 242
Actually after this post I saw the Amarra which is $1499. but they do have Amarra mini, which i requested the demo for to check out..hopefully will still have it when the DLlll arrives.
post #29 of 242
Is flac really worth all the extra space it takes up on a HDD? I find it impossible to tell the difference between flac and 320, and with my music library containing about 10,000 songs all in V0 or 320, it just doesnt seem worthwhile to use so much HD space by storing flac.
post #30 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by kchui999 View Post
Is flac really worth all the extra space it takes up on a HDD? I find it impossible to tell the difference between flac and 320, and with my music library containing about 10,000 songs all in V0 or 320, it just doesnt seem worthwhile to use so much HD space by storing flac.
It depends on the quality of your system. You need extremely clean source components and amplification, coupled with precise monitoring, in order to discern a real difference.

It also depends on the music that you listen to. If it's mostly pop or rap, then going FLAC is arguably a waste of time. Most songs from those genres contain many compressed sounds, and the tracks themselves have their compression increased during mastering.

If you listen to classical or jazz though, then it may be worth thinking about should you plan to upgrade your system in the future.

In my own opinion, I think FLAC for portable setups is unnecessary, although I'll probably keep all of my songs in FLAC anyways. I'm yet to hear the JH13's, so I may change my mind about portable setups when I pick up a pair.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Poll: Audible Difference between FLAC and 320kbps MP3?