Originally Posted by yepimonfire
the biggest advantage of FLAC is really the ability to re-encode it into anything else without losing quality. for example, right now i use an ipod, winamp automagically converts all my FLAC to 320 AAC, if i get a player that doesn't support AAC, and i ripped all my stuff in AAC, i would be screwed. Also if i got something like a sansa i could have it converted to OGG etc. almost every MP3 player supports MP3 (duh :P) but IMO mp3 is an old and inferior compression format, WMA, OGG, and AAC have all outdone it easy.
i think someone should come up with a blind test using different formats like AAC/OGG/WMA and see if it is really impossible to hear a difference.
Yes, the ability to transcode flacs to anything else without the quality loss is a huge benefit as well =]. While it is true that most other lossy formats are ahead of most mp3 codecs, I feel that mp3s encoded with lame 3.98 still sound great, and are on par with iTunes aac at an equal bit rate. They also have the advantage of being compatible with literally everything. My mp3 player broke, and im too cheep to get a new one right now, but when I do, I'll probably be converting everything to V0 to put on that
A blind test between formats themselves / flac would be great. I would be quite interested to see the results. While there would be differences, at similar bit rate the differences would be quite small and very hard to distinguish.......The 128 kbps mp3 compared to lossless in this thread is quite a bit more distinguishable that a 256 kbps aac / wma / ogg vs 256 kbps mp3, and still some had difficulty telling them apart. But yeah, even if the results are that no one can disinguish between lossy formats, or even high bit rate lossy to true lossless, it would still be a very interesting test. Edited by Snag1e - 4/25/11 at 10:57am